volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@anarchistquotes such a person doesn't seem to have gotten out much, because there are absolutely thieves who engage in theft without the need for famine.

But even skipping over that bit of naivety, the concept of all belonging to everyone is inherently contradictory given the fundamental concept of belonging.

@curiousgawker Well it depends on what media sources you're following.

A whole lot of people don't follow the sources that tell that story but rather much more cynical stories painting the picture that none of this really matters so much.

So it's not so much people detached from the elections as it is people attached to different media sources that tell dramatically different versions of events, parallel worlds, day in and day out.

The population effectively lives in different realities these days.

I like to refer to it as the book club theory: everyone showed up to the book club having read books with the same title but completely different plots, which makes it really hard to discuss the book!

@KimPerales but it all goes to emphasize that these are questions for Congress, not the president, and we need to think harder about the people that we are electing to Congress, who haven't bothered to fix these things.

This stuff should never be up to the executive branch of government. This stuff is to be decided through the democratic process in the legislative branch.

But we keep reelecting numbskulls who don't do their jobs. I guess we're okay with it.

@alan I'd say it's a case of that being the worst possible way of doing things, except for all the alternatives 🙂

Every method of choosing representatives has trade-offs. Personally I think the issues of district shape that you are bringing up is worth accepting in return for the possibility of judging candidates individually, even if the voters might all too often shirk that responsibility.

@KimPerales That's not how originalism works, though. It doesn't force courts to transport us back to the 18th century, it just forces courts to transport us back to when laws were written, even if it was a law that was written just last year.

We are perfectly able to write new law and originalism will demand that we respect whatever modern law we come up with, so long as it was properly passed through the democratic process.

The rulings that came out today were a great example of that as the court recognized the authority of law made in the last couple of decades.

@Delphi You're still missing the point: with out production pay doesn't matter because there's nothing to buy.

If there's no bread on the shelf because it wasn't produced then it doesn't matter how much you were paid, you still can't buy the bread because it doesn't exist.

Without production none of the rest matters.

@Delphi if there's no bread it's a moot question! :)

@Loungagna wrong branch of government.

SCOTUS pointed out that *Congress* made this change to the law.

Well, we elected those congresspeople, so what can ya do?

@GottaLaff

@957dd3687817abb53e01635fb4fc1c029c2cd49202ec82f416ec240601b371d8 that's not what they ruled as it wasn't the federal government doing the censoring.

That was core to the ruling.

@Delphi again, my focus isn't on the business but on the fellow humans that are counting on the goods and services being offered.

A business can only succeed to the extent that it's offering goods and services to humans who need them, but so often that gets overlooked.

If you go to the store and there isn't bread on the shelf because workers were prevented from working the hours they need to make the bread or costs are increased to the point where the bread can no longer be produced, you lose out. Real people lose out.

Never forget the downstream negative impacts when you start messing with production that people are relying on.

@Delphi well the limitation on working hours more directly impacts productivity than living wage. (And, for that matter, limitations on how I can apply my labor, the hours that I'm allowed to work, certainly makes me unhappy and impacts my agency)

But even when it comes to living wage, such proposals often make it just not mathematically viable to offer goods and services to customers, with resources being taken away from where they are needed in order to write those paychecks.

You can't productively make food for people if you can no longer afford the ingredients as the budget is skewed by living wage implementation.

@Dhmspector SCOTUS is ruling on the specific question, "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

Unless you'd allege that assassinating a political rival is an official act legally available to a president, that doesn't fall within the scope of the question the Court is considering.

And again, this was made plain during oral arguments.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html

@Delphi but you're not considering the costs if lower productivity contributed to worse standards of living throughout society.

There's more to work than just money. Workers actually make stuff and provide services to others.

@Dhmspector seeing as that wasn't the question before the court, it's highly unlikely.

Even Trump's side at oral argument stressed that it's not what they were asking for.

@CarolineMalaCorbin Well then I would take the next step and say it comes down to how you understand good reason 🙂 different people will disagree about that, after all, depending on their values.

And that's why this gets tricky.

Discrimination in furtherance of the establishment clause is good or bad depending on values.

@ingalls Well I think it mainly just emphasizes that social media platforms can make those decisions for themselves, regardless of what the administration might want to encourage.

@Hyolobrika Well it would be about servers you trust. It's up to the server as to which people see the content.

But from quickly re-skimming the protocol spec, I'm not even sure how true that is. It looks like the protocol still allows servers to send content to other servers regardless of what a user requests.

@Hyolobrika yes, the server or instance.

It's all up to them to decide what to do with the content they receive from each other.