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
@resuna but throwing in a third party is just more bashing the head against the wall, that you mentioned above.
The problem isn't the lack of third parties. That's a solution, or at least a mitigating response, to the electoral system.
You're right to point to changing the electoral system, but the real change is implementing ranked choice voting.
The first past the post electoral system risks wasted votes which leads to a two party system as people organize themselves in response.
And no, a parliamentary system doesn't fix this either. Rather, it undermines accountability by breaking the link between a voter and their representative.
@brianklaas sure he's facing calls to step aside for someone else to run.
It's just that there's disagreement, and others want to watch the world burn with this guy as the candidate.
@AnthonyFStevens yes, jumping out of a plant and hoping to grow wings is an impossibility, just like a two sided ceasefire and two state solution.
That's my point :)
No, it's not achievable. We have generations of history showing that to be true. It was tried over and over again. At this point it's simply foolish to keep believing in the thing that failed every single time it was tried.
Sadly.
So, given that reality, what's the best path forward? What's the best out of only bad options?
Just clinging to the solution that we know doesn't work is not going to serve anyone well, well except for those who benefit from selling that snake oil.
I know this is an old thread I just came across, but I wanted to throw in that #IPFS is so much more than just a Bittorrent competitor, and it's a shame that the word isn't getting out about it.
IPFS is more a database than a filesystem, and it stinks that they settled on that misleading name.
And it provides a system for referencing content that goes far beyond just the P2P aspect of it. You could engage with IPFS through normal web servers if you really wanted to.
Basically, IPFS provides a way to address database fields whereever they are, with cryptographic signing and semantic information.
The p2p part of the project is only a side benefit. A big side benefit, but a side benefit nonetheless.
@slashtechno well, a nice thing about IPFS is that it makes domains less needed in the first place.
But I get your point, and I suppose this is one of those few applications where blockchain would actually be a really good solution.
The whole problem with domains is that there has to be some authority keeping track of them, and it happens that that's exactly what blockchain does well.
@AnthonyFStevens but that's not an option on the table in any realistic way.
So since ceasefire & two state solution is not an option, any call for a ceasefire ends up being, for all practical considerations, a call for maintaining the crap that's going on now.
It's like saying you're calling for jumping out of the airplane without a parachute to grow wings and fly down to the earth. Well, since that's not actually going to happen you're just calling for jumping out to plummet to the ground.
And that's what the quote above was pointing out.
@MaryAliciaZiff@mastodon.sdf.org
I'm thinking they need a format that's able to avoid the mess of people shouting over each other.
They need to start cutting off microphones.
There's no point in tuning in when the organization of the event gives everyone incentive to block others from speaking.
@rlmcneary2 if the debaters had nothing to debate then there wouldn't be debates in the first place.
I guess that there are debates itself shows that these aren't fascists, then?
@JeremyMallin sounds like Tumblr started on the project but quickly discovered that ActivityPub didn't scale well enough for their needs, so they pulled back because it would have been too expensive to move forward.
re: Politics
@imstilljeremy wow, did you go to any of those Trump rallies? Because there was so much misinformation about what went on in them, so many in the press writing articles that actual attendees regarded as completely unrecognizable compared to the actual events.
Yes, we were fed stories about Trump rallies being calls for violence, but those stories seem to have been little more than political propaganda against the competition.
@AnthonyFStevens the counter argument is that it's not really a call for peace, which is what the quote pointed out.
@AlexGallagher Wow, the lady who sought to win an election by spinning a conspiracy theory against her challenger is talking about what's good for democracy?
Maybe not the best source for such a claim.
@lauren that doesn't make much sense, though.
There are lots of reasons to hold the debates, ranging from engaging with voters in early primary states through polishing party positions through simply providing advertisement for the party in general.
The debates are a form of outreach and advertising if nothing else.
Mainly, though, I don't think Trump can win a general election, so these debates are important in providing Republican voters an option for a candidate should they decide they want to win the presidency.
@kev I get the impression that ActivityPub was just too expensive to implement on a scale like Tumblr.
They started working on it and quickly realize it just wasn't workable.
@dragnucs that doesn't change my point that I'd rather the big corporation pay :)
But also remember that there is overhead involved with any spreading of load. It necessarily requires additional resources to manage that.
@dsfgs I'd say it's federated versus decentralized. Under this protocol, under this design, this is federated, a bunch of centralized servers trading content.
As for better platform, meh, there are who knows how many stubs of platforms out there that are more decentralized, but without critical mass they just don't matter for a social media platform.
Like anything else in technology, better engineering doesn't make for a better platform if it doesn't happened to be the one that catches on.
I mean Facebook is nothing but mediocrity, but it reached critical mass so it succeeded.
@antares no even for being listed on primary ballots states have different rules that are not easy to get past.
On one hand, it is a little understandable since they have to get the ballots set and printed by certain deadlines.
@realcaseyrollins it's the difference between calling for something, causing it to happen, versus (to use the harshest wording) taking advantage of what's happening anyway.
So what he's saying isn't that the USA is paying for the degradation with blood of Ukrainian soldiers, but that Ukrainians are spilling blood through their, fight with Russia, and the US, even though it doesn't cause that and wouldn't choose that, does experience benefits from it.
Again, I'm using harsh words.
More reasonably he's saying that they are paying a price that works out in the US favor, and the least we can do is support them, and this is why.
@realcaseyrollins Yeah it's sad but I fear that horse is already out of the barn.
The time to invoke that promise was last year, and the time for the administration to highlight, it was before that, to provide deterrance that might have avoided all of this in the first place.
At this point the US has already clearly broken its promise, which already undermines the ability to make future promises.
It's a shame, but that's what we get from this administration.
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:
