volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@dsfgs@mastodon.sdf.org I guess it all depends on what your personal ideas are about what the goals of this system should be. And I don't share your goals.

Mainly, yes a lot of people are passionate about things like Facebook track record, but that's completely uninteresting to others of us. We all have our different hobby horses, and that's not one that's universal here.

So I put it the other direction, it's a slap in the face to fedizens to demand this sort of imposition of values because that's exactly the kind of thing we came here to get away from, we're trying to get away from that kind of approach of sites like Facebook!

But, the nature of a federated system makes it possible for people with those different approaches to coexist. So long as we don't insist on the one size fits all approach.

@osma and we really can't overlook governmental contributions to that environment.

Throughout the world politicians have threatened or actually cracked down on different aspects of tech and finance, including sex work to name one.

And that can be even trickier because sometimes there aren't clear rules, only threats, that companies have to do their best to try to live within, sometimes with irrational outcomes.

@fraying

@dsfgs@mastodon.sdf.org many of us believe it's generally better to leave as much control in the hands of users, so in many cases it's better to have the instances only set policy when it comes to technical or legal issues, leaving that choice to users.

Of course that varies from instance community to instance community, but particularly on large instances it can be harder to propose one size fits all moderation if the user group is diverse and will have different things they want from their experience.

That being said, overall I think this is a bad idea merely because it adds noise, amounting to spamming the system.

@hulavikih Well they are, even if one believes that is the entirely correct and legal thing to do, those court cases interfere with settling the election by the ballot box.

As for the meme, it really goes the other way, since Trump's efforts were never going to be successful it weakens the argument for the need for these court cases.

@kegill no I heard it, and like I pointed out we know that SCOTUS absolutely has oversight of the state law since firstly the state court explicitly recognized that right and secondly we can name off the top of our head a famous case where that very thing happened.

You don't have to trust me. I'm sure you've heard of Bush v Gore, so you can trust your own memory for that counter example.

@kegill you shouldn't. But if you're interested in this there are plenty of resources to back up what I'm saying, and I'm sure you yourself know of some examples of what I'm talking about.

And like I said, I would encourage everyone who's interested to go read the actual state ruling since it talks about the federal laws involved AND the state court even put its own ruling on hold to give time for the appeal to the Supreme Court.

If it was true that SCOTUS had no authority there then the state court wouldn't have gone out of its way to recognize that authority.

Anyway, also keep in mind the most famous example of bush v Gore where the Supreme Court reviewed exactly the same sort of state business.

I suspect you misunderstood what Conway was saying though.

@kegill no no but I've spent decades vacuuming up what they say and watching how the courts act.

The state court ruling was posted a couple of days ago so we can read exactly what its ruling said.

@kegill Well it's more complicated for a few reasons. This is actually a rather complicated situation.

Federal laws impact this decision in a few different ways, and that would give SCOTUS some level of authority over the state, but it would be a really exceptional thing for the court to use those rarely used authorities. But then this is an exceptional case.

Aside from that, another complication is that the state applied federal law, not just state law, in the case, giving SCOTUS a second pathway for becoming involved.

It's pretty much a mess at this point.

@benfell Well the lower court accepted an argument about the amendment that has been seriously considered (but not necessarily accepted) for years.

It doesn't sound like such a strategic action with that background in mind. They were merely saying that they found the argument compelling.

@CarolineMalaCorbin

@mayadev Like I said, I'm talking in qualitative terms, not quantitative. I have no particular number in mind.

But that low number dovetails with what we know about Israel actively avoiding targeting members of the group, so taken together, we have the claim, and then we have the data supporting the claim, and that's pretty convincing to me.

@JoshuaHolland

@Tesseks it's a matter of elections in the US being run by states and subject to state laws primarily.

Each state has slightly different rules regarding who can run and how ballot access is managed. They also have different court systems and processes to adjudicate stuff like this.

In the end, in general, a person is able to run in respect for voters being able to cast their ballots as they see fit.

Beyond that, each state restricts the process differently.

One thing to emphasize is that just because someone wins an election doesn't mean they get to hold office. If voters want to elect someone who's ineligible to actually take office, the state systems might be happy to let them vote that way.

@mayadev and again, that is not my claim.

You seem to still be missing my stance since what you are repeating back to me is definitely not my position.

@JoshuaHolland

@davidalove perhaps, if folks first stipulate that a building posing a threat or serving in a military capacity is effectively no longer functioning as a church.

@peachfront Well I know that's not true because I have seen lots of content on that site that wasn't Nazi content and wasn't censored.

Clearly they are choosing not to censor a lot of content. Because it's there uncensored.

@jeremy_pm

@mayadev If you can't show the group targeting then you haven't met the definition that you supplied that relies on group targeting.

And when I consider the numbers that you put on the table, that doesn't look like coherent targeting of a group.

That's what I'm pointing out, that's why this is relevant, the record calls to question the basic idea that the group is being targeted, and therefore makes it look like it's not genocide as per that definition.

@JoshuaHolland

@knittingknots2 I believe his argument isn't that the amendment is time limited but that what it applies to isn't around anymore.

@mayadev the definition requires a showing of the group being targeted, but the stats don't make a compelling case of correlation with group identity since they're so low.

You must kill at least enough to make a compelling showing that the group is targeted.

The record so far just isn't qualitatively compelling to make that showing.
@JoshuaHolland

@lakelady yep, and I'd say all the focus on Trump distracts from the really vital job of engaging with those attitudes to change them.

Too many don't understand that Trump didn't make this movement. Those people existed long before he began his campaign, and they projected, and continue to project, their ideas onto the incoherent nonsense that he spouts.

Yes, it's hard work to address that. But it's the real work that needs doing.

@kdawson fair counter!

Like I tried to emphasize, I just don't think there's really anything to this report, as it's come out so far.

That take seems about the same level of compelling as what I was noticing, so it's a good match.

@mayadev I just don't find it to be a compelling argument that Israel intends on genocide, but they're just really bad at it.

That is an argument I've heard before, but it comes across as a huge stretch.
@JoshuaHolland