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
@fell I imagine that's right, interface will simply ignore the comments even as they're posted. It's largely a UI tweak.
And yep, it's important that users realize how these privacy related features actually work, as there are a lot of users out there not realizing how insecure this platform is.
@CharlieMcHenry anyone who finds this unexpected or surprising has been getting information from misleading sources.
This was entirely predictable and consistent with current events.
The delay to sentencing was always a longshot. The justices have been consistently skeptical of such arguments.
@RememberUsAlways Well right, because it's not the role of the SCOTUS to address that in the US system.
Folks worried about this should have elected different representatives to Congress. THAT's where this could have been addressed properly.
@eddeeMN the problem is that creating such a third platform undermines the need for both of those to reach critical mass.
It sort of splits the vote, to use an analogy.
Bluesky and Fediverse need to learn from each other and improve themselves, taking the best ideas from each other.
@openrightsgroup @JamesBaker @jim
Often it may be a matter of your instance being administered in ways that block things you actually want to see.
Talk to your instance operator about the issue.
Yes.
Because it shows skin so thin that the person would buy into that conspiracy theory as the analog of a salve.
@RememberUsAlways @stux
He wasn't talking to them, though. Trump was virtue signaling to his own base.
This gets lost in quibbling.
Yes, terms like conservative and liberal have changed over the years.
What of it?
@anneapplebaum.bsky.social
@David to grind my ax...
So many on this platform have a philosophy that's not focused on users but on instances. The underlying protocol puts instances above users, and that filters on down.
So I'd say the whole attitude around here promotes the idea that users should just defer to instance admins.
I'm not surprised.
@robchapman the guy on the platform that promotes distributed media with no effective moderation calls it troubling when Facebook moves toward better, more distributed moderation?
He's not the brightest of chaps...
@robchapman the guy on the platform that promotes distributed media with no effective moderation calls it troubling when Facebook moves toward better, more distributed moderation?
He's not the brightest of chaps...
@Nerde That's the opposite of what the Supreme Court ruling said.
Its specifically called on the prosecution of former presidents who might have done things illegal that would have led to dictatorship.
No, that's not what the ruling said at all, you can go read it for yourself, whoever told you that is lying to you and you should not trust them anymore.
@mhjohnson I'd go the other way: if Democrats had run a better candidate they would have beaten Trump in 2024.
They shouldn't focus on throwing the game in 2020. They should have just not run such a terrible candidate so they could have won both 2020 and 2024.
I mean I'm citing the Supreme Court opinion, their own words. I'm citing my sources.
If you think I'm wrong, if you think I'm ignorant, please put your counter evidence on their table.
Or at least consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you've been misled by folks looking to spread disinformation.
I have Supreme Court rulings backing me up. What do you have backing you?
@bespacific that gets it backwards, though.
It's not that the Court is acting as legislators, but rather refusing to act as legislators supporting legislation they prefer.
They say regardless of whether some action is good or bad, that's not for us to decide, we must look at the laws already on the books and insist that the actual legislators legislate.
@enobacon keep in mind that the choose-only-one primaries are there as a solution to issues in the balloting system we normally use.
The primary process is effectively a weak way to get ranked choice voting to replace the one we use.
Unless we change our balloting system, we need the choose-only-one primaries to help voters organize their votes.
@mral No, the SCOTUS didn't say money is speech. Yes, a lot of people repeat that misinformation, but it's counter to their rulings.
In fact, in CU they agree with you about looking at volume.
And in the CU ruling Kennedy specifically said that their ruling would COUNTER the few powerful people who are able to shout down everyone else regardless.
Supreme Court is on your side in this one. It's just that a lot of people get the rulings backwards, even though the opinions went out of their way to be clear.
@CelloMomOnCars
@MikeImBack no, they're not off the hook. It was just the wrong hook. They were never on it to begin with because it was the wrong branch of government to look at.
They're still on the hook for any probes in Congress, the only body in a position to conduct the probe.
So the folks we elected are in the position to follow up, as they have always been.
@SenatorMoobs Originalists might also say that the Establishment Clause no longer applies only to the feds as it was extended through later amendments, through incorporation.
Originalists recognize that laws change. They simply also consider the original meanings of the revised laws.
@naturehopper.bsky.social it's not that they won't refer but that they CAN'T refer. That's not how the US government works.
Wrong branch of government.
It's up to the people we elect to Congress to act on claims that warrant action, and so far they've found the allegations to be pretty empty.
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
