volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@whitey

How much would that save and what is the deficit today that needs to be resolved?

I don't know if even that would be enough of a spending cut to resolve the debt ceiling issue.

@dcjohnson

@ChemicalEyeGuy

So what specific interpretation do you believe this judge got wrong?

@toussaint

No, you're missing the separation of powers between branches, the checks and balances.

Congress does NOT do the spending. Congress gives permission to spend, but spending is done by the Treasury in the Executive Branch.

Spending is an Executive Branch activity, which is why the Treasury is in that branch and why the president is the one in charge of the reporting of what has been spent, as he spends.

@ChemicalEyeGuy

Well, I'm yelling that we need to reform the laws :)

But so often I see judges doing a good job interpreting bad laws, with lawmakers happy to point fingers at the judges because it relieves them of the responsibility for the laws that they themselves might have passed.

We should not let them get away with that, though.

The current circus around the FDA is a great example. We should be yelling at Biden to follow the approval laws and settle this whole thing, but he gets positive press for pointing fingers at courts.

@HopelessDemigod

I expect it will come down to enforcement, it's not that the ban itself is unconstitutional but rather the way they choose to enforce it (or not) might be.

The ban itself is rather nonsensical. The legislation should be seen as pretty dead, just rhetoric without practical application.

But if the state starts sending people fines for supposed violation, then those would hopefully be laughed out of court.

@ThinkingSapien

@Ruthie@mstdn.social

What in the world? Where did Mitch say he was going after Medicare or Social Security to pay for tax cuts?

That's not really how those programs interact.

@Nonilex

To be just a bit more specific, because I happen to have it in my copy/paste buffer:

> "In this Court, the sole question presented is whether the first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” §107(1), weighs in favor of AWF’s recent commercial licensing to Condé Nast."

@lauren

To be fair, that's a tradeoff many on that side are happy to accept.

I often hear conservatives talking about how "big business" takes advantage of "weak" immigration policies to lower wages in pursuit of profit, and they want to change that even if it means fewer workers.

(Their perspective, not mine.)

@Bernard

Sure, if you only interact with yourself on your own instance.

But the moment you federate, you're trusting the instance owners of those you federate with.
@nyquildotorg

@ChemicalEyeGuy

Well, right, they're different things.

The law is what it is regardless of science, regardless of whether the lawmakers even knew what science is, and judges rule based on law as it is, even if our democratic process lead to really awful, unscientific laws.

That's why we need to push for better laws, not yell at judges for giving us the outcomes that we, through our representatives, set up.

@deckerego

It sounds like a pretty narrow ruling in an unusual case without much implication for fair use:

> 'In this Court, the sole question presented is whether the first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” §107(1), weighs in favor of AWF’s recent commercial licensing to Condé Nast.'

@Porpentina2017

it sounds like you're overlooking that deference to administrations is a double-edged sword.

Really, this isn't about what courts do as it's about what presidents do. Should a president be able to reinterpret laws at will? What of the next time a president reinterprets a climate law to say he doesn't have to regulate pollution?

These justices are trying to rein that in, saying that presidents really do have to follow the laws as Congress passes them, without such reinterpretation.

@tetrislife

Yep. UI/UX is always the stumbling block for this kind of thing.

It's a crime that we don't have a norm of encrypted email messages, but the UI was never developed to make that happen.

Solutions we've had in academia for decades are just never mainstreamed because the UI never implements them.

It's a longstanding tragedy in tech.

@Bernard

ActivityPub was designed with the instance focus, so that ship has sailed. A user focus is just not in the cards for this system, having already been passed on.

@nyquildotorg

@Bernard

Well, it's a story of putting all the eggs in one basket, with upsides and downsides.

The downside is that it's one-stop-shopping for information. The upside is that it can be a single, professionally managed, legally accountable operator.

In Fediverse there's no way to know what those servers involved are doing with the information. You definitely can't hold 20K instances to any particular legal standard.

So it's a mixed bag, a wild west, for better or worse.

@nyquildotorg

@ChemicalEyeGuy

I mean, it's not up to judges to approve drugs. That's not their function in the US system.

Their job is to rule on whether laws have been properly respected, and in this case the FDA didn't follow the law, which is something the president really should see to.

We should also look into reforming the laws, but in any case that's not up to judges either.

@Bernard

But the distributed design of Fediverse requires it to broadcast content in ways that make it easier for third parties to vacuum content.

Not only is it still possible for instances to set up fingerprinting and cookies, but there's the new vector of all of the connectivity stuff normally inside a centralized system being broadcast to the world as it has to traverse between instances.

@nyquildotorg

@pezmico

But YES, let's argue about the effectiveness to figure out whether it's effective before society responds together with ineffective and cumbersome reactions!