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
volkris
boosted
All Your Face.
TSA going hogwild with facial recognition is going about as well as you'd expect, "but you can opt out". YK Hong: Since folks asked what happens whenever I opt out of facial recognition, I documented it for you while going through US...
https://jwz.org/b/yj8C
To be clear, I'm not arguing based on any libertarian reasoning. I don't actually find myself all that closely aligned with the Libertarian Party.
I'm more interested in things like worker's rights, and here internationally recognized principles among liberal attitudes. More things like UN findings than political rabble rousers.
Yes, you keep saying it doesn't have features to resist censorship after having yourself mentioned the features to resist censorship :)
You're talking in circles, man.
Well obviously all **don't** agree on the things that are CR since you and I apparently disagree!
Since Nostr has those features that absolutely resist censorship, I thing it's completely correct and unconfusing to call it censorship resistant.
It's a straightforward way to describe something that has such features to resist censorship.
Well, I mean, does it give you any cause for reconsideration of your position?
We all bring our premises to the table, and bias confirmation is a strong draw, but hopefully different perspectives provide opportunity to reconsider the things we believe.
At this point I'm not even sure what you're trying to disagree with.
You've acknowledged the problem @peterbutler brought up!
Instances like qoto.org have effectively no limit on character counts. Well, technically something like 65,500 characters.
But yep, other Fediverse platforms are specifically targeted at blog type posts that do share over to Mastodon and others.
I don't think there's much point responding farther.
The features you're recognizing here are the exact ones that I'd say allow the platform to resist censorship, making it censorship resistant, even if you personally wouldn't apply that term.
*shrug*
Kind of like complaining that corporate restaurants have conditioned people to expect their food to be served cooked instead of having them take the one simple step of cooking it themselves, and what's the problem here?
Yep. People do like when the platforms they join provide them value. Heaven forbid.
In any case, this all just highlights that @peterbutler 's point was absolutely a thing, even if you personally prefer the problem to exist.
volkris
boosted
Alternate universe where the '90s trend for calling things "bad", "sick" or "rude" never ended and now we compliment each other's shoes by calling them "catastrophic" and "fundamentally misaligned with my values"
Yes, but can either post to Fediverse?
So if there isn't a universally accepted definition of Censorship Resistance, you're being awfully definitive in saying Nostr doesn't offer it :)
It looks like Nostr provides alternative ways of accessing content, routing around points of potential censorship, along with built in methods for automatically routing as more relays are added.
You might not personally think that's enough resistance for your own comfort, but it IS resistance to censorship.
It does have some value, whether you think it's a great value or a small value.
and I just came across a post from someone complaining about this very issue.
I'm glad you posted this because I was just having an exchange with someone denying that this problem exists.
When telling people to run their own instances, this downside is being overlooked.
I suspect this is not possible as it would fall under the "no quote tweet" policy that the Mastodon developers decided to adopt.
Other Fediverse platforms could have it, though.
And it's yet another reason I think Mastodon needs to reverse that development decision.
@tsdh@emacs.ch @jchelary@emacs.ch
(Preface: obviously I have criticisms here :) so this is going to be just my little rant)
I think it channels the Twitter philosophy of being a mindless firehose where it doesn't matter what you miss because you're just expected to be having knee jerk reactions to the latest two sentence comment.
With the character limit, the content was expected to be so vapid that it really didn't matter what you missed: the algorithm would provide you something to react to there at the top, and its not like you were going to miss real information about the world in what happened to scroll by.
I criticize #Mastodon for maintaining much of what made #Twitter kind of awful, and I hope people explore other #Fediverse interfaces that are more useful and healthy.
Instances I've looked into have a preference option for a slow mode where things don't autoload.
Yes, you listed one step to respond to the problem. Because it's a problem. :)
The reason it's not a fundamental human right is because it implies a right to require someone else to work for you against their own interests.
It implies a right to another person's labor, which is not a right I would recognize; certainly it's a right that is generally rejected in cultures around the world these days.
But on #Fediverse in particular, the ability to join instances with a diversity of policies, and respecting that diversity, objects to that sort of blanket statement about rules to which people must conform as they express themselves.
This platform is built on diversity, not conformance.
I'd just highlight how your laying out a solution to the problem illustrates that yes, it is a real, existing problem.
So yep, as @peterbutler said, you lose visibility and there are hoops a person can jump through to partially get it back.
Whether a person has time to take advantage of that visibility is a different question.
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:
