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
One thing to keep in mind is that fediverse isn't just an abstract concept or principle. This system of communication based on ActivityPub is an engineered machine that functions as per a specific design.
In other words, it IS an *end*, one that might not match the *end* you have in mind.
Fediverse is defined as being centralized around instances. I think that follows outdated models and was a mistake, but it is what it is.
A lot of folks don't realize that #Trump acts exactly the way so many of his voters want him to.
He gets positive feedback from this stuff, so naturally he delivers more of it. He follows their feedback, just a loser following the crowd.
Understanding that is critical to strategizing against the guy. And people failing to understand that got him reelected.
#ClayAndBuck, on #Trump storming out of the interview with Meet The Press, after playing an extended clip of it ―"I love everything about this"#US...
Well, it's complicated. It puts all the eggs in one basket, bringing with it inherent risks and costs.
It's for good reasons that those "developed" countries carefully weigh the pros and cons of systems like this and often decide not to go that direction.
Yes, it looks all happy and shiny, but there are downsides under the surface.
Looks like it was an individual delegate acting at the state convention even after he was told not to, over objections.
And he was motivated by claims that Chauvin didn't murder Floyd, claims that an autopsy showed a different cause of death.
As for SCOTUS, in their opinion they explicitly recognized racism when they set rules for courts to rule against it.
Black voting rights weren't gutted, though.
That misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court opinion said gets clicks and is being used to promote political interests, but it's debunked by the opinion itself.
Unfortunately it's also being used to throw muck in conspiratorial stories ilke this as well.
@witchescauldron did you mean to link to a specific article? I don't know what you mean by counter mainstreaming.
In any case, I'd counter (ha) by saying putting users at the core allows them more ability to choose their likely multiple communities. Or stick with one, or none.
Unfortunately, this is another case of playing into their game for political points.
The correct response is to simply point out that such a settlement doesn't have force of law and ignore it as a joke. Trump screwed up again, not understanding how any of this works, so he lost.
By reacting like this, those House Democrats legitimize it and join Trump's folks in the low ground.
But they do get attention from it, no matter how self-defeating it is.
Unfortunately, the tech behind Mastodon/Fediverse made engineering decisions to center around instances and not people. It's not really capable of decentralizing down to the individual level because it's designed otherwise.
Other platforms like Bluesky took the other approach and are user-centered.
@witchescauldron
@witchescauldron cathedral vs bazaar, yeah?
Sounds like this dramatic headline tries to make some tenuous connections.
If the "secret donors" supported outcomes necessitated by logical results of our democratic system, well, more power to them I suppose.
But that doesn't get clicks and attention for papers so they promote these conspiracy theories.
The Supreme Court went the exact other way, in their ruling emphasizing that race is a factor in this gerrymandering.
The state of play is absolutely not that partisan gerrymandering has nothing to do with race. SCOTUS explicitly included that as a factor.
But, while they don't ignore the role of race, you overemphasize it. Defining roles have limited impact as the things move forward from their defining moments.
That's the reality we're grappling with, and that we've been grappling with, the pushback against such reductionist thinking.
You're making quite a leap going from a person being interested in something to the person doing the things necessary to actually put their interests into practice.
Funnily enough, you make a similar mistake in the other direction, projecting interests into what you think your groupings of people did.
Talk about prejudices, yours are just dripping out left and right with so many of your comments!
@abucci the way the guy has been handling his personal drama he does seem to twist with the wind, saying whatever he thinks he needs to say.
Then again, he's hired to be a representative, so that might mean he'd reflect the sentiment of his constituents without putting his personal stuff in the way.
Well, we get the drama we vote for. Some people just like drama.
That's not quite correct.
The Supreme Court didn't ding them over fines but over a FCC process that called them out, but SCOTUS allowed it specifically BECAUSE there weren't fines involved.
Had it been about fines the ruling suggests it would have gone the other way.
That's not how the process works, though. You get it backwards.
The president is constitutionally required to nominate a candidate who can garner enough votes in favor NOT just duck rejection. Kavanaugh is on the Court because he was able to gain that support.
It is key to checks and balances to get things like this correct.
The NYTimes headline is wrong, as is pretty common for shoddy reporting regarding the Court.
As the article itself correctly says, 'The F.C.C. orders “did not create an obligation to pay,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.'
So THE WHOLE POINT of the ruling is that the FCC doesn't have the power to levy fines. The NY Times and so many others get this downright backwards.
We need to recognize how often people rely on reporting that get the story backwards so we can stop trusting them until they improve.
Except the whole point of the ruling was that this WASN'T an enforcement power.
Enforcement would have triggered with the companies was asking for, so the Court ruled that no enforcement power was at play here.
@EthicalProfessor@mstdn.social
Except the whole point of the ruling was that this WASN'T an enforcement power.
Enforcement would have triggered with the companies was asking for, so the Court ruled that no enforcement power was at play here.
@gottalaff.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy
Just another example of how the folks setting US public policy know little outside of a little bubble focused on sports and an entitled, "drinking with the boys" culture.
#ClayAndBuck ― The only reason anyone ever watches 60 Minutes is because it comes on after the NFL.Any show scheduled after the NFL games would ge...
How do you know people including Sonya Sotomayor certainly read and understood the cases? So often they say things about such cases that don't square with the record, suggesting that they didn't.
You seem focused on identities instead of content. Republican? Democratic? These are aruments rooted in fact and legal theory, not political stances.
Majority? Minority? The only relevance those groupings have is that one argument was less compelling... and sometimes the reason an argument isn't compelling is because it's simply bad.
Forget sides. Look at the reasoning.
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:
