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 think I am just not so quick to embrace deficiencies in the software of the moment. I would like to see improvements in the software, hopefully improvements that wouldn't actually take all that long to implement.
Surely UIs can be updated in a matter of weeks, not years, to give users more power instead of relying on administrators making those choices for swaths of users.
I'm just not so ready to give up on users having control of their experiences, especially in this environment where so many people are complaining about other platforms that they have left because of administrators taking that power over users.
That's not at all what I am saying, so if that's what you think I have said, I assure you you have misunderstood.
... they spelled out the standing in the opinion, but never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory, huh?
Again, feel free to lay out exactly where you disagree with the ruling. I'm BEGGING you at this point to actually address the ruling instead of handwaving about matters they actually did address and settle.
Going out of their way to say why an argument doesn't hold water doesn't mean it was a lawful policy. It means they've dotted their is, closing out various arguments that it is lawful.
It's really twisting things, saying that being careful to get it right is proof that they're wrong.
It's foolish in the extreme that anyone would be taking that position.
I think the issue is that I've read the actual opinion that addressed and refuted this sort of argument head on!
I mean, I'm not going to let some Politico clickbait set up a strawman when the SCOTUS ruling headed off this claim.
It'd be one thing if the Court let this go, but no, it went out of its way to explain why this perspective is incorrect, both factually and as a matter of law.
So like I said, feel free to say exactly where you believe the SCOTUS refutation of this claim is faulty. Otherwise, the opinion speaks for itself, and Politico is just off the mark.
If that's what you're basing your claim on, well the Court explicitly addressed that, so where exactly do you say the Court went wrong in countering this argument?
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
YES! Because that's how the US system of government works.
The losers in a Supreme Court argument have had their argument authoritatively declared wrong, by law, regardless of what we think about it.
The winners of Dred Scott won, and the losers lost. Later on those topics were reconsidered, but as it stood then, that was the ruling.
We don't have to agree with the ruling of the Court, but it is nonetheless true that the ones who lost at the Court had their argument officially rejected.
Look it up? No, if you're looking to make a convincing argument, then present the factual basis for what you're trying to convince others of.
Or else, why bother?
If you can't lay your argument on the table, why bother handwaving at it?
You say Congress did exactly that, ok, *where* did they do that?
There was a plaintiff that didn't know why it was even involved? Who?
It's pretty out there to expect other people to support your own out there claims if you're not interested in doing so.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
Why read the dissent to see what SCOTUS said? We can read the opinion directly, without having to rely on the argument that didn't carry the day.
The dissent is wrong. How do we know? Because, legally, it was determined to be wrong.
Why in the world would we ignore what we can read for our own eyes to instead substitute a perspective that was on the losing end of the argument?
The Supreme Court ruled on government action.
People can challenge Hollywood all they want, but it wouldn't be based on the SCOTUS ruling.
Hollywood, as a private entity, is free to discriminate based on race all it wants.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
That's not what the Supreme Court ruled, though.
It was not the question before the court.
Well it doesn't really matter because by law they don't have the authority to make such determinations.
It's up to Congress to pass those laws. SCOTUS is required to follow the law.
So if students need loan forgiveness, that's up to congresspeople to hear and to pass new legislation addressing it.
The Supreme Court has no business overriding democratically passed law on account of their friends.
I mean, they're free to misrepresent the ruling.
Just as we're free to push back and say such a stance is ridiculous and completely unsupported by the Court.
@bigheadtales Is it, though?
And here I thought the hallmarks of fascism were about folks in power coming down on the population.
I didn't think fascism was generally regarded as what's happening in peoples' personal finances.
When SCOTUS issues ruling after ruling restraining the police, I really don't care what their bank accounts look like.
Oh, my whole point is that empowering users IS the middle ground.
ActivityPub is sadly lacking in the ability of users to migrate between instances, even overlooking all of the issues involved in the positives for having instances in the first place, the communal aspect of it.
So, should the admin expose their users to Meta? Should they close it off? Meh, middle ground is letting each user choose what experience they want.
@thenexusofprivacy @folkerschamel
Well, it's such a huge topic, one of those where there's no perfect solution, just different imperfect options, all with their drawbacks.
I do have two responses though:
It's been missed in the reporting that SCOTUS actually DOES have ethical rules. For example, Thomas is reported to have consulted the authorities on those rules at the time, who told him how to abide by them. And when the rules changed, he pivoted to abide by the new rules as well.
So the rules do exist, despite so many reports getting that wrong.
Second, when you talk about shaking things up, keep in mind that reliability and predictability are inherently valuable to the legal system.
*Even if* a rule might be a bit off-key, it's valuable for a person to know what the rule will be. Shaking things up comes at a cost.
Really, it's a count your blessings situation. A new Court has every chance of being worse.
Firstly, I don't think you have your facts right here, but setting that aside.
Assume for a moment that you're completely correct, that they were legislating, and that such legislation would be respected.
Even so, legislation opposing the authority of government and restraining the hands of executives who demand power is hardly the image most of us have of the Third Reich.
The "legislation" we've seen insisting that executives are bound by the democratic processes and can't unilaterally use prosecution to impose on citizens seems to go pretty strongly in the other direction.
This reminds me that I was never really able to enjoy #Twitter, and I think my objection was rooted in the philosophy that would intentionally and unnecessarily hamper posters by a character count.
Every other thing that irked me, from the UI through the algorithm, seems related to that original sin: a platform willing to block the beauty of the written word probably would be up for all of the rest of the ugliness of the experience.
And, of course, writers handcuffing themselves to such policies would be going into it with limitations on their craft.
I'm so glad at least some #Fediverse interfaces allow for writing that is as long as it needs to be to express the writer's beauty.
Choice paralysis is a much larger and more broadly recognized part of human psychology than something being caused by Twitter or learned helplessness.
But practically, choice paralysis is a real barrier to adoption of #Fediverse for so many users, so it's probably healthy to recognize and address the human factor concern, not dismiss it this way.
Here's the moment, for any fellow parlipro geeks, on the last page of this edition of the Congressional Record.
The unanimous consent requirement to vote on a nominee was bypassed with a vote of 52 to 48, overcoming the objections of 43 senators.
Of course they can't suspend the normal procedures using the normal procedures. But they always have this option available, and they indulge Tuberville by not calling him on the mat.
"Under the precedent set by the Senate today, November 21, 2013, the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those to the Supreme Court of the United States, is now a majority. That is the ruling of the Chair."
https://www.congress.gov/113/crec/2013/11/21/CREC-2013-11-21-pt1-PgS8413-5.pdf
@MJmusicinears @samhainnight
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:
