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
@kgw the Supreme Court's honor and function comes down the contents of their rulings, not their lawn ornaments.
It's really foolish to ignore what they actually do--which I get it, it takes work to read!--and instead read superficially into individual spouse's choices of decor.
But it does make for sensational stories without having to do much actual work.
Reading the petition to the Supreme Court, there weren't strong questions of federal law here, so there's no surprise that the Court didn't bite.
There was simply little in their jurisdiction to review.
@LouisIngenthron this question of regulation of internet activity is an administrative question!
And if a person doesn't know how the administration works, then they're in no position to judge or modify the administration.
That's the point: asking what it's a section of is a great way of putting a point on whether the person has the most basic familiarity with the thing they wish to attack and change.
So many don't.
@witchescauldron the blog post doesn't really say anything of substance, though, just says something is a mess and something else is the solution, but not going into whats or hows.
I don't know what you expected to communicate there.
@albnelson I don't.
And so I'm not confused.
I'm not falling into the mistake of projecting values onto someone, making those assumptions that lead to such misunderstandings and confusion.
@michael_martinez I mean, they can both have exacerbated it.
Just because Trump made it worse doesn't mean we can't hold Biden accountable for making it even worse than Trump did.
His administration's pivots over the years seem to admit his role there.
@Free_Press taking the fifth is emphatically not admitting guilt in the US system.
@witchescauldron well now I think you've left the world of problem solving and gone into abstract flights of fancy :)
No, I'm talking about real solutions to real problems, and choosing the proper, practical solutions to different problems of different domains.
I really don't have interested in these poetic notions like "most contemporary code is capitalism".
It's a silly thing to say, when there are real problems to be solved.
@albnelson well, let me try again to lead you to where this is going :)
Over and over here you're returning to the same thing, projecting your own perspective on others and viewing others through your own lens even as they may see the world very differently.
Such projection leads to misunderstandings and confusion. It leads to faulty conclusions.
You can see it even here: once again you are "assuming that Alito and I were raised" in a certain way, and you end up "confused."
And I say YES, EXACTLY! Those assumptions are leaving you confused! So question your assumptions!
@LouisIngenthron I'd say that kind of proves my point. S230 exists outside of the CDA, and if I ask my question, "S230 of what?" then CDA is not the correct answer, and shows a misunderstanding of the state of play.
I also don't think asking a trick question would help anything.
@jchyip you see how you had to get more complicated to draw up the supposedly simpler explanation?
No, it's not a simpler explanation, as you are illustrating by having bring in all of that extra narrative to make your claim!
And that's not even getting into whether your story is actually true. It's just showing how it's more complicated to arrive at your conclusion.
@albnelson that you can't imagine such diversity is my entire point.
@timo21 again, for the purpose of technicality, not for the purpose of general usage.
Arguing about the technical definition doesn't change that it is in fact a technical definition. And that's the point.
I think whenever I see a headline or a person making some claim about #section230 the first reaction needs to be, "Okay, section 230 of what? What do you think that refers to?"
So many people have no idea what section 230 actually says, or does, but at least this response would help weed out the most uninformed of the people spouting out about it.
@risibledog yes. That is a conspiracy theory.
Worse is that it's based on fundamental misunderstandings of how the US government is designed, of basic civics.
But yes, it's a conspiracy theory.
@KathyLK yes, because there's too much work to do at the Court for them to be distracted by sensational stories like this.
Alito has real business to take care of. He can't spend his days worrying about placating social media.
That's more of a legislative branch task, where representatives have to worry about addressing concerns of voters, no matter how off the wall.
@bespacific the problem is that regulation of the Supreme Court would violate the independence of the judiciary.
If our representatives feel that action needs to be taken, they have impeachment, but that's it.
This was the intentional design to prevent the other branches from interfering in the Court's proceedings.
@mgmarkel because it's not more powerful than the president.
By design and intention, the Supreme Court was not granted such authority. It was intentionally limited, as it would be incredibly foolish for unelected judges to have such levers of power.
So they don't. And it's a good thing that misrepresentation isn't spread farther through schools.
@albnelson the answer is simple: the US is a diverse country, and not everyone shares your personal upbringing and experiences.
It's so important that people realize that diversity and take caution in projecting their own upbringings on others.
@witchescauldron I would push back on that saying it's not about balance but about different tools for addressing different, unrelated problems.
To go back to my analogy above, it's not that you need a balance between a hammer and a screwdriver, but that you need a hammer for nails, a screwdriver for screws, and the perspective of which is which.
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:
