volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Greguti you say that, and yet there are quite a few people pointing out that the chronological feed doesn't get them the content they want to see.

In reality, chronological feed IS an algorithm, just a very simplistic and untailored one. We don't escape algorithms that way.

So we need better algorithms that give users more control over their experiences.

@waysideollie No, McConnell didn't change the rules. The Senate Majority Leader doesn't have that authority.

Instead, a majority of senators called for the rule change in response to Democrats' own rule changes.

That story is misleading, not reflecting the history of the Senate in important ways involving holding our congresspeople democratically accountable.

@rberger what in the world? We have the history to show us that the guy has a record of being against them.

A vote for Trump is a vote for an idiot, but that's all we have to work with this time around, two idiots, but it's definitely not a vote for Putin and Un. It comes across as gaslighting to say otherwise because we saw for ourselves what happened on the record.

I wouldn't vote for the guy, but I'm not buying that story.

@Nonilex but that's not how the Supreme Court works.

So you're basically promoting a conspiracy theory here that just doesn't match the real world.

@libramoon Yes. Exactly. It's not true.

The public record shows that it's not true.

So you put your finger on it there.

@libramoon it's not though.

Because anyone who knows how the Supreme Court works would know that these claims just aren't true. It's real simple. So if you are interested in spreading these silly stories, well that directly speaks to not understanding how the court works.

It's like how people spreading flat Earth stories don't understand how astronomy works or how people spreading vaccine disinformation don't understand how biology works. If you're spreading the silly stories, then you don't understand how it works.

@DoomsdaysCW oh I've seen plenty of that nonsense.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad that so many people buy into it when the Supreme Court rulings are right there in the public record for anybody to read for themselves, which is the whole point of them being public, which would quickly debunk all of those nutty conspiracy theories.

@dougiec3 well no.

Roe v Wade has been unsettled pretty much since it was drafted, with Casey being just the best example to show that.

So no, it's not the Thomas Court and it didn't scrap settled law. That whole story is just wrong on the facts.

@QueenValhalla@mastodon.world That's not how the ruling came down.

@DoomsdaysCW That's a nice conspiracy theory you've got there.

@kgw because it's a dumb claim that isn't really supported by the record, as the Supreme Court publishes its opinions that have not only diverse vote counts but also, and more importantly, stated reasoning that is not based on partisanship.

It's not more of an election issue because anyone who is informed knows that it's basically a conspiracy theory, basically just sensationalized nonsense to say that the court is plagued by partisan bias.

It's not an election issue because so many of us are better informed.

@janisf if you have solid evidence of election fraud, please do provide it.

We've had, what, a decade now of people making such claims without being able to make such a case.

But maybe you have the evidence that's been missing.

@janisf no, not at all. I don't particularly have faith in people, but at the same time, I do notice that people do get to vote, even if they vote for very stupid things.

And really, recognizing that people are voting for stupid things is part of trying to encourage people to stop voting for stupid things.

@libramoon no because there are actual rules for how the US government works.

Sure, one can have an opinion about whether those rules are good or bad, but they are what they are. You might as well be denying that there exists a supreme Court at all.

No, it exists. And it doesn't work the way you seem to think it works.

@janisf no, by definition the system is absolutely not more complex than the votes. The entire point of the design, the entire focus of the design, is to ensure that it is not more complex than the votes.

But that's fine if you need to be done. But I would flat out say that you are factually wrong here.

We have systems set up to specifically put votes at the core of the democratic operation. Again, the whole point is that it is not more complex than votes. The US system learned from the British system to make it so.

@janisf You're not looking at the causality though.

Unfathomable? No. It's exactly within what I'm saying here.

I fathom it actively! And I think you're missing it.

@libramoon it's like disagreeing about whether the world is round. Okay. Maybe we just disagree. In my opinion, it's pretty foolish to be a flat earther, but go for it I guess.

It doesn't seem like a productive way to go though.

@TheConversationUS yeah I sure wish Democrats would have remembered that before they nominated such a flawed person.

That's really the message. Next time nominate someone better, because you don't necessarily have our votes.

@libramoon well then you're not seeing how the real world actually works, and whoever you're listening to is lying to you. You need to find better sources of information if this is what you're seeing.

@janisf what in the world?

How does capitalism make men beat their wives and children? How do they profit off of that?