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
If you've been following the releases from House committees over the past few months you'd see the evidence piling up and showing that this is about Biden's own actions, not about political payback.
So they've released everything from bank records to sworn testimony that raise questions about Biden's actions, and this is the next step when investigation is being resisted, as they try to follow the trail of evidence to figure out what went on.
It has nothing at all to do with #Trump. The investigation is solely about #Biden and about questionable things he got himself into even before he was elected.
No, the Internet is not "totally controlled by centralized authorities", shown if nowhere else by your listing of decentralized pathways and pluralization of authorities.
If it was centralized then there would be one central control, not the multiple as indicated by your own phrasing.
Bored businessman troll.
Yes, he's making money serving customers, but he has enough now that he's bored and trying to get attention.
And we're playing his game giving it to him.
I don't see it.
Facebook has a ton more privacy control to build private and semi-private groups than this has.
I am aware of no law that prevents me from giving the Western Union cashier a tip.
Well I think a lot depends on what each individual user is looking for from a platform.
For example, I personally don't expect any of these platforms to build community. I know others do, but it's just not a draw for me.
Rather, I think social media CAN represent a crosssection of the population, biased as it may be, which includes a lot of perspectives I don't agree with or enjoy, but that's the point: to engage with the world, warts and all.
It's unfortunate that so many have decided to stop lending their perspectives to Twitter, especially if those are valuable perspectives. That choice leaves #Twitter with less good out outweigh the bad elements of society. The choice biases the cross section in a negative direction.
But my main point here is that a bunch of people left Twitter and are now complaining that Twitter doesn't have the perspectives that they themselves took out of it!
That can't be right because it would violate the separation of powers that underlie the checks and balances at the core of the US government.
If the executive branch, through the DOJ, could interfere in the workings of the legislative branch, then it could prevent the legislative branch from holding the executive branch accountable for breaking the law.
This matter is internal to the House and the DOJ has no authority to interfere with them. After all, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" as per the Constitution.
@Savvyhomestead
@MaRY1Fem absolutely.
That's why I seek out perspectives that don't match mine, so I can fact check myself and test my beliefs against what others bring to the table.
IMO, that's the most useful role for social media.
Anyone who's been following the committees' investigations for the past few months won't see any mystery in this.
They are to the point where they want more investigative authority to follow leads, and opening the official inquiry grants those oversight tools.
There's nothing more complicated than that here.
I mean, I could also pay that to the employee working the Western Union counter. I'm positive he'd accept it.
Just because someone spends a lot of money they don't have to spend, really says nothing except that the person spent money they didn't need to spend.
Ugh!
On this platform we no longer need to be bound by #Twitter's artificial limitations, so we don't need tools like this to overcome them.
And heck: to overcome author intent.
We should push #Fediverse implementations to simply let and help people compose articles in the first place.
So to answer the question, I don't enjoy 'unroll as article' as it just reminds that the existence of the tool means many interfaces to this platform are repeating the mistakes of the past.
It's a good reason that people really need to reconsider their banishment of "the algorithm"
Algorithms don't have to be bad. The key is to promote good ones that serve users, not to rail against them altogether,
I've never been able to tell whether Gaetz really believes what he's saying or whether he's putting on a show for the cameras.
He HAS to know McCarthy has to answer to other representatives that we've elected that don't support Gaetz's proposals.
I'd like to think he also realizes the political realities behind those elections, but maybe that's one step too far removed from his own self-indulgent perspective.
This is larger than Trump, though, and it ABSOLUTELY concerns the voters if they're not allowed to vote for the option of their choice.
If this is a case where one believes that democratic principles need to take a back seat, then the person at least needs to own that position.
Contrary to news reports, according to the CRS status table, no, the #Senate hasn't passed its appropriations bills while the #House dilly-dallies.
Keep in mind that what we're talking about here isn't impeachment itself, but *impeachment inquiry*, which despite terminology is a very, very different thing.
The inquiry simply opens up additional oversight tools, allowing committees to request more information. That's all.
It's perfectly likely that the inquiry fails to prove suspicions, so it winds up and goes no farther.
The House doesn't need much to open the inquiry, only a suspicion. It's not that big a deal.
Let's not overlook the democratic side of things, though: let's have voters reject him, simply and conclusively.
I fear these trials are interfering with that rejection, though.
Well, I hope people think about how dangerous this idea is, that a simple civil trial with a well-chosen jury would be able to void any presidential election through a preponderance of evidence standard.
Looking beyond #Trump, that's a pretty serious stance to take!
Well it varies state by state since each state has its own regulations for ballot access, its own procedures for challenging it.
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:
