volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
It's funny, and it was said in jest, but for anyone looking to take the question seriously:
Alito posed IF YouTube was a newspaper, how much would it weigh in the context of showing that YouTube is not a newspaper, so principles that apply to newspapers don't apply cleanly to YouTube.
It makes perfect sense in context.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-555_omq2.pdf
Yes, reading comprehension is a thing, so here's a link to the ruling so you can read it yourself. Please do!
The ruling goes out of its way to get ahead of so many of this misrepresentations about what it was about.
For example, NO it wasn't about a woman being charged for destruction of embryos as it was emphatically not a criminal matter, and it was a suit against the facility for an incident that clearly showed negligence.
Read the ruling. It debunks the stories so many are trying to spread.
@erin how do you figure the Alabama ruling leads to that conclusion?
@blamellors that's not at all what the Alabama ruling said, though.
There was nothing about murder on the table for the court to decide, and in fact the court drew an explicit and stark line against this ruling being able to be applied in such a case.
It was also not about discarding IVF embryos, as the ruling itself recognized discarding as routine and fine.
That's just not what the ruling was about, despite the hysterical folks out there yelling.
Ah: No, the #Alabama ruling didn't declare embryos to be children, as any reading of the actual ruling would easily show.
In fact, the ruling went out of its way to stress that it wasn't making any deep or broad declaration.
Once again, there's social turmoil over what's either misunderstanding or misinformation. Sadly, I suspect there are plenty of bad actors who know they're spreading lies, but find the drama to be in their own interests.
@AeonCypher Indeed!
I didn't feel like going through the issue.
I just felt like venting, as I've always found it sad that Oliver went in this direction with his career.
I'd say I'm glad that other people appreciate his work these days, but really, the real world implications of his misinformed pronouncements make even that cold comfort.
@IAmDannyBoling
@notaleman I'd say if it really is a stark choice between imposing a risk on yourself or the other, then I'd choose the other.
Socially, it's a fair way of saying, Don't pull guns on people lightly, as if nothing else there's a good chance you yourself will end up put at risk.
It seems like a good concept to promote.
Destroy Fediverse? This is exactly the sort of strong instance moderation that so many people promote as a benefit of the system!
And sometimes that strong moderation will be against you and sometimes it will be for you, but that is just the way that approach works.
So apparently it's a feature.
Anyway, this is a great illustration of why it's problematic to look to instances of any size to shape feeds instead of focusing on empowering users to do it themselves, to shape their own experiences around here.
You say destroy #Fediverse but really it's pretty much what so many people say they want out of the system, even if they're not ready for the implications of that.
Israel: we take steps to minimize civilian casualties
ICJ: you must take steps to minimize civilian casualties
Israel: Well we can check that off.
Really this just highlights how pointless the ICJ campaign was.
@IAmDannyBoling Oliver really doesn't understand the Supreme Court here, or the legal structure of the US.
Honestly, he generally goes off about things he doesn't understand, and it's another case of a really funny comedian being wasted on political commentary in areas where they completely lack understanding of their topics.
@freemo right so that's why I wonder what @notaleman is actually asking.
I will leave it up to them to clarify the question.
@Nonilex it's not that the #SupremeCourt is hostile toward gun safety.
It's that the law of the land doesn't grant those powers, which we could certainly change if we wanted to.
#SCOTUS is applying the law, even if individual justices might wish the law was different and these restrictions imposed.
Either way, we should change the law so that future administrations who ARE hostile don't claim the right to express that hostility.
@cdarwin this description is a bit misleading, though, underemphasizing that the skepticism of these regulations comes from the EPA not having been granted such sweeping powers through the democratic process.
If we want the EPA to have these powers, the Court emphasizes, we need to elect representatives who will grant those powers in law.
The good neighbor rule is important? Great! Then let's get it written into law so that no future administration can change their mind about it.
@freemo then I'd ask him to rephrase the question because it seems odd to ask about society being held at gunpoint.
I'm thinking about literal guns, but perhaps he means something figurative if he's talking about society.
@MediaActivist I'm hearing that they are now letting you self-host an instance easily, so that day has arrived.
@notaleman Must? I mean you can do what you want.
But me, personally, if someone--anyone--is pointing a gun at me, I'm going to try and react in the way that would least likely end in my getting shot.
@ZekuZelalem frankly, I think it would be nice if journalists would specialize in journalism.
There are far too many journalists speaking outside of their knowledge on those other topics instead of just reporting what actual experts say.
And it really does a disservice to the world.
Just one insignificant bit of feedback about how journalists should conduct themselves if they want to maintain public credibility.
@jeroenbosman I read the other day that there is still a way to request the cache, though I don't remember what it was.
@lisagetspolitik it's really important to point out that none of that is possible, so folks should be dismissing it as ravings of an idiot
@enlightenedferalboy No, you have it backwards: The UN structure is generally focused on inaction instead of action. It's not about treaties requiring nations to act as much as a venue for nations to veto each other's actions.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
