volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Catawu the argument is that it was not a legitimate threat to safety, and so it amounts to a restriction on speech without concrete cause.

@PJ_Evans that's not what this case is about.

To break it down to its core, the allegation is that Media Matters put out deceptive reports that misrepresented its intentionally engineered setup as normal when it was anything but.

EVEN IF we stipulate that Twitter screwed up in displaying those ads, which doesn't seem true but whatever, even if that is the case, it's not what's being litigated here.

@lauren

@PJ_Evans according to the complaint they simply chose to follow the accounts that they figured would result in spicy screenshots.

@lauren

@Catawu careful, because the lawyer might simply reply consistently and thus reinforce his position.

Yes, maybe they can all be excused, with logical consistency.

@mvario Occam's razor would have us at least consider the possibility that maybe the judge was simply right and the guy writing the opinion piece simply fairly isn't getting the outcome that he would have personally preferred.

It's not that judges are terrified. It's that the law simply doesn't say what you or I might want it to say, and the judge is bound by it anyway.

The author pretty much admits this when acknowledging what he calls a loophole. Well there it is, whether you refer to it as loophole or not, it is law and the judge agreed and followed law.

Personally I don't think it's a loophole at all, I think there are a very good reasons that the US is designed the way it is, but regardless, it is law, that the judge followed, not out of fear but out of obligation to the law.

@lauren again according to the complaint ads *were supposed* to appear there because Media Matters set up accounts specifically to show ads interspersed with controversial opinions.

The problem is that Media Matters didn't make it clear that they caused it to happen and instead presented this as if it was normal use of the site instead of an engineered situation looking to get that exact outcome.

I really don't care about Musk, he's a troll that's better ignored, but there's a lot of misreporting about what this lawsuit is over, and that does bother me.

@bitprophet I'd say both of them are trolls, and we'd all be better off if we left them alone, if we didn't feed the trolls.

They want attention. If we didn't keep giving then what they wanted they would wither and go away.

Social media is full of irrational and often misinformed hatred for Musk today. It really does us no good, but he's loving it.

@lauren the complaint is that Media Matters intentionally put its finger on the scale creating for itself an intentionally unrepresentative experience that would make some good headlines.

It's not merely that Media Matters was wrong because it didn't have internal statistics. The complaint is that Media Matters engineered a sensational situation that it presented to readers as if it was the norm.

From the complaint, Media Matters set accounts to follow users with controversial opinions plus corporations and then worked hard to generate screenshots containing content from controversial opinions next to the corporations.

So the user got what they asked for, which is how the site is supposed to work.

@lauren it doesn't sound like that was the promise, though.

It sounds like those ads were unlikely to appear, and Media Matters manipulated the site to see them more often than they would appear for a normal user, without mentioning that manipulation.

@itwasntme223 well the enforcement mechanisms are through the executive branch, which emphasizes how important it is to hold those in office accountable for proper enforcement.

And to make sure the laws actually do contain executive enforcement mechanisms as appropriate.

@blake if I want to do it it's because I get some benefit from doing it, a benefit of my labor that you would be taking away through that restriction.

And if I don't want to do it then it's moot.

But either way, you're talking about interfering with my ability to gain from my own labor, and it's pretty Orwellian to interfere with my right to trade on my labor while claiming you are protecting the right that you are directly interfering with.

@kdawson and my unpopular opinion is that I do wish there were more Republicans and Trump supporters around here so I could actually talk to them and ask them how they didn't notice how much of a failure the guy was.

It's a fascinating thing to me.

@kdawson this is one of my axes to grind, that so many on the left try to fight against Trump by talking about a list of bad things that he would do.

I don't think that is the approach we should be taking, though, and this touches on that.

I think we should have spent months pointing out what an utter failure he was, that he had bad ideas, and yeah he managed to implement some of them, but he failed utterly at managing the office to implement so many others.

I think if we spent more time highlighting just how much of a failure he was then even some of his own base would erode away. But we shore up his support by talking as if he would be able to implement a bunch of the nonsense that his supporters want to elect him to implement.

So anyway sorry for the screed. I just would rather highlight that he's an empty person who doesn't even really represent the values of his own voters, because at least some of them would start to notice that.

@deanbetz ha, I did, and I just see SpaceX falling down into a political rabbit hole leaving it mimicking NASA and the Postal Service, with progress slowing to a crawl.

I've worked with lots of government agencies and contractors and different sorts of governmental organizations over the years, and I am so glad SpaceX is not dealing with what I see in them, the waste, the politics, the lack of accountability, the waste (it bore repeating :) ).

So when I try on the idea of nationalizing SpaceX I just throw up my hands and say so much for that, now it will be just another paperwork mill.

@kdawson I think the Atlantic article gives the guy way too much credit, in assuming that he has any coherent opinion at all.

The guy seems to just vomit words halfway mimicking whatever crowd he happens to be talking to at the moment.

And that's a really important thing to realize.

@blake but that interferes with my right to sell my labor as I see fit.

We should be promoting workers rights IMO, not imposing other people's opinions on workers like that.

@dangillmor well it makes sense considering the platform also actively promotes journalistic content, bringing it to a significant audience.

Which is a pretty important thing to countering people who want to end our democracy.

@gratefuldread well we can let it set its own pace.

We can transition just as soon as it manages to prove to be a good idea, without all of the real world pitfalls that always plague it.

No need to force it, no need to slow it down or speed it up, just let it happen as it proves itself.

@Hypx oh personally I have no problem with fossil fuels. We can make quite efficient engines, even running on diesel, and with regenerative braking, that's a lot of energy being recouped.

A hybrid system running a very efficient engine at its most efficient speed is the concept that most interests me.