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
@johnonolan I agree, though I would phrase it as each interface tailoring itself for presenting the content coming to it as its users need it to.
I think that when talking about Fediverse engineering all too often the needs of users, the wants of users, doesn't get enough attention in the conversation.
Just a slight nitpick 🙂
I hear a lot of Mastodon users, for example, flat out saying they don't want long-form content, and so I would phrase it as, Mastodon uis will display or not display long form posts in response to users who don't want to see it that way.
Anyway, again, not disagreeing, just blabbering :)
@donnayoungdc Oh come on. The Supreme Court has neither the jurisdiction nor the authority to interfere in elections like that.
Folks promoting that conspiracy theory don't seem know the fundamentals of how the US government functions.
@TCatInReality It doesn't change recusal at all. Justices remain equally able to recuse themselves.
But I don't think you're considering the downsides of a plan like that, particularly that one huge function of the justice system is certainty, predictability.
It's a feature of the system that cases can be tailored to the judges, addressing the particular areas of concern to each judge, and getting a sense of how the case may play out in front of a known set of judges to avoid surprises.
It also means a more coherent judicial philosophy, especially when different sets of Judges might come to contradictory rulings.
What happens when the Supreme Court in a single term contradicts itself? How are lower courts supposed to abide by contradictory commands?
There are real benefits to having a single set of justices on the Supreme Court. The lottery idea is more trouble than it's worth, especially considering the checks on the Supreme Court's power in the US system.
@freeschool I hope so.
The ax that I grind is that so many people use this platform without realizing just how open it is to scraping, just how little privacy there is here, and just how open they are being to the whole world.
As long as people are aware of that, great! They can make the informed decision about whether they use this platform or not. But unfortunately I come across a lot of people who don't know that there really is no privacy control here at all.
So yeah, spread the word! Anything a person puts here is probably going to be scraped, even if they try to set it to private or whatever, and they need to be aware of that if they continue to use this platform.
@Hyolobrika any advancement in that field would be very welcome to me, though personally I would prefer not to get complicated by involving other technologies like DNS, even DNSSEC secured.
I have similar complaints against ActivityPub :)
I think we could go pretty natively distributed for cryptographic signing, so we don't really need the hierarchical technologies anymore, though it's understandable why established interests and people simply not wanting to rock the boat would look using what we have now as a springboard.
In fact, it's slightly off topic, but with polls showing degradation in the public trust of institutions these days, relying on things like DNS and institutions using DNS, well it might not be the best time for that anyway.
@ChrisHolladay the problem is that without due process this sort of law also threatens the guns of those women who would like to shoot their abusers.
That's what Thomas was pointing out.
@Nonilex skimming through Dobbs, Alito also seems pretty skeptical of applying British law to that question.
So it seems pretty consistent.
When interpreting American law they look to American context primarily.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
@SETSystems@defcon.social
Well, no. We ended up with corporations as people when our elected congresspeople voted to use the term as a convenience when legislating.
No fraud, just a convenient shorthand for drafting law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
@MarcAbrahams
@AmenZwa that makes it even more bizarre that you're not familiar with fascist groups in the US.
Surely you've come across them in your legal education?
It's amazing that you'd be so cloistered and unaware of what's happening in the broader world!
I'd like to see more use out of #IPFS since it's such a powerful platform for distributed content and database operations.
Relatedly, I would like to see more native embrace of cryptographic features like Web of trust and signing of content in these days of AI generation and questions over the trustworthiness of sources.
It might be interesting if the browsing process involved checking signing keys of content to see who has certified the content as genuine.
@stefan My immediate thought is that mailto suggests an action, but what action would a fediverse link point to?
@Twitter_expat@mastodon.world One would think that a court with a history of ruling against felons couldn't really be said to be ruling for felons.
Yes, to me that seems like a pretty convincing point.
@AmenZwa If you think there is but one fascist group in America, I think you need to broaden your experience here.
It almost seems like of all the fascist groups that exist in the US, for some reason you are complaining about an instance that sought to diminish government power, which is bizarre.
@johnonolan sure, although I think it needs to be appreciated that there are a lot of people who flat out reject long-form content here, so they would oppose any such move.
Personally, obviously that's not my position🙂
But to be clear, my feedback was to say that I wasn't really sure what was being said, personally I would love more long-form content on the platform and I wish there would be more, but I couldn't tell if the composition was actually promoting that or not.
@ubiquiti_fanatic what? Who said anything about supporting them?
If you want to oppose them, as they say, know thy enemy. This is a big part of knowing them so that you can oppose them.
@AmenZwa what far-right fascists are you referring to here?
@Twitter_expat@mastodon.world It's funny you say that when the court rules against felons so often.
@Nonilex It's critical to note that the court proceeding was not an actual trial with full due process being recognized, which was the crux of this case.
"This case is not about whether States can disarm people who threaten others. States have a ready mechanism for disarming anyone who uses a firearm to threaten physical violence: criminal prosecution." -- Thomas
Folks saying #Thomas voted to arm abusers miss that he emphasizes the exact opposite.
Instead, he voted to maintain the rights of the innocent, which is a pretty different story.
@popcornreel fascists? For NOT extending the power of government?
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:
