volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ErikJonker I wish that was the case, but so many instances are taking that decision away from users and deciding for them.

@BeAware@social.beaware.live the difference is that a public profile is actively broadcasting itself and providing itself to others.

A car parked on the street is not.

@fishcharlie I suspect that threads has issues ranging from performance through legality to deal with.
@Gargron
@w3c @Mastodon

@kentborg really? You've never had the problem of needing to give money to somebody when they weren't nearby so you could physically hand them the currency?

It's just ridiculous to say that bitcoin solves a problem that mostly no one has.

I would think that for most people the problem that bitcoin solves is one that they face nearly every day.

You can have animus against Bitcoin, grind whatever ax you want, but it's silly to say the problem it solves is one that no one has when it is so common.

@FranckLeroy

@FranckLeroy I mean, that's just not factually true.

@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