volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@TCatInReality Right but you're obviously wrong with your opinion since the US was built on a platform that valued and established judicial independence.

This is basic civics, basic elements of the US government design.

Have a nice day, I guess. But what you're saying is not accurate.

@tristansnell

@voxel That's just how this platform works, though.

This was a platform built on public broadcast of information without much in the way of privacy features, so that's just how this functions.

@jark

@ftdl since it is true that users could have blocked threads on their own using personal moderation tools, I think you should have let users make that choice for themselves.

Preventing the exchange of communications altogether deprives users of the power to make that choice.

@mcc and to take it a step farther, It suggests that those users are happy to impose their own personal values on fellow users who might have other opinions.

I think that's really the more important result here as it has broader philosophical implications beyond just this one question.

And I think it's unhealthy and I think we need to call it out.

@TCatInReality no you're completely wrong about how the checks and balances work in the US government.

It's not two versus one. It's individual mechanisms by which each branch acts on its own to check the others.

For example, Congress holds the impeachment power on its own requiring zero cooperation from the executive branch.

It would be pretty bad if we allowed the branches to team up against each other, as that would imply all sorts of conflicts of interests.

So no, that's not how the US government is designed or how it operates.

@tristansnell

@SarahBreau but the court is being clear that the doctors don't need to try to guess what the law means. The court is being clear that the law is on the doctors' side.

Paxton can threaten whatever he wants, but he doesn't get to change the law just by sending letters.

This is one reason we need to really support this court decision because it is so completely rebuking of the governor's actions.

We should be cheering this decision as it emphatically rejects those penalties.

@SarahBreau It sounds like you're confusing branches of government.

Yeah the executive branch can stage whatever little stunts it wants, but the law is the law, and the court is pointing out that it's up to the doctor no matter what political stunts the governor might want to stage.

As per the law it is up to the doctor. And the court emphasizes over and over that it is up to the doctor.

And as the court emphasizes it doesn't even matter if the state brings in a doctor to challenge to diagnosing doctor's opinion in court because the diagnosing doctor doesn't need permission from the court in the first place.

@TCatInReality

A key difference is that when Congress passes laws that apply to its own members they are agreeing to it.

When the president prosecutes Congress under the authority of laws that Congress itself has passed that doesn't violate the separation of powers since Congress itself is directly involved in that process.

But for the president to prosecute the ones who are intended to be the major check on presidential power?

You don't see that conflict of interests?

@tristansnell

@maxkennerly given the legal environment, there's more to this than principles.

I'm sure Substack is glancing pretty hard at what Backpage went through, just to name one example.

@CStamp no, it makes a ton of sense!

Take the case of someone sharing outright propaganda on the platform. When you reply to it, calling it out, others can see your calling it out.

Yeah, the person putting out misinformation wouldn't get to see the reply, but that's really to their loss. Chances are they wouldn't care in the first place, and here they wouldn't even be able to respond to the debunking with the next level of misinformation.

This is actually the best of both worlds in a sense!

It makes no sense? No. This is better for us, healthier for us.

@BeAware@social.beaware.live @tinker

@jdp23 so let that 40% of Threads haters block.

But don't force that on the rest of the instance users.

@dalias @darnell @Gargron

@m4iler sounds like this kind of debunks the original post, then. @tinker

@tinker it's another case where I grind my ax about overlooking the empowerment of users.

SO OFTEN on this platform we focus on instances banning and unfederating and whatnot without considering the option of simply leaving it to users to choose their own adventure, empowering them to make that decision.

I just really wish Fediverse would spend more time focusing on empowering users instead of promoting instances making decisions for them.

@jerry

@TCatInReality no, that's not how the US federal government is designed, with its system of separation of powers.

It is the duty of the president to faithfully execute his office, but beyond that, the DOJ's investigations are subject to prosecutorial discretion and bound by limitations that prevent it from breaking the independence of the judiciary.

The conflicts of interest loom large there.

@tristansnell

@jrm4 isn't Discord a closed platform?

That's my impression, and as I glance around now I see only confirmation of that: it sounds like all of the content flows through the centralized servers and oversight of a company that discourages any innovation on its platform.

That's night and day compared with federation and what it enables.

@Rastal as I browse my feed I'm seeing a very different picture than what you describe, with a lot of people joining for other reasons AND a lot of people with different answers about Threads federation

@jrm4 well I'd extend that to say this place may not be better, and that's key to the why here.

This federation was designed because what's better for one person might not be better for another, so we can choose different instances instead of all being lumped into some notion of one better one.

So same with Threads.

Threads might be better for some users just as any other instance might be better for some user.

Yes, federate away!

And keep in mind that that federation represents the same philosophy: Threads, like different Fediverse instances, will be better for some and worse for others, so we empower users to choose what's best for each.