volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@InkySchwartz

Dude, your specific example refuted the discussion, showing that it was off base!

@futurebird @cadenza

@samuel

Well it's an issue of no perfect solution, only trade-offs with downsides.

In this case the alternative is empowering somebody else to censor the content that you see.

Are they going to do a good job? Or are they going to censor things in ways that you don't actually like? Or are they going to actually take advantage of that power that you are giving them to censor things in ways that intentionally manipulate you?

There are serious downsides to handing other people control over what you see, even if the motivation might be reasonable. It still takes a big risk.

@folkerschamel @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @steve

@CatHat

And yet, believe it or not, Nazis are not servers.

@WaddlingFungus

@MaRY1Fem

I don't think it's so much that they allow it as they have a general rule against interfering in the activities of other courts without really clear malfunction, and in this case it looks like judge after judge, court after court ruled against the guy, leaving little room for the SCOTUS to act and throw out all of those rulings.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere because it looked like the applicant had his day in court, and they didn't see room to override all of those other judges.

@cadenza

What in the world are you talking about?

@daedalean

You're missing that those two months occurred BEFORE the legal process to count the EC votes.
It was a general range of time before the election, not following the election, that he supposedly lost, before it occurred.

You're missing the big issue with this accusation, that the guy supposedly refuted an election that hadn't happened yet, by the indictment's own admission if not general knowledge about how the process works in the US, by law.

@CatHat You misunderstand.

This is not about blocking Nazis. They are talking about blocking servers.

@WaddlingFungus

@coreyrayburnyung

Right, maybe, but with so much of the process, reviewer after reviewer, agreeing that his case didn't merit overturning, it's easy to see why SCOTUS didn't feel like this was an exceptional moment to interfere in the state proceedings.

I haven't seen any convincing claim of an error in the process that doesn't come down to mere disagreement with the outcome.

It sounds like the applicant had his day(s) in court, regardless of what you or I or a Justice might think about how the courts ruled.

@chrisgeidner

@ouij

IMO, I gripe that the protocol is not beautifully designed at all :)

Setting that aside, though, generally when you search for a hashtag through your home account/instance, the instance doesn't search all of fediverse for it, but only searches through the limited number of posts that have happened to be shared to that one instance that you're on.

That really limits the horizon of content that is available for it to show you, but it's how the system was designed to function.

To put it a different way, each instance only subscribes to feeds that its users have expressed interest in, and so each can only sort through posts in those limited feeds. That's what you're seeing, the window that your particular instance has on the larger network.

@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch

@WaddlingFungus

Personally, I go farther than that: I would only block a server for infrastructure reasons, if a server is causing a technical threat to the system, flooding messages or whatever.

Blocking an instance over content is a technical solution to a social problem.

Throttling is fine. You don't have to promote an instance's content in your own public stream. You don't have to actively promote the problematic instance.

But beyond that, I'd prefer to focus on empowering users to shape their own experiences, to shape the content they see as they wish, and put only technical issues in the hands of server operators.

@ned

I don't think that the CBC forgot.
It's just that their goals of broadcasting widely were better met by being on Twitter than not.

@jd

@cadenza

Again, so what's your goal?

Also, you seem quite obsessed with Nazis...

@Archasa

Are those the comments that also replied to the same comment that you're either looking at or that you've replied to?

My impression (I could be wrong) is that Mastodon treats it like a tree of branching threads, so it will display comments that are on the same fork of conversation that you're on.

So that if you click on the first post, THEN you're looking at the whole tree, and it will show a lot more comments.

@cadenza

Firstly, you're still arguing against strawmen, debating against claims that aren't on the table.

But putting that aside, here's a higher level question: you seem to be saying that there's no point discussing things with those who don't already agree with the position, at which point I'd ask, What's the point?

If you've given up on bringing others over to your perspective, then what's the point of even exploring the perspective?

It strikes me as just spinning wheels at that point, accepting the lines as they're drawn with no hope of moving anyone.

@jupiter_rowland

It really comes down to something like artist's intent.

It comes down to what the poster intends their post to be like.

@eternity

I mean, sometimes users want things because they simply provide better experiences?

In my experience the chronological feed hides good stuff int he stream of a ton of uninteresting and repetitive stuff, so a better algorithm would help show me better stuff than the chronological feeds does.