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
Yup!
I'm sorry, did you think that these networks were somehow above trying to profit off of sensationalistic headlines?
@Zee@social.coop it's pretty funny that that description sounds even more marketing friendly, designed by committee.
Well the headline is ridiculous, promoting the flat out misleading description of the Florida bill as don't say gay. The Florida bill absolutely had nothing to do with saying gay.
So this report doubles down on that misreporting, with incomplete quotes.
This is clickbait. It is not healthy to promote this sort of nonsensical reporting.
It's better that you link directly to the bill if you want to talk about it. These journalistic institutions have rightfully lost a whole lot of legitimacy in the public eye through misleading reporting like this.
It's that whole separation of powers thing, though.
The design of the US government, in order to provide checks and balances, has co-equal branches, so it's pretty much unconstitutional for one branch to order another to do anything.
They can certainly request things of each other, but if one branch could order another branch to do something it would make the other branch not an equal but subservient to the first.
So this idea is just stupid.
@Zee@social.coop
Sounds like a different label on the old term designed by committee.
Sounds like a rebranding because that term rightfully is now a slur.
@AstraKernel Other Fediverse clients have such a feature, so #Mastodon risks getting left in the dust!
So I was specifically asking what you have experienced, not what headlines have been squawking about.
I don't know how much of that would have actually impacted you as a user, depending on who you are following and such.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
If you didn't know, the DOJ is a law enforcement agency.
How you do politics: Make a statement that has been roundly rebuked as misleading at best, roll it up in a false dichotomy, present it as divisive rhetoric right alongside a call for coming together, and stammer out an excuse to try to save the moment as the moment collapses around you?
Biden really lost it here. I don't think people elected him to turn this moment of traditional pump and circumstance into Reality TV.
And conservatives had a field day with this ammunition.
Nah, seems like progress, that she is apparently recognizing it as half real!
What specific changes have you experienced over at Twitter that keep you away?
Part of the complication is that we've had generation after generation of politician outright misleading, or I would say lying, to the public about what the program is and how it works. So we have this really big perception problem to deal with now.
For example, one of the really big lies is that people pay into the program to fund their own retirements. That's not how Social Security works by law. The money people put in is required by law to be spent just like any other tax revenue, so that money is already gone, even though politicians have flat out told people otherwise their whole working lives.
That makes it tricky to do something like raise the payroll taxes since a lot of people will consider that a breaking of the agreement they thought they had. They thought they had already paid to fund the program, so the increase in taxation sounds unjustified and unfair.
Anyway, it's all a huge mess now, and everyday all of the problems are being kicked farther down the road as politicians continue to be dishonest about the history and current status of the program.
Wow
Today the Board of Supervisors approved our ordinance to ban City leaders from requiring appointed commissioners to submit undated resignation lett...
I think this highlights the role of #QT in being part of the #conversation, as it not only encourages the explicit link back to the source content, but it presents the context without requiring the follower to jump through the extra step, breaking their flow to go and find that context.
I would say that I'll always discourage screenshots. Not only does it break the link of the conversation, but using images to present text has accessibility and efficiency issues.
Part of what makes conversations valuable is seeing even the stuff a person disagrees with. If a conversation isn't worth spreading at all, then it's probably not worth replying to anyway.
Like you said, part of conversation, not just self-promotion, but that applies to promoting your own side at the exclusion of the other as well.
@dsacer keep in mind that raising the cap on income covered by the SS tax also raises benefit payouts. That's why the cap is there in the first place, to avoid paying more benefits to people who don't need it.
Anyway, I'd say either path, automatic benefit cuts or revamp to make the program sustainable, would effectively be killing the program, either as people understand it or as it is implemented.
The end result is the same: if nothing is done, the program ends, technically or perceptively.
We're already working with a sunsetting program, and the question is whether to do something about that.
The thing this, and so many responses to it, miss is that #Mastodon is effectively only one of many different applications posting to the same #Fediverse.
A person doesn't have to write longer things somewhere else and boost them through Mastodon. Instead the person could simply write the longer things, and that is that. The content will show up on Fediverse whether it is written through Mastodon or write.as or whatever else.
The real way to look at it is that Mastodon limits what a person can write. Other programs don't have those limitations, which requires threading to make up for the artificial restrictions.
So you don't have to jump through Mastodon hoops to get around those limitations, you don't have to use Mastodon at all. Use the interface that works best for what content you want to share.
Right, but that does confirm that it is good for us all.
Even if some people find it extra good, while some people find it just simply good, that's good for us all!
volkris
boosted
Journalists will never stick around this app long term sadly unless it adds quote posting. We desperately need it to communicate effectively, build on each others ideas, and add crucial context to posts. These are things replies simply do not accomplish. Also quote posting or reblogging does not = harassment! Tumblr, for instance, has had the feature since the beginning. We need it here now too 🙏🏻
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Wow, I don't know what kinds of companies you're familiar with, but yeah companies do tend to stick their noses into plant operations to make sure the plants aren't going way off track and doing bad things.
And by analogy, I would say it's REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT to keep law enforcement from going off track and doing bad things.
I don't know why you seem so trusting in law enforcement agencies, but history tells us bad things happen when they're allowed to operate without such oversight.
Something of a dumpster fire, that is...
From repeating talking points that have been long debunked through a presentation that looks like it can barely get the words out through inconsistent proposals for coming together over divisive topics... this is a train wreck.
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:
