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
@clueless_capybara think of it like accessing the Internet through a PC vs a cell phone.
It's all the same Internet but the PC and the phone will give you very different experiences. Web pages will at least be much smaller :) but they might also display different versions on the phone, versions better tailored to the different interfaces.
Same with #Fediverse.
Behind the scenes it's all the same system, but each of these programs is basically a different interface optimized for a different use.
So #Mastodon is an interface optimized for microblogging, Pixelfed is optimized for photos, etc.
All one system, but different ways of displaying the system based on different priorities.
@dcdeejay well, the Supreme Court doesn't generally sit in judgment of others.
As it's primarily an appellate court, it mainly judges other courts--their decisions--not people.
@hrefna honestly, if a user is that concerned about seeing content they don't want to see, the solution is probably more along the lines of opting in than blocking out, only allowing content from preapproved speakers than reacting to content after the fact.
There have been longstanding ideas with names like WoT, Web of Trust, where folks are judged based on their in person connections to you, and it's one solution to only display content that's trusted by people the user trusts.
And this sort of thing can be tailored to the individual user, to empower them to have the experience they prefer.
With the furor over the election of #Johnson to Speaker of the House spreading through the feeds here, NOW can we finally hold #Democrats responsible for the votes they actively chose to place that set this up and enabled the #GOP nutjobs?
Maybe people were holding out over a misguided fantasy that Dems and Reps would form a sort of coalition government, but now that they've elected someone so many here don't like, is finally OK to point out that their strategy was a bad one?
@dangillmor Jesus, if you think Johnson is a far right extremist, then it sounds like you haven't had much contact with far right extremists.
They're rejecting the guy for being too moderate.
@Jeffrey_Smith@mastodon.social that's not what happened, though, as confirmed by the Congressional Record.
Yes, a whole lot of people circulated that narrative, but it was a lie.
I mean, you just listed off a bunch of claims that have been overblown.
So... those.
Right, but AP has shown growing pains and technological issues that make it possible that in the end we'll talk about how AP has been the one kneecapping itself.
Bluesky might have the better solutions that allow it to succeed where AP has failed, if they ever manage to finally release.
We'll see.
@mnutty that seems to be the way they're spinning it, but this sounds to me like it's WAY lenient compared to the accusations they've made.
When you declare that someone is such an existential threat to democracy but then let them off the hook... that's striking to me.
And if their testimony was THAT critical to making a case, that just sounds like the case is just that weak.
I don't think people are considering the other side of this coin.
@Aethelstan because based on their voting patterns it seems unlikely that Dems would be willing to compromise.
So far none of them have broken from their party line, so there's no indication that they're up for it.
They're enjoying maintaining this gridlock as they seem to be winning the messaging war.
@lascapi it's possible, but there are some security related issues under the hood.
The protocols do involve some functions that check to make sure participants are who they say they are, and breaking out of that model does kind of break those protections.
Just because they're slow doesn't mean it's not still early stages.
If they end up with something better, then we can still grouse about the pace of their development, but they'll have gotten there in the end!
But that just means AT and Bluesky are in their early stages with potential to be way better in the not-so-distant-future.
There are a lot of problems with ActivityPub on Mastodon. Hopefully Bluesky will avoid those pitfalls.
@marxistvegan the problem is that rail isn't flexible enough, doesn't support the diversity of wants and lifestyles of humanity.
Rail is great in areas where there's a lot of conformance. But there are real downsides to systems built around such conformity.
One instance cannot suspend a user on another instance.
That's just not a thing in the federated system built here.
@neil yep.
So here's a related example: say a CEO publishes a bunch of secret information to his company's website at a secret address, then someone unexpectedly guesses the address and downloads the information.
In my opinion the CEO has no room to complain since he effectively publicly published the information, and the code worked as intended, as you say.
However, per my point, legal systems around the world would indulge the claim that this constitutes hacking and a violation of rights.
There are many, many implications of this, not the least letting the CEO off the hook for publicly releasing the damaging information.
But that's how the world evolved; that horse is out of the barn.
This English case is yet another result of a legal system that never was properly handling computer issues.
@simoto no, it's something that's between them and their users.
I'm opposed to instances blocking accounts at the instance level, but if users of an instance want that, then it's their business, not ours.
@MOULE I wonder how many people even notice domain names here.
This.
We should not refer to a case like this as suspension since that's not really what happened.
If an instance blocks someone then we need to refer to it that way, to hold THAT instance accountable, if we want to do that.
But it's not a suspension. It's a really different beast.
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:
