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
More promising of things he can't possibly deliver.
To establish Roe would require a constitutional amendment, which the public is definitely not up for.
So just setting up for another broken promise in a long track record of them.
Why do people care?
@I_Like_Books@strangeobject.space
I'm curious what examples would be given to illustrate the observation.
For better or worse Robert Reich reports his opinions spun his way.
Why in the world would you to go him to see his responses? As a commentator he's absolutely not going to give a fair account.
Best go to the primary source to avoid confirmation bias.
Or, and I always encourage this choice, ignore the whole thing.
Better to ignore politics than buy into a slanted view of it.
You're getting the logic backwards, though.
This isn't about what we MUST regulate, but about what a legislature CAN regulate.
This isn't a challenge to something unregulated, saying that it should be. This is the opposite, a challenge to a regulation that IS, saying it can't be.
@morax@satanodon.com
Well I hope you set your bar for politicians higher than that...
To clarify, this isn't some notion that at some point a hacker might break in to a computer and spy or anything like that.
The system is built on the idea of broadcasting content fairly openly. So it doesn't take any exceptional spycraft to just receive the broadcast.
I always try to raise awareness of the lack of real, reliable privacy controls on #Fediverse, just due to how the underlying system was designed.
You clearly know about this issue :) but so many users who aren't as tech savvy, and some who are, might assume the system is more secure than it really is.
Users need to know not to post anything on Fediverse that they wouldn't want public.
It seems to me very likely that the company is simply watching all that content going through, especially as it sounds like they have the resources to process it.
Seems to me they're not screwed at all, as they can either flat out lie or hedge with, "did not reply to our question by press time."
Which is technically true: even if you replied to their email, if your response didn't answer their question, then they can simply say you didn't answer their question.
Sadly, the only real solution to this problem is for the general public to move to better press outfits, which is an issue coming and going, the lack of better press outfits PLUS a public that kind of likes the rubbish.
I think SpaceX was always clear that they were providing the donation of service as a charitable move that wouldn't last forever, that they couldn't just keep losing money indefinitely.
So it's a bit strange to frame it as an ultimatum.
It's more of an offer to continue the service on a sustainable footing.
It's like saying McDonald's gave me an ultimatum that if I didn't pay them $5 they wouldn't give me a hamburger. I wouldn't call that an ultimatum.
I was going to ask in what ways Twitter was worse (I've never used the site much), so this answers my question.
So it's not so much that Twitter itself is worse, but that the user based changed, causing kind of a self-reinforcing, self-fulfilling prophesy of users leaving.
I'd add another option:
"Who knows? ignore"
Which is to say, I don't know, and it makes no sense to assume, ignore either way.
But that comes down to projecting your personal values on other users who likely have different values from your own.
It's great that you use the platform that way, but others use it in different ways, that give them more value.
Leave the control in the hands of the user, I'd say. Let the user decide whether they do or don't value that information.
That's not quite right.
Plenty of us used more than one platform, so it doesn't mean one less user for another, and really here Fediverse is the platform and Pixelfed, Mastodon, etc, are all just interfaces to the same platform.
It's true that Fediverse allows more diversity and creativity in those interfaces and moderation on instances, but I wouldn't say it's fundamentally that different from old platforms.
OF COURSE copyright is monopoly.
It's silly to say it's not a monopoly because I can sell something completely different.
If I can't print a book without your permission that describes the government enforced monopoly you have over that book.
The entire point of intellectual property laws is to establish and enforce monopolies to benefit creators, for better or worse.
@arstechnica @Corb_The_Lesser
re: #Libertarians and fedi misconceptions...
@Melpomene@erisly.social
But we don't need the parties' permission to improve the voting system. If the general public wanted the change, then it would undermine the parties' power, undercutting their relevance, and their protestations wouldn't matter that much.
The problem is that the general public doesn't understand the issue with the voting system.
We see this in response to the use of RCV in Alaska, where so many individuals felt that the outcome was faulty when it delivered results that were better. They didn't understand the system even after it was implemented.
Everything else, including the people controlling the system, hangs on that one issue.
I think they have such core differences that it's almost apples and oranges to compare them.
Fediverse is focused on instances, putting all the functionality there. BlueSky and Nostr are focused on users, to different extents, putting control in their hands.
It's hard to reconcile those very different philosophies.
Think of #Musk as a bored troll.
He likes to get a rise out of people because at least it's something interesting to watch, so his moves at #Twitter are proving highly effective.
He's toying with people, and they're giving him exactly the sorts of responses that he wants to elicit.
It's probably not healthy for him, and it's definitely not healthy for the society that descends into the negativity, but as with all trolls, the way to handle them is not to feed them (as the old internet adage went).
He basically says, If you're going to give me these buttons to push, I'm going to push them.
We should stop giving him the buttons, but obviously we won't.
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:
