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
@wjmaggos
1) ActivityPub may be overkill for what a person wants to do
2) If they just use ActivityPub they'll have trouble engaging with other networks that don't interface with AP
3) A person might already have content management systems in place that don't support ActivityPub
I could go on. Lots of potential drawbacks.
"Just adopt my standard" is a bit unrealistic in the real world.
volkris
boosted
@admins Holy itchy trigger finger Batman. I went through their list and they blocked journa.host because they are “an instance of journalists?” I would consider this a badge of honor. You aren’t truly on Mastodon until you’ve been blocked by .a*t! We made it, folks!
Why not push for Fediverse apps with RSS support including one click access to boost articles?
Best of both worlds.
@maegul it gives me a chuckle that the desktop computing experience might be described this way these days.
For so long choice of platform/OS was a core element of desktop computing as your version of Windows or OS2 or MacOS really locked you into one system and sets of available apps.
I guess the web may have broken some of those restrictions.
@mrzaius no.
As you can see in the complaint, it is not saying it's illegal to engage in excessive scrolling or refreshing.
@molly0xfff it's about taking down an article that they charge is materially and intentionally deceptive, inflicting intentional harm to their business in the process.
That's a pretty important part of the story!
It's not just I don't like your article.
@birdutterance how do you figure?
Again that stance sounds pretty indefensible.
@kaffeeringe @arstechnica
@kaffeeringe and I'd say it's a violation of human dignity to tell people what they can and can't do with their organs *shrug*
I also don't see how undermining others' self ownership implies any protection for you.
@Jamesboswell well no because that's not what's being alleged here. They don't question whether MM found such an ad. In fact they flat out said the outfit did.
The complaint is that MM intentionally set up accounts that were abnormal, that put fingers on the scales, and then reported as if their results were normal, misleading the public.
It's like going to a restaurant and asking for some bizarre addition to your meal, over the chef's objections, and then putting out a review acting like that's just the way the meal always came.
@ahoyboyhoy it's not about a right to strike, though.That's not the question on the table. It's about whether or not to block a worker from contracting his labor under terms he sees fit and beneficial.
The proposal is to outlaw the worker's ability to agree not to strike when an employer offers terms favorable to the worker, and so using law to remove that agency from the worker.
@birdutterance I don't think that perspective is very defensible, but in the end, that's one reason to allow people to go their different directions with whatever conclusions they come to about the world, so long as they're not able to oppose their own on others :-)
@kaffeeringe @arstechnica
@kaffeeringe and that makes it okay?
It strikes me as being pretty blithe to tell me what I can't do with my own body in my own future merely because, well, every law imposes on me.
@pezmico but it's not a matter of information blackout that proves there is no genocide. It's a matter of actual positive information coming out of the country that debunks those claims.
It's not the lack of information; it's the existence of information showing otherwise.
@RebelGeek99 well it's a symptom of public health officials actively blurring the line between health and politics, really spoiling public faith in those institutions as the public has lost faith in so many others.
It's not that access to safe clean air is political. It's that public health officials blurred the lines politicizing the ways to get to that goal.
Or to put it a different way, everybody agrees that access to safe clean air is a good thing. That is not political. But the methods to get people safe clean air was politicized by public health officials, and it's going to be hard to recover from that.
@kaffeeringe but farming the imposition out to one social institution or another doesn't change that it is still imposing the decision on you or me
Regardless of who or what is deciding on you or me, it's still deciding on you or me, imposing some other standards, imposing others' ideas of what we should and can't do with our bodies.
@arstechnica
@shepgo if you read the complaint, that's not at all what the complaint is about.
@Jamesboswell that's a convoluted theory when the alternative is that Media Matters is simply guilty of yet another sensationalized story, just as the legal filings lay out.
@SvenGeier that's like saying I didn't go to the store or I didn't go visit my family, but rather I was sent, on account of other people having built my car or flown the plane I rode to get there.
The point is the agency, the decision being made by the individuals who take the journey.
@ChrisMayLA6 honestly when it comes to pensions I've become convinced that the real solution is to just pay workers today instead of offering a questionable promise of maybe paying them someday later.
If the employer is going to pay either way, then give the worker the pay today.
Everything else is speculative income.
@HistoPol I think the biggest problem with your composition is the nihilism it sets up.
Like, we can't afford more wars? Well that's a shame, because there will absolutely be more wars. And given that absolute reality I guess we might as well just all give up.
That's the problem with setting the argument at that level. It leads to impossible solutions and so it becomes a non-starter.
If it's realistic, then we might as well ignore it because we've already failed. If it's hyperbole then we might as well ignore it because it's hyperbole.
Neither option is very compelling, and that's a large reason why so many don't buy in.
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:
