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
My memory of Bluesky is the opposite, but I'm not at a computer to double check that right now.
As I recall, ActivityPub is the hub and spoke with instances acting as hubs to the spokes of user interfaces while BlueSky allows users to engage through multiple repeaters (whatever they call them) avoiding that point of failure.
@joecardillo The excerpt that you posted talked about more speech, freer speech. They can say what they want as long as other people can say what they want.
Sounds like a fan of free speech.
@FreakyFwoof That's literally not an active choice though
@raintrees That's not the official story.
@LaD_Hallo only if our elected senators approve it.
The thought occurs that it's not so black and white because functionality changes depending on what you're observing and from where.
For example, you might argue that removal of a minor node would have no discernible impact on the overall system, but it would have a critical impact on the few users of that node.
I've long said that Fediverse isn't so much decentralized as re-centralized around instances. So I guess that's what people mean by federated instead of decentralized.
It seems like Bluesky addresses this better, being more decentralized in terms of not being reliant on instances.
@manton that sort of two minutes hate is part of what the status quo uses to keep the population on their side, though. It doesn't do any good, but it does let officials avoid accountability for their own failings.
Don't hate these executives. But for goodness sake let's stop reelecting the powerful political figures that maintain the system.
@byteseu Right, but the problem is that representatives like AOC voted to create this State of affairs through statute.
Yeah, the state of healthcare sucks. Let's hope we stop reelecting the representatives that cause it sooner than later!
@SheepOverboard@mastodon.au Well right, because such a lawsuit is about law and not health.
You don't go to the courts to complain about healthcare stuff. You go to the courts when the law has been broken, which is a completely different issue.
@LaD_Hallo It's an appointed position, not an election.
@john Well as per the protocol itself, you kind of don't.
The rest of the world has to ask, you don't really get to tell them unless they are already following you because of user interaction.
@AnneTheWriter1 Well that's not true.
It's not that the left was divided but rather that the left came together around clearly flawed candidates.
IF ONLY the left was divided about Harris maybe we would have considered choosing someone who could actually win. And that's what I was yelling about at the time. But no, the left got in line behind this person with a terrible track record and terrible prospects for the election.
It was similar with Clinton.
It has nothing to do with MAGA or social media campaigns. There's no need to sink to those conspiracy theories.
The Democratic party simply insisted on a garbage candidate, so the party got the result it signed up for. We should hold the party accountable for that failure instead of excusing them by talking about these conspiracies.
@SapphireDragon Well that's not true.
Where do you think profits come from? Where do you think the revenues come from? In capitalism people voluntarily exchange money for their own benefit. Capitalism necessarily involves distribution of power out to the people engaging in those exchanges rather than concentration of power, or else there won't be any money to make profits.
Sounds like you just don't understand how economics work even though we see it for ourselves on a daily basis.
@WrenArcher when so many people voted for that party's candidates, does it make you stop to think just for a second that maybe you're simply wrong about what you believe?
It should be a cause to stop and reevaluate. Maybe listen to the other side a bit to double-check your beliefs.
Yeah it would be crazy to think that approximately 75 million people voted to give them the power to do that. So... maybe they didn't, and you've just been misinformed?
@Sable_Shade see you got nothing?
@Sable_Shade those don't sound like questions
@Sable_Shade okay, but like, what questions do you want me to answer?
@stillgray based on this I also suspect that the representative might not be bright enough to consider correlation apart from the causality she's heavily suggesting.
And so there's a lack of considering that maybe it's the message itself that's the problem, not simply how many ears they can get it into.
@Strandjunker there are lots of lessons, but people who understand neither insurance nor bankruptcy are going to miss them.
Take, just to name one lesson, the role that medical related bankruptcy plays in increasing the costs of healthcare as the costs are shifted onto others.
That's certainly not insignificant!
I'm not playing a game. I don't understand what you're asking, so I'm inviting you to clarify.
I don't know why instead of simply clarifying you'd start talking about the number of times you believe you've asked above.
I'm happy to answer your questions, but I don't know what they are.
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
