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
But that's exactly my question, HOW is it incompatible?
I was looking for specifics as to your disagreement, and just saying it's incompatible doesn't support your argument.
How specifically is it incompatible? That's what I'm asking about.
I mean it's apples and oranges. The one does not have to do with the other.
Are people willing to reelect Biden even though he has done some really questionable things? I don't know. We will find out. That's why we have elections
Yeah, but however we want to judge it, for better or worse, this seems to be how humans are.
Just based on real world experience, it's an empirical question, whether we like it or not, and I don't like it, a whole lot of business and correspondence and organization and progress is made when humans meet in person, often with booze involved.
Again I reiterate that I don't like this observation, but it seems to be pretty solid in my experience and also in the experiences of so many others who keep going back to this well
It is what it is even though you and I might not like it to be this way. And we can't deny it just because we wish it was otherwise.
Well that's what I'm trying to ask you! 🙂
I'm trying to ask you where you think the majority ruling went wrong, so why do you think this is wrong?
Personally, I am a country person.
I don't like cities. I find them claustrophobic and noisy and generally annoying. But my personal preferences aside, I appreciate that there is a certain economy of scale that seems to benefit from a certain level of urban density, the exact same sort of thing that gives rise to academic conferences getting together in person.
It is irrational, but a bunch of academics all drinking wine and getting a little toasted together does lead to progress.
So that's just how humans are. Whether I like it or not, whether it is good for our mental or physical health or not, that is just how humans are wired.
A zoom meeting is just no substitute for a couple dozen people talking amongst themselves in person in a room.
Literally last week I was unofficially officially required to join a little work party among a bunch of different people to celebrate the end of a project, and you could just see the gears turning for the next project as these people met in person to discuss the past and talk about the future.
It's just how humans are wired, whether we like it or not.
But that is not what the ruling said.
The ruling did not read "adjacent wetlands" out of the statute, but rather as dissenting opinions emphasized, it found that "adjacent" had a less binding meaning.
So no, that argument doesn't hold any water
Logically I would agree with you.
But I think that human irrationality means that I have to accept that the world doesn't quite follow that theory.
And the biggest ax that I have to grind in this way is the inefficiency of large cities, that run into huge scaling problems. Why do they exist? Why do we accept the cost of supporting large cities with dense populations when we could shoulder the cost of those populations in more efficient, smaller communities?
Well, I think the research shows that there are these irrational factors whereby humans derive value out of being packed together so closely. And that is regardless of technology.
In my ideal world humans would be more efficient and not drive benefit from such costly side factors like overly large cities or face to face time in the workplace, but we are stuck with the humans we are stuck with :-)
Humans are going to spend resources on office buildings, huge cities, and the super bowl, and that's just part of human nature, whether I like it or not, and I don't, but there you go.
So it sounds like @heatherlynn8571 is so protective of their foregone conclusions that they don't stop to engage and realize that their assumptions about other people are wrong.
That's a shame.
I don't think it's a stark true or false question.
Some level of in person face time has huge benefits, but the marginal advantage drops off quite quickly.
So one day a week in the office or even one day every other week can have huge benefits, but every day in the office ends up having the marginal costs soaring past the marginal benefits.
Consider the existence of academic conferences. They are expensive, and time-consuming, and take a ton of time, and yet academic societies around the world keep having them. Why? Because as irrational as it may be, humans do experience progress from seeing each other in person.
I don't believe these tech companies are stupid or looking to throw money away on the costs of having people come to their offices. I think they actually do see the benefits from people showing up in person.
They are the ones with skin in the game, so I tend to defer to their decisions to spend their resources in this way
Yes, yes, this is social media, where we yell at clouds 🙂
But what I'm saying, behind the wording, is that if you are living under the threat of a regulatory hammer being dropped on you if the people in power don't like what you do, then you're not exactly free, you are being threatened only one step removed from the specific threat of jail time or other penalty.
So just based on your own framing , I would not say they have the right, I would say they have permission.
IF, as you say, it's a possibility that regulators might get involved and act against them should they behave in ways that those in power don't like, I wouldn't call that a right, I would call it behavior that is being tolerated for now.
At the moment these platforms seem to have a level of permission to operate so long as they don't let it get out of hand in the eyes of those in power. That's a very different picture from platforms having the right to empower users to speak to each other willy nilly.
If these platforms are operating under threat of regulation, which is the situation you are presenting, then they don't really have the right. They are doing their best to serve us while looking over their shoulders fearful of regulatory hammers coming down on them.
Meh, charging third parties to take advantage of their own computation doesn't strike me as going crazy.
If you're saying there will be consequences then that sounds to me like they don't have the right.
If they had such a right then they wouldn't have to be concerned about consequences from regulators, since a right is generally understood as something that regulators can't intrude upon.
If Google has a right to return this information to YT then regulators have no place to regulate that right.
Well that's nice, so don't vote for them. *shrug*
That's your vote to use any way you want.
You're not arguing against me. I entirely agree with your statement. That is not the dispute.
The issue is not whether lies get distributed or accepted. The issue is a step removed from that, who gets to decide what is and is not lies.
I agree that lies get distributed and accepted. You don't have to convince me of that. I'm on your side with that.
Yeah the problem with banning misinformation is the tricky issue of who gets to decide what is and isn't misinformation.
We've seen that power abused way too often throughout history and even recent history.
It's better to empower users and the general public than to empower gatekeepers to decide what we get to see.
*sigh*
Well just realize that at this point you're coming across as something of a religious zealot.
You seem to be falling into the thought pattern where not only is it wrong to have different opinions from yourself, but it's even wrong to question whether it's okay to have different opinions from yourself.
It's always a red flag in my book when questioning of opinion is itself not allowed, when a philosophy has that built-in self protection rule.
@ArtBear@mastodonapp.uk @atomicpoet
But that's democracy. I personally don't have anybody that I would possibly want to vote for, but meh, people use their votes the way they want to, and a lot of voters like those people, which is how they get elected.
There might be no one decent in my opinion, but other voters have different opinions, and a lot of voters are using their power to elect these figures.
Democracy is messy. It's the worst way of doing things, except for all the others.
That explanation doesn't really apply here since we're talking about people standing up to power, standing up to a prosecutor wanting to bring the hammer down on somebody.
And we're talking about run-of-the-mill, everyday members of the public.
It's not that they want power. It's that they are operating from a different set of facts as they push back against power.
When you keep with the phrase of being ready, I think you are missing my point.
It's not about ready, it's about opinion. Maybe they'll never agree with you, never adopt your personal opinions.
Has nothing to do with being ready or not ready. It only has to do with diversity of thought.
@ArtBear@mastodonapp.uk @atomicpoet
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:
