volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@erik even if you block your instance from threads.net, the way the protocol works your content can still make its way to them.

Again, I think it's really important that users realize how little control they have over content on this platform. Simple blocking like that doesn't solve the problem, and you remain vulnerable.

@Hyolobrika @BeAware@social.beaware.live

@stargazer oh quite the contrary, it IS what Fediverse was meant to be.

At its core Fediverse was programmed to put content out there without the control of authors. I criticize them for those design decisions, but they were made, and it is what it is.

Fediverse was designed so that all content is fair game. You don't even need to interact with Threads for them to get your content--ActivityPub will happily broadcast it into their datastores.

It's critical that users realize that if they want to keep using Fediverse.

@jupiter_rowland

I'd take it one step farther and say that even if Threads were to botch the standard like Mastodon, I trust the professional engineers at Threads to do a better job than what I've seen coming out of Mastodon's developers.

EVEN IF Threads is going to be a new boss of the Fediverse, which I don't think realistic, there's a good chance that would be an improvement.

@MugsysRapSheet reporting has it that it's not so much Bibi snubbing Biden as both politicians having reasons to keep distance from the other.

For Biden to meet with Bibi or even have a close functional relationship with him would put Biden at odds with anti-Israeli communities whose votes he needs.

This is a rather pragmatic split for both politicians.

@junesim63 never confuse a president with the country. He's merely the politician in charge of the administration of one of three branches of one of countless governments.

So the president, facing troubling poll numbers in a few key communities, is making a symbolic move to shore them up.

That's hardly the US getting worried about Gaza. That's one person, Biden, getting worried about his own future.

@BeAware@social.beaware.live: exactly

@erik the programming behind the Mastodon platform is all about broadcasting information out without much in the way of control over who gets it.

You can not block those actors on this platform, unfortunately. It's simply not how they structured the system here, and it's really important for users to realize that.

Effectively, if you participate here, they will have access to it.

I criticize that design, but it is what it is. Other platforms like BlueSky might be better about this, but it's how this platform decided to operate.

@LouisIngenthron you're misunderstanding.

I'm not at all talking about buying into their spin or fact checking Trump's economic policies.

I'm talking about using their spin against him, instead of contributing to it, and then pointing out things that amount to Trump's own admissions of his own failures.

Not tiptoeing around the opponent but loudly amplifying that his spun words actually undermine his promise to his supporters.

And again, I'm trying to point out that they won and he dodged his weak point through this response about the word rather than his record.

It played their game, and they're good at using it to their advantage.

@radiojammor

You misunderstand the religious argument. It's not about how many people are working but about the relationship between each individual and their own income, with income not coming from work being, well, sinful.

That might be oversimplifying their stance just a little bit, but I'm illustrating how the statistical or fiscal arguments don't address the complaints.

But the point of it all is that there are lots of reasons UBI hasn't raised broad consensus of the public needed to begin actually implementing it.

You can say if they don't want it it must be good, but that doesn't change that their not wanting it is a roadblock, whether it's good or not.

Until the broad consensus can be raised, the idea can't move forward, again for better or worse.

@cjammet

@null The problem is that you're broadcasting your information to them whether you like it or not. That's just how the protocols on this platform work.

They are extremely weak in terms of privacy, so basically anything you post here is available to Facebook, whether threads exists or not.

ActivityPub is a public broadcast platform. I wish it was otherwise, but it is what it is.

@eb @evan from everything I've seen, post after post, I think you fully understand the situation.

It's just people being irrational and making things personal, no real explanation beyond that.

People just don't like the smelly corporation and this is their way of expressing that.

@jann keep in mind that that exact same risk is even more serious outside of threads where any of a bazillion different instances is free to push ads to subscribed accounts.

At least on threads we know where they would be coming from.

@HilliTech @Danweston @appleinsider

@LouisIngenthron I think the current topic is a great example.

Supposedly what Trump was saying was that under the trade agreement foreign companies were decimating US business, and if they're not stopped it's going to be really really terrible for US businesses.

So many have claimed that he was talking about violence throughout the country, which Trump supporters used to say, hey look how absurd the critics are! Look how they're lying to you! Fight back against them by voting for Trump!

The difference is that instead of giving them that opening to score points for Trump, I would have focused on Trump's claims that the trade agreement was decimating US businesses to point out that IT WAS TRUMP'S TRADE AGREEMENT.

So you see the difference, one gives them an opening to score points while the other takes advantage of the opening that Trump stumbled into.

This sort of thing happens all the time with Trump where he basically gets let off the hook for dumb things that he did say because people focus on other things that he didn't.

@cjammet I suspect we are seeing different people 🙂

I absolutely know that some groups are absolutely thrilled with UBI and the results and everything else. But I also hear from groups who think the opposite.

There's also the issue that even among people who see the current stage of disparity as moral injustice (which already carves out a lot of the population) there are going to be disagreements about whether UBI makes that better or worse, and then if you carve out the ones that think it makes it better, then you have the ones who think it's worth it versus the ones who think it's not worth it.

So you see it's step after step of dividing the population, until at the end you don't really end up with a consensus.

@radiojammor

@radiojammor Well just for example, within the last month I've heard some guy going around the talk show circuit because he has a new book, and when he's on friendly conservative leaning talk shows in the US often enough they go off talking about how work is a gift from God, and getting your income from work is part of that gift.

I'm sorry I don't remember the guy's name, because I really don't care 🙂 but

I'm not overstating that or mangling that, it is literally the belief that getting your income from working is flat out religious practice.

I bring up this argument as an example of one of many arguments that can't be refuted by talking about funding source.

And heck, let me throw another example out there, a really sad one that fortunately I don't think is anywhere near common but.. actually racist people might oppose UBI because they don't want to give any support to whatever group they are against. Again, the point of this example is that funding source won't change the opposition to UBI.

So that's why I say step one is to convince people that UBI is a good idea on its face even regardless of funding. That hurdle would have to be cleared first before even talking about how it would work..

@cjammet

@radiojammor in my experience a lot of people reject UBI for reasons beyond the fiscal side of it, lots of ideas about it being immoral or impractical or corrupting in its own right, regardless of how the money may be raised.

But either way it gets to the same conclusion, regardless of why they don't support it, there just is not broad buy-in throughout the population.

So if you want to move toward UBI, to focus on ways of taxing to pay for it is putting the cart before the horse. Until the public is convinced that it's a good idea in the first place, it doesn't matter how you want to pay for it, the public doesn't really want to do it anyway.

@cjammet

@MitchW talking points memo has this weird obsession with conspiracy theories...

@javi sure, like I said, I'm not opposed to the decision at all. I just want to make sure users are considered, as all too often they're not.

@cjammet so instead of taxing AI to pay for UBI because of a perception of a connection between the two, I would use the employment threat of AI as an argument to sell UBI to the public to be paid for like any other important government program out of normal government revenues.

Depending on just where we're talking about, often the problem is that the public is not sold on UBI in the first place. It's not about finding funding for it, but about convincing the public that it is worth funding in the first place.

We know where the funding can come from. It's just that the public doesn't agree to do it.

@radiojammor