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
It seems the story that #Musk disabled #Starlink to sabotage #Ukraine has been disputed by the author who was the original source for the whole thing.
This is why rushes to judgment based on sensational headlines are so unhealthy.
https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361
Fortunately we can go directly to the ruling itself to see if news stories are accurate.
Hilary Clinton didn't write the ruling, though she was the one critics were trying to speak out against when authorities tried to muzzle them, hence this case where the Court said that wasn't cool.
So a vast right wing conspiracy promoting a traditional liberal idea that government can't quash speech critical of The Man? A conspiracy focused on leveling the playingfield and speaking truth to power?
The case for a right wing conspiracy here just doesn't fly with the facts of the case.
https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf
If you disagree then you're wrong :)
I'm joking, but if you disagree then it still doesn't matter that you didn't write the article, my comment points out an issue with the perspective, no matter where it comes from.
It's good to shed light and context on misleading or mislead perspectives, I'd say, which is part of the value of social media, to push back on authors who are promoting ideas that don't really capture the real world.
Keep in mind that part of the story is that with so many "good" users leaving the platform there are fewer of them posting, leaving the platform with a higher proportion of negative content.
But if that's what users find compelling, then *shrug*
I never found Twitter worthwhile myself, so your description of what it is today strikes me as what I always found when I went over there.
volkris
boosted
i'll never get over the intense special interest required for someone to post this on imdb
The paid option is intended to make money :)
But to be serious, blue checkmarks always had a vanity element to them, so they were offered for whatever purpose a users wanted them.
If users are interested in paying for blue checks for whatever reason the individual user may want one, Twitter is happy to take their money.
None of that has impact on other options for identity verification, though, if one wants to pursue it.
No, the biographer who's served as the primary source for this said that it was never enabled.
I don't know why msn didn't include that really important detail, but they also don't seem to have countered even Musk's own claim.
https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361
This is the lawsuit over Internet Archive violating copyright laws by copying books without permission, yeah?
This isn't about libraries being under attack. It's about the established laws surrounding IP, and while I'd say copyright laws need serious reform, this sort of victimhood appeal isn't going to get us there.
Let's show the impact of US law on access to information in the course of getting the laws fixed for all of us.
The right way to fix a law is through legislation, the democratic process, not through hopes that this time a court might bend your way.
#libraries #USPolitics #politicalscience #legislation #Congress
The exact same approach can be taken on Twitter, though.
Yes, Twitter does provide the additional official option, but this out-of-band approach is also available, just as a matter of knowledge and using available technology.
It doesn't rely on any particular ActivityPub functionality.
You don't think the claim of a vast right-wing conspiracy is at all in doubt considering the left-wing authorship?
I'd LOVE for people to ignore the red herring that is putting identity over content, but if we're going to claim this is a right-wing conspiracy, then we're already looking at authorship, which was left-wing.
I don't think these stories should matter, but if they do then let's get them right.
I never said you wrote the article.
The article misrepresents the situation in Congress, and if you and I are on the same page, then great!
@haploc it's important to realize that every post on #fediverse, even if it's in reply to someone else, is its own standalone bit of content being shared out into the public.
Even if you set the post to have restricted visibility, that's more of a suggestion than a requirement, and the post gets transmitted out to be displayed to whomever each instance decides to display it to.
So in theory an instance COULD be smart and try to display the reply to a followers only post only to those followers, but it's up to each instance what to do with the post.
In other words, questions like these have no single answer since it's up to each instance how to handle it, even though it can be said that instances generally handle the situation in such and such a way.
As if #McCarthy has control of the people we elect to Congress?
We're watching the result of our own votes, that have set up a dysfunctional legislative branch.
That's not McCarthy's nightmarish fall. He's merely overseeing the nightmare we chose to vote into office.
I mean, there are at TON of ragebait/clickbait posts on the feed I see every single day on #fediverse.
#QT does exist here, but I never see the ragebait coming from those.
I mainly see it from other people who have already bought in to it and are sharing it themselves, along with a good helping of their own rage to go with it.
The only way Bitcoin mining ever makes money is because people value it. Otherwise it wouldn't have that value.
So it's can't be useless, by definition, since people value the use.
YOU may not personally have a use for it, just as I have no use for the Superbowl or a subscription to dogfood delivery to my doorstep, but that doesn't mean nobody else has use for it either.
That story has been debunked by its primary source, though.
No, Musk didn't sabotage a military operation in Ukraine, according to the original writer that's been cited. Instead, Musk was asked for help, and he declined to help.
That's not sabotage; it's a decision to not get involved.
The US government acts against Musk and his interests all the time. See, for example, the FAA's recent ruling against a flight license for SpaceX.
This whole story about US vs Musk is just sensationalist clickbait, not reality.
Elon Musk 🆚 California
But in this case Musk isn't IGNORING state and federal laws, but rather the opposite, APPLYING a federal law to address a state law.
He's not ignoring law here; he's emphatically invoking them.
@EU_Commission
Elon Musk 🆚 California
Well I assume the EU will use the police powers that it has at its disposal.
As for Musk, I think you have the story a bit backwards, as he is attempting to use federal laws to protect himself from state laws. The power in that case is vested in federal law, not Musk.
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:
