volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@hittitezombie, to @antares 's point, that's not a bill.

@maeve sounds like Democratic Senator Chris Murphy doesn't know how the US government works. The Supreme Court can't just do that.

Or, more likely Murphy is counting on scoring political points by saying these things that he knows very well are false.

@SocialJusticeHeals no, you have that backwards.

The question was not whether bump stocks were excluded but whether they were included. The exact opposite.

And they pointed out that Congress wrote the law fairly specifically, focusing on the operation of the trigger, and bump stocks because of how they functioned didn't fall under Congress's definition.

Again, the people we keep electing had every opportunity to change the law if it needed changing. If the focus on the trigger was the wrong standard then they could have fixed it to the right one.

But once Congress wrote the law with that level of specificity, SCOTUS was right to point out that Trump acted illegally in trying to implement a ban.

@Dan_Ramos Massie's barking up a fake tree here.

Nothing required Smith to have gone through the nomination and confirmation process. Garland did, and that gave Garland authority to hire employees like Smith.

@BeAware@social.beaware.live how about putting it this way: we here ARE broadcasting content that companies are free to use, and so many of us don't know we're doing that.

Do companies use it? Well I imagine so, and it might be largely undetectable. As Fediverse grows it seems like a goldmine for training AIs, collecting marketing stats, etc, all without encumbrances of TOS agreements.

But sure, you're asking what has actually happened, and what's actually happened is that all of these users are making content available to companies. That part's true.

And my personal focus is that it's being done without the consent or knowledge of so many users here.

@hankg he didn't, though.

It sounds like you're not familiar with the enormous amount of pushback Trump has received from Republicans on those topics, the criticisms he's received from the GOP about how he handled Jan 6th, the non-Trump related criticism of the border bills, and on and on.

I know a lot of people around here don't like to actually listen to Republicans, but these stories about what goes on in their party just aren't accurate.

Just for example, the border bill was being rejected by Republicans long before Trump said the first word about it. In fact, that's one of the tricks Trump does routinely, he'll see which way the wind is blowing, jump on the bandwagon, and then claim after the fact that it was him all along.

As for this case, SCOTUS didn't decide to interpret the statue being egregious. In fact, the justices were unanimous in accepting the statue, with even the dissenters embracing it in their dissent.

It's all there in the ruling.

@SocialJusticeHeals that's incorrect, though.

Congress wrote the law that left bump stocks out and has had plenty of years to change the law.

Congress made that ruling, if you want to put it that way, when they defined machine guns in statute. That the courts.

@nicholas it's not about me, but about you.

I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about, and you're not really helping with your obsession over me.

Let's talk about you and what you think. I'm just not that interesting.

@dcjohnson as long as we're clear that it's all based on the voters.

It's not big money preventing government from doing things. It's voters voting in support of these policies.

So if you want change you'll have to bring voters around to your perspective. However, realistically that's not going to happen any time soon, and that's the reality you have to work within.

Until you can somehow create this massive shift in the entire population, your tax ideas are nothing but idle theory.

@Island_Martha I don't know what you mean.

We're talking about it happening, so it did?

@Free_Press

@hankg I mean... facts.

But sure, have a nice day.

@hankg I think the key there is to reconsider just how much power Trump has when push comes to shove.

Yes, he has his cult of followers who are happy to believe and repeat that black is white, but so many serious figures with actual significance don't so much follow Trump as they try to deal with the gadflies that are such a hassle.

One example of this is when Trump has to reverse some dumb position he took because he didn't know how the world works. His cult will pretend he always believed that, but the significant figures in the GOP will have gotten in touch to correct him, as one does a small child.

But yep, this is an occasion when we should be loudly highlighting that with this ruling, Trump broke the law to take peoples' guns away (whether we want that or not).

It's the real way to marginalize him. Promoting him as powerful only amplifies his power.

@hankg the ATF wasn't reinterpreting a rule they invented. It was reinterpreting a law passed by the legislators we elected.

The job of the Supreme Court is ABSOLUTELY not to be reasonable. That's the job of the people we elect to Congress, primarily.

If we elect and reelect lawmakers making unreasonable laws, well, we should knock that off.

The job of the Court is to respect that we apparently want unreasonable laws.

That's democracy for ya.

@BeAware@social.beaware.live

It's all in the ActivityPub protocol that I'll link below. If you read it, it's strikingly clear that there is no actual guarantee that your permissions will be honored. In fact, the standard uses the term "SHOULD" quite a lot when leaving servers free to ignore your privacy notation.

Are you familiar with the FRS radios? They had a feature called privacy codes, where a group of people would set the same code to communicate. BUT, really all of the comms were all on the same channel, but the codes simply filtered out what one wanted to hear.

So they provided no actual privacy, just the illusion of it.

Same thing here, unfortunately. The ActivityPub protocol is largely a broadcast protocol, sending content into the cloud with only suggestions as to who should see it.

You can believe that every link in the chain will behave and respect your wishes, but a scraper is free to ignore them and do what they want even if your post is marked private.

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#outbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Radio_Service

@BeAware@social.beaware.live again, that's not how this platform works.

Behind the scenes, it doesn't matter if you make your posts followers only or not, the way this platform is engineered behind the scenes, the content goes to people who aren't followers.

Maybe it will only be shown to followers. Or maybe not. You have no way to know. That's just how this platform is programmed.

Again to be clear what I'm saying is, you need to be aware that if you make your posts followers only, they will still be subject to going to people who aren't followers.

This is a design choice that the programmers made, that I disagree with, but you need to know that it is happening.

@Hyolobrika Yeah, they should, but we live in reality where a whole lot of people won't, so we have to approach reality with realistic solutions to the problems.

I think it's noteworthy that the designers of the US system were adamant about this, and so that's why things like checks and balances in the US system are there specifically because we can't rely on people doing the right things.

As they said, if all men were angels...

@Perspective

@BeAware@social.beaware.live but it's not though!

Scrapers are very much able to scrape your content, and everybody needs to be aware of that as they post on here.

People are posting content here left and right and saying they love to do it because it's safe from the big corporations or whatever, and I would be absolutely amazed if those exact businesses aren't having a field day vacuuming it all up.

This is why it's so important to me to spread the word about how insecure this platform is, for better or worse. There are trade-offs, and I'm comfortable with them, but there's a lot of people who don't know the risks they're taking here.

@jaystovall@stranger.social the problem is, there's no enforcement mechanism available since any enforcement would put one branch ahead of the other.

Graham is simply correct.

@Nonilex