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
@lori yeah, and that's part of why I find @emc2's post to be a bit counterproductive.
This platform needs to recognize the realities of different types of users and different commitments that instance owners need to make to keep it going.
To say that profit is not welcome here, or doesn't exist here at all, is either to limit the value that the platform can provide to users or to just flat out deny reality. Neither one strikes me as particularly healthy.
It seems better to me to talk about how Yes, there is profit here, and yes, there is a reason that the platform might want new users, more users, because network effects tend to scale based on that.
If he doesn't want to have a certain type of user on the platform, that's a fair value to hold, but I guess it's just about being clear about that, so we can make an honest judgment of that position.
It just sounds like now you're at the point of saying other than these profits there are no profits, and other than this power structure there isn't a power structure.
It's not a brilliant stance to take.
Big profits? We're in the world did you read that?
And you don't think the enforcement of rules is a power structure?
I mean I can say it again if you need me to: you are saying a thing doesn't exist even though I see it every single day on this platform, so clearly you are not having a broad enough experience to see that it happens.
You've really never seen instance operators put up the rules of their instance? I figure most instances have those right on their front page, and if I was at a computer I would go take a screenshot or something for you, but it seems so ubiquitous that I can't believe you can't just go look for yourself.
You think the good people behind indieweb.social are operating your instance because they think it's a bad thing without value to them? I really doubt that. I'm certain the guy operating my instance finds it to be a profitable pursuit. I guess I could ask him, but it seems obvious to me.
So it strikes me that if you haven't experienced these things then you are living kind of a sheltered life. But really I suspect that you have, but you're ignoring it for rhetorical effect.
Either way, it's a bit silly.
Maybe the hearing was a complete lie. Maybe all of the evidence is fabricated. Maybe this is nothing but a witch hunt.
But I really do think that there should at least be discussion about this congressional hearing on this platform, and even after specifically searching for discussion, I see literally two people talking about it.
Echo chambers are so dangerous to our society. It's really unfortunate that this platform seems to be embracing echo chamber effects, often very deliberately.
NEW - House Oversight reveals the nine Biden family members that received wire transfers from foreign nationals via shell companies. 1. Hunter Bide...
Yeah it's funny, I'm actually searching for any mention of it on this platform and coming up pretty empty.
It just goes to show what an echo chamber this platform is.
Again, because encryption is so legitimately difficult to get right with so many pitfalls and so much room for honest error, I don't think anybody should start with management when deciding whether to trust an implementation.
That is so far removed from actually guaranteeing a secure system that it's really pretty beside the point.
It does make for good drama, but it has little to do with the end result.
Well every single person operating an instance, paying to keep it online, is doing so because they drive some value from doing so, some profit from doing so.
Nobody is going to harm themselves intentionally by spending resources on running an instance if they don't think it's for the best.
You've never heard of a volunteer worker being exploited or ordered around? Hell, I've heard a lot of volunteers complaining about exactly that sort of thing throughout my life.
It just really comes across like you need to broaden your experience of it, both on this platform and in the broader world.
Yes.
If you have a version that you are comfortable with, and you are uncomfortable with what might be in future versions, don't install the future versions.
You put your finger on it.
I think this promotes a misunderstanding of how the Supreme Court works in the US system of government.
No, the Supreme Court wouldn't legalize weapons. The question before the court is whether some restrictions are legal, so the courts ruling would be about the enforceability of a regulation, not the legality of the weapon.
If a state is violating the law by bringing charges against individuals, that's what the Supreme Court would call out.
Oh I see that here everyday, with instance owners enforcing their own rules and profiting off of running their instances.
I think you have a very narrow view of what's going on on this platform. That other stuff is definitely here.
So one funny thing about this question is that #cryptography is legitimately difficult to do correctly, with plenty of room for mistakes.
So part of the story is that even if you think #musk
is a terribly dishonest person, while some other developer is a completely honest one, the trickiness of implementation means that you still can't trust the honest one. The intention becomes something of a side note because it's just that easy to screw it up.
So I don't care who implements it. I really don't go for that sort of drama. The product needs to sink or swim on its own, to be shown to be solid regardless of any kind of ad hominem attack on its author.
I don't care who writes it; I'm going to gauge my trust on what independent experts in the field say once they have analyzed it.
But again, the whole point of #E2E encryption is not having to trust the developer.
Specifically, what doesn't exist here?
Well again, why?
Just saying we film other things is not a very compelling reason to do it.
Not necessarily. It depends on how the software is distributed and such.
So what this comes down to is a simple disagreement about the type of people you want on this platform.
You want this platform to be one way, other people want it to be a different way, and that's just an honest disagreement.
They don't hide behind mystery. They put the opinions out on their website and hand copies to the press as soon as they are handed down.
They're not hiding what they look like. What they look like just doesn't matter, so why accept the downsides of cameras, turning the argument into a performance, turning it into the circus that is a congressional hearing, when it just doesn't matter one bit what it looks like?
They aren't legislators; they operate completely different in the US system of government.
It just makes no sense to call for cameras in the Supreme Court. That urge seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how the Court--and the federal government in general--functions.
No I'm not taking the word of a tweet for it, but I would expect some independent analysis to look at how they E2E feature seems to operate, just like I would for any other company or developer.
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:
