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
@david @6al@misskey.social @tedcurran
They're there offering the proof for anyone who wants it. They can prove it.
If nobody takes them up on that offer, that's on the ones declining to check.
@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby
It is true that the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It is about borrowing, not spending.
However, it is clearly false that the debt limit simply allows that financing seeing as that's an executive branch action, not a legislative branch action.
Yes, under the US system of government the executive branch is supposed to be working to gain additional spending and borrowing and other authorizations, but that's why it's even more important to call out self-interested spin like this.
The executive branch obligates, not the legislative branch, which can only authorize.
Prosecution always involves strategic tradeoffs, even in simple cases where it's merely the raw dollars needed to pay employees to see someone through the court system for an obvious commitment.
Then there are more complicated cases, for example offering a plea deal in exchange for cooperation that would reign in more important targets.
When it comes to a case like Trump, there is the very real tradeoff where it makes him more powerful, more likely to be reelected, and even more personally wealthy--and same with his family--if charges are brought against him.
Honestly, I'd say the worst punishment for him would be to leave him for obscurity, a failed candidate rejected by voters.
That might be the best justice for him, even worse than what punishment the law could dole out.
What? I find hashtags extremely useful here.
Heck, I found your message through hashtags.
Do you mean a person to person app with high security?
Fediverse is probably not the right platform for that, as it's really focused on broadcasting content widely and publicly.
It's entire predictable considering the story such people sell. Not insane, just common sense.
When a person advertises himself as attacked, and one attacks him, his sales pitch is confirmed and he has more fodder for his ads.
Over and over there has been this rush to attack Trump in exactly the ways that play into his hands, into his rhetoric. He WANTS that, because without it people might see how hollow he really is.
People have to decide for themselves which is more important, going through the motions of an indictment or trying to make him go away.
The phrase cutting off the nose to spite the face always comes to mind.
@gwaldby But this fact check is itself full of clearly wrong things.
For example, no, the debt ceiling is not "about paying bills that lawmakers have already committed to." How can I say that? Because those commitments are an executive branch function, not up to the legislative branch.
This reporter seems unfamiliar with basic civics, basic knowledge of the way the US government is organized.
Congress appropriates and authorizes the executive branch to spend. They do not, and constitutionally cannot, commit the other branch to spend as that would violate the idea of coequal branches.
This #factcheck, like so many, doesn't pass factchecking.
The way forward really depends on whether his state has a recall process. Some jurisdictions do, some don't.
Beyond that, his constituents elected him, so their choice must be honored, no matter how much buyer's remorse they may now have.
Voters get what they vote for, for better or worse.
@jlogancarey@mastodon.art
Nope!
:)
But to be serious, there is no fediverse moral code. That would represent the centralization that federation exists to avoid.
It's just different instances all tailoring themselves to behave to the wants and needs of their particular users.
I'd say we could suggest that people hashtag advertisement on advertisements, but beyond that we should recognize that without strong algorithms it's a tough idea to address.
@david @6al@misskey.social @tedcurran
Oh but there IS a controlling authority to issue a cert: each instance is a controlling authority issuing or presenting certs through the following process.
Fediverse is all based around centralized instances handling all of that for their users, and as such they have latitude to go about their processes as they see fit.
For better or worse.
I don't follow.
Just because I can have an identity that multiple platforms recognize doesn't mean I can't have more than one.
Heck, I have multiple email accounts for work and personal stuff, and both of them are recognized in multiple places around the web.
Same thing. Some people will have one identity that they use in one place, some people will have multiple identities that they use in multiple places, and people will also choose the other perturbations, just like they do with email accounts today.
Aaah, I only use these systems through their native websites, not through any apps, even on mobile devices, so I figured that's what @teledyn meant by apps originally.
In other words, my reader IS my server software, and yes, that's where I suspect the holdup is.
But that's in contrast to the holdup being in the language that the servers/instances/apps use to speak to each other.
That the language seems capable of it means it's less of a hurdle to have the other links in the chain implement it.
@6al@misskey.social @tedcurran @david
Good point, and that would also help with some of the revocation issues brought up in a thread I came across.
Maybe it's a bit complicated because Fediverse IS centralized, just centralized to each of the federated instances.
(We should reconsider calling it decentralized. Maybe federated instead of decentralized.)
I don't know how nicely the centralized instances would play with differently centralized CAs.
Although with https already in the mix, I suppose they already are.
What a mess :)
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
You DON'T know the identity of the *person* you're dealing with anyway. You only know the identity that you're dealing with.
This is all expression, to some level artistic. I don't want anybody trolling, the same way I don't want anybody making bad music, but when you empower people to express themselves, well ::shrug::
If a person wants two identities, one friendly and the other trolling, that's their expression and their choice.
Hope it works out for them.
Like I said, someone with a professional identity and a hobby identity seems pretty reasonable, right? Makes sense?
Well, once you empower users like that some are going to do things you or I might not approve of. That's how a user-centric platform goes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog
Oh no, and it's really worth understanding what Facebook offers that other platforms kind of don't.
You know the idea of technical problems with technical solutions vs social problems with social solutions?
By emphasizing connections through friends of friends and other strongly personal indicators, Facebook offers social solutions to social problems of gauging trust for people, punishing misbehavior, etc.
You don't have to rely so much on bots or moderator whims if you can see that Bob is a friend of my best friend Mary, so Bob is likely a good guy.
It's the functionality other platforms, including Mastodon, would do well to consider if they aren't focused on growth growth growth.
There's no reason the two couldn't coexist.
Have multiple disjointed accounts if you want. Register the same identity to multiple instances if you want.
You do you.
They don't know that they do, but they do :)
Users DO know what a cert is, they just don't know that they do. Every time they hear about a website being secure or see the little padlock in their web browser they're hearing about certs and SSL.
Every time they enter a password or see the "Authenticate with Google!" button they're looking at confirming an identity.
No, you should absolutely not use the technical terms for nontechnical users. You make it userfriendly for them, but it's not a problem at all to do it.
Ha, I and people I know are quite annoyed at having multiple identities on those platforms! :)
Waddaya mean I have to have different usernames on different platforms because mine was taken?! It's bad enough to remember different passwords and post the same content multiple times to reach everyone; but I can't even have the same name with the same friends?
We kind of grumble and accept that because we know those are different companies who don't play well with each other, so we're caught in their corporate drama.
#Fediverse should be different, though, a grand paradise where different platforms work together to build something beautiful! Well, one can dream.
With #PixelFed and #Friendica working together to share content cooperatively over #ActivityPub, it sure would be nice if they'd also cooperate to recognize single identity handles to put users (or identities) finally at the center of the story.
To clarify, it's completely up to the user as to how to use/project identities.
For example, a single human might choose to at least have one professional identity and one hobby identity. Or heaven forbid a trolling identity.
Heck, they could choose to start a new identity for each season of the year.
As it stands technological limitations require an identity to be split between different services. It sure would be nice if those barriers could come down, leaving it up to the user to decide how to represent each identity they wish to be.
I imagine it's all based on different people implementing the same standard, the same set of instructions for how it's supposed to work.
IF it really is a bug, you could imagine the different readers all misreading some ineffective standard phrasing in the same way.
I think there's a good chance it's either an interoperability problem (that might be described as a bug) or simply a missing feature they had intended to have.
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:
