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
Meh, personally, I figure if someone is wearing a cape they're trying to compensate for not having much interesting to say :)
Yes, and everyone needs to keep in mind that given the design decisions behind ActivityPub, all privacy related issues are on a voluntary basis.
If you post content with a specific audience, that will probably get actively broadcast to a different instance whose operator has every ability to ignore the privacy settings, rebroadcast the content publicly, and ignore all requests for deletion.
This is an ax I grind around here because so many people don't realize how weak privacy protections are when they act on this platform.
Well that's easy: the decisions made by this Court have validity because they follow the prescribed procedures and have constitutional sanction.
You may not like the decisions or the people personally involved, but they check their boxes, and so they are valid.
volkris
boosted
To give a bit more context for people outside of San Francisco, in addition to being guinea pigs for self-driving cars, SF has also become a testbed for the future of the surveillance state. In SF it's now legal for the police to monitor private surveillance cameras in real time: https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/23/23368603/san-francisco-police-private-surveillance-cameras-vote
In addition to the well-known problem with Ring cameras, the SFPD have spun off and funded a "private" nonprofit to set up cameras: https://sfsafe.org/our-mission/.
The SFPD has a history of using these cameras to surveil totally legal protests despite claiming that department policy doesn't allow that:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/sfpd-obtained-live-access-business-camera-network-anticipation-tyre-nichols
Really, just look over all the EFF headlines for San Francisco, and then it'll be clear that we can't let the city be blanketed in surveillance bots.
Where in the world do you find 1 billion bots and Nazis?
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
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:
