volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@juergen_hubert but look deeper: why does that idea of engagement work? Because users respond to it and value it.

For better or worse.

All too often people forget to think about value to user around here, focusing on top down approaches.

Without value to users it doesn't matter much what "better" system we offer to them, as we focus on our own idea of what they should want instead of what they do.

@altlife

@lauren if you're not hearing much about blockchain now, perhaps you need more comprehensive information sources?

Because I certainly continue to hear it proposed as a solution to problems people come across, where they want decentralized systems that can provide confidence in records.

Sounds like you used to be tapped into a bunch of silly hype, and now the silly hype has died down. But maybe focus on places that aren't so focused on such hype?

@mark_ohe that's the opposite of what SCOTUS said as Kennedy went out of his way in the decision to emphasize that the it is to level the playingfield *against* the ultra-wealthy.

If you think the effect of the decision has been the opposite of it actually said, then that says to me that we should have spent more time correcting the record instead of promoting this misunderstanding of what it held.

The Supreme Court only has the power of its pen. If the rest of us buy into repetition of that opposite holding, well, there's not much the Court can do about it.

The Supreme Court did not hold that corporations are people in Citizens United. If we claim that they did, then we're creating that reality and creating the legal reality that runs counter to our own interests.

@mral

@chiraag yes, I support unions, though not the legal framework the US has developed to regulate them.
@Weedkiller

@mral oh, it stinks for many reasons ranging from defunding of other government programs that relied on payments as part of their funding source through actually directly contributing to the root cause that you cite.

And so folks ranging from workers paying income taxes through unemployed people counting on government services through prospective students watching education prices rise in response all end up paying the price for benefits that already went to the relatively well-off folks getting out of their financial commitments.

We've thought about this before. And when we thought about the downsides we decided not to support the idea.
@charlesgaba

@JorisBohnsonPM I mean, the comment sets a low bar.

Better than Sunak/Biden doesn't say much.

@fonecokid presidential immunity doesn't extend to actions not allowed by the office.

@augieray yes, it's OK.

@mark_ohe that's just not factually true, though.

It's getting the accounting backwards to act as if failure to take is deprivation, like saying I lost money because I didn't mug that guy on my way into the building this morning.

No, failure to tax doesn't distort. It's a lack of distortion, it's complaining about something that didn't happen.

@mral no, that's not what the SCOTUS said.

Yes, special interest groups have made that claim, but they're lying to you.

SCOTUS in fact goes out of its way to try to counter such nonsensical claims, but unfortunately these myths persist.

@mark_ohe

@mral what?

Just because a plan is being blocked doesn't mean it's a good or workable plan.

Sometimes a plan is being blocked because it honestly stinks.
@charlesgaba

@JessTheUnstill I mainly blame the state of journalism in the country, where so many people noticed that they were being offered reporting that just didn't make sense, that came across as gaslighting, that they lost faith in the institution.

At that point, without trustworthy sources of information it's completely unsurprising that people weren't willing to believe that the new injections were safe.

@rickf it strikes me that that sort of reply is exactly why the nah rate was 40%.

So much false information circulated that people didn't have faith in it.
@JessTheUnstill @kittywifclaws

@nicholas_saunders yeah, and that's a huge part of the criticism of Chevron deference, that it gives the judiciary (along with the executive) too much involvement in questions that should be the realm of the Congress.

Under Chevron the executive and judicial branches get together to decide things that the legislative branch needs to be deciding. Rolling back Chevron is about getting both out of the way.

@hkrn

@chiraag I love that you emphasized the conspiracy in your reply.

@Weedkiller

@chiraag that's not what's happening.

@Weedkiller

@nicholas_saunders exactly, and philosophically that is the enormous reason that the court should roll back Chevron.

Well I say philosophically, but it's also extremely practically. This is the delegation issue. The people that we elect should not be allowed to escape their responsibility for sorting this stuff out.

@hkrn

@chiraag No you're getting that backwards.

You're saying the only way this is a conspiracy theory is if you ignore the conspiracy, but no, that's exactly why this is a conspiracy theory.

And it's it's bad for workers to promote it.

That's the whole problem.

@Weedkiller