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
Well I'd say it IS a true federation, complete with that drawback :)
BECAUSE it's a federation and not a centralized system, that's how it works.
I think so much comes down to us not holding the right people accountable.
We keep reelecting the exact politicians who do exactly the things we say we don't want.
I have so many friends who will actively campaign for the reelection of a politician who voted against the things they say are most important to them.
Often enough those friends simply don't know the voting records of the people they're promoting.
And so today we'll see a lot of legislators pointing fingers at the courts for acting on the laws that the legislators themselves could have been fixing.
It's no wonder we're in this situation.
I laugh because no, #Twitter and #Facebook don't spew misinformation and hatred so much as users spew it into the virtual town square.
And this distinction is important because I see the exact same misinformation and hatred here on #Fediverse.
Users are users. People want to spew this stuff, and it follows them to whatever platform they wish to use.
These services allow people to communicate, but humans being human, they will be spewing this stuff.
Such is social media...
That's simply how the underlying ActivityPub system was designed. It was intentionally designed around instances, not users.
In ActivityPub the system is centralized around instances. They are the core unit.
So things like account transfers are sort of irrelevant to the core protocol. Why, the protocol would ask, would anyone want to do that?
We could do better. But the designers of the system decided to go a different direction.
This is one of the reasons some people are optimistic about Bluesky making better choices.
Oh for heaven's sake...
Now we're doing the stupid pseudolegal "I don't consent to my content being used" thing here?
It wasn't legit when it was on any of the other platforms, and it's especially not legit on this platform where by posting something you are actively triggering a process by which the content is broadcast to others.
To declare that you don't consent to Meta getting your data really doesn't wash with this protocol that actively broadcasts it to them.
It's like yelling across your fence to your neighbor that you don't consent to his hearing you. You're the one yelling at him!
A distributed social network means even less control over where content goes.
But this is like yelling across your fence to your neighbor that you don't consent to your neighbor hearing your yelling.
Through ActivityPub you broadcast your posts to listeners.
It's kind of silly to say you don't consent to the exact thing that you cause by posting.
Well right.
Such an international obligation only imposes on the US to the extent that it's codified into US law, which is what SCOTUS took into account as it made its judgement.
It would be and end run around US law for the court to have ignored US law to consider the convention directly.
What matters is what our elected representatives voted into force.
It's funny because other posts on social media are chiding the decision for ending a policy that primarily benefits white women.
Get it together, Fediverse.
Do you have a link to his comments?
Really it sounds like an administrator more than a dictator. He would have been given a pot of money, and he'll spend his money the way he sees fit, more than dictating how others spend theirs.
Well you quoted it.
You can see that military.com got it wrong seeing as the opinion didn't specifically exempt military academies but rather noted that they simply weren't relevant.
The two quotes you gave say different things, so the SCOTUS version of what SCOTUS said wins.
@KFuentesGeorge
It would have been more productive if you had cited what you were actually talking about earlier.
It's a little late in the game to actually bring up the specific things that you were responding to.
No, not at all. That was not in the opinion. The opinion explicitly said otherwise.
I mean you can say that all you want, but the actual opinion pretty much sinks your claim.
I'm sorry but you are apparently clinging to this idea that is very easy to debunk by looking at what they actually said.
I don't know why you would do that, but you do you.
You said that they only know that one quote from MLK.
Well no. If you read the opinion, they know a lot of other things besides that one quote, most importantly, they know the laws that were passed through the democratic process. They cited the laws that our elected representatives enacted that have nothing to do with MLK.
Well the thing is, since the justices were citing quite a lot of law, it shows that they in fact do know more than just one MLK quote.
And in fact they know things that are actually pregnant to their job.
The MLK quote had nothing to do with their job, but all of the laws they were citing did, so that they were quoting things actually related to their job is pretty important in this ruling.
Also I made no such contention, so I don't know where you got that from either
Well they also cited law, so that was a pretty important part of the decision that was required by the law.
Yeah. Reading her opinions I can never tell if Sotomayor is really as daft as she presents herself, or if she is just writing for an audience that's going to go along with it.
People who only read this sentence but don't bother reading the actual opinion might take it on faith.
Maybe that's what she's counting on. Or maybe she really honestly does not understand what's happening around her.
No, that's not how the appeals process works in the US.
The Supreme Court speaks to the specific case before it, lower courts then apply the precedent as best they can to other cases, and SCOTUS occasionally tells them they've done it correctly or not in future cases.
You see this in gun rights cases pretty frequently, with lower courts sometimes getting it wrong and SCOTUS correcting them.
As for Roberts, he made this explicit in his footnote:
"This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present."
Always remember that when acting as a court of appeals the Supreme Court isn't judging the basic case so much as it's judging what lower courts have done.
Whether the email is fraudulent is an issue for the lower court. SCOTUS isn't there to judge the evidence. It's there to judge the question presented from the lower court.
So SCOTUS is there to scrutinize what the 10th Circuit did while assuming its reading of the facts to be correct for the sake of the argument.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/21-00476qp.pdf
In his concurrence Thomas specifically says the opposite, that the Constitution was NOT colorblind.
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:
