volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Radical_EgoCom I literally listen to people on the right saying every single day that the immigration laws are bad.

If you don't hear them saying that then I think that you might be living in a bit of a bubble.

@Radical_EgoCom Well it's what I said above: the image said that nobody is illegal but that focuses on people being illegal rather than laws being bad.

The issue isn't that nobody is illegal. The issue is that we have some bad laws that need to be changed.

I think a huge number of people in the country are all on the side of these laws being bad and needing reform. People on both the left and the right agree that the laws need to be reformed.

But all of the rhetoric focusing on weather or not people are illegal End up distracting from the positive thing that we can actually all agree on, that the laws need to be fixed.

@nogodsnomasters

@Radical_EgoCom Right, so let's call out the bad laws not focus on the rhetoric around the people.

@nogodsnomasters

@nogodsnomasters I mean, it's not that people are illegal but that people break laws

If we want to fix the laws the first thing is to appreciate that the laws are what they are, and they need to be fixed.

We get nowhere by denying them.

@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.