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
My [uninformed] impression is that this wouldn't get them out of having to comply more fully with EU regulations, which would be pretty concerned with the backend, not just the front.
Or to look at it a different way, whatever they could do with an ActivityPub Threads app they could do with a non-AP Threads app.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
Right, when I say law I mean all law, not just statutes but also the Constitution, and my statement stands: if we need to change the law, including the Constitution, then we can.
Nothing in recent rulings has been particularly novel to anyone who's been following legal arguments over the last decade or two or longer. Many of these decisions had been telegraphed for quite a while, as the Court cited plenty of background for each.
I don't know why you keep referring to the failed argument as if it's authoritative. Of course I did read the dissents, and I saw that they were wrong. ::shrug::
I mean, if you'd read the winning argument you'd understand that :)
The EPA can certainly act, as Congress has given it plenty of authority. The problem is that it was acting against people outside of the authority that the democratic process had allowed it.
If we DO want the EPA to have this authority, great, we can grant it that authority through the legislative process, and the Court would have had no problem with the action.
This has nothing to do with any other case. It's simply a matter of in this case the executive branch had been prosecuting people illegally.
It could be made legal through legislation, if we want, but at this point it was illegal prosecution.
A significant part of the story that has come out lately is Thomas pointing out that he consulted SCOTUS experts who guided him in applying their code of ethics, which in itself shows that they do have a code of ethics, despite so much misreporting saying the opposite.
As for lifetime appointment meaning something different now, I completely disagree with that.
The goal of the lifetime appointment, upon good behavior, is to insulate the Court, if imperfectly, from political influence and strategic gaming, and that goal remains no matter how long lifetimes may be.
Again, I say there is no perfect solution, just different imperfect options with different tradeoffs, but I personally don't think the lifespan argument makes much difference.
So basically, these right-leaning states aren't implementing left-leaning policies.
This is a really good example of how methodology behind an analysis can shape the result, and how readers really need to pay attention to the methodology instead of simply reacting to headlines.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
I mean, if the law is dangerously in need of reform then reform the law. That's the democratic process that the US system is based around.
It's a bit foolish to complain that a judge isn't maintaining an illegal system, kicking the can down the road until the next time it comes in front of a judge, instead of just fixing the law so that the result is durable.
Do you have a link to the standard?
I haven't seen any implementation that strikes me as particularly complete, so I'd be interested in seeing some documentation about it.
It really always feels pretty ad hoc and questionable every time I have read about some implementation of account migration, but maybe I just haven't seen the right description of it.
@devnull @Brendanjones @charlesroper @alexeheath @darnell @atomicpoet
I think the real solution is making it easier and easier for the user to block. Make the suspend button nice and big for the user so it won't be so overwhelming.
Instance blocking because of content should be primarily up to the user, not something for the admin to have to deal with.
If it's overwhelming for the user then that's mainly a sign that it's too hard for the user and needs to be made easier.
I would change the perspective a bit to say that the goal of all of this is not the platform itself, but the user experience. Fediverse does not exist just for the sake of existing.
And so since the point is the user experience, I as the user am more invested in my own experience than anybody else is. Because I'm me :-)
I think the problem is that people are comparing against a reality that doesn't exist and never has.
It's not like Threads joining is going to wreck some system that preserved privacy. There IS no system that preserves privacy right now. Meta can ALREADY vacuum up so much of this information if it wants to, as can anybody else, whether or not it decides to join and federate.
So it's not a choice between privacy versus allowing Threads on. There is no choice of privacy here. So that's a false dichotomy.
And that users today don't realize how unprivate the system is today is itself a problem that has nothing to do with Meta. That people believe this is the choice goes to show that they are uninformed about how there is no choice of privacy, goes to show how they believe the system is private when it really isn't.
They're not preventing the EPA from carrying out its mandate. That's just not factually correct. Instead they pointed out that the president has no legal authority to have the EPA bring down the force of government against us in the way that they did.
So when you say you're not sure how this stuff fights fascism, you need to go to the facts of the cases, where the president was claiming unilateral rights to act, often against civilians, and the court simply said no, the president is not above the law like that.
The facts on the ground are important, and it sounds like you are missing the facts in all of these cases.
At this point I just really note that you continue to refrain from siding any particular passage from the opinion that you might disagree with.
Again: hand waving
I mean just go through the headline rulings of this term, from saying that the executive does not have unilateral authority to override congressional budgeting with student loans through saying that the executive does not have unilateral authority to drop the hammer on people who are involved with waterways.
This term has been strikingly anti-facism under definitions like yours.
It has been exactly citing legal reasons that the executive cannot enrich itself, I guess, without authority from the democratic process.
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?
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:
