volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@jeaton the article doesn't really sell its conclusion there.

To point out that the amendment doesn't provide for a type of taxation that isn't widespread now is not blowing up the entire tax code. Quite the opposite.

Rawstory.com is just peddling sensationalism and conspiracy at that point.

@dbsalk it just highlights the importance of making sure your congressional representation is representing you well.

@AkaSci

@Free_Press this has nothing to do with Trump.

@freeschool well, no post sends to all instances. Instances talk among themselves about what posts they want to transmit and receive. It's kind of a subscription setup.

So a scraper instance can request from your instance to have the content delivered to it.

Followers-only doesn't really do anything different with regard to scraping.

But

@CarolineMalaCorbin it absolutely is discrimination, whether for the best or not.

If you're sorting out religious from nonreligious institutions, that's discriminating between them.

Even if one would say the Establishment Clause requires that discrimination, it's discrimination nonetheless.

@earlymodjustice

You're missing that the Supreme Court was applying law that we're free to change.

If we don't like the 2nd Amendment we're free to amend it and change it should the country want to.

@jmadelman

@KentSearight@pnw.zone Yeah, senators definitely do want to have control over that other branch of government.

And that's exactly why we don't let them.

It's no surprise that a senator is going to talk about wanting to violate the independent judiciary. He scores political points with it even if he understands why it's such a bad idea.

And the rest of us shit tell him no, and should probably stop reelecting such idiots.

@CarolineMalaCorbin

Of course, just to have it said here, the other side of the coin is that discrimination against religious institutions is also problematic.

@jstatepost Well based on what do you have that belief?

@Nonilex

@dangrsmind Well I'm happy to clarify that I wasn't talking about everybody. Yeah, some people really do believe it

However, Trump himself is probably the biggest troll we have in society today. That he would post it is something I would point to as an example of these people trolling.

Again, to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that Trump is a troll. I don't think he believes anything that he says, I think his entire career has been built on trolling society.

@thomasapowell what?

@Nonilex I always emphasize in these moments, we elected the people that confirmed those judges.

We should stop electing idiots. More strikingly, we should stop reelecting idiots.

We could elect better people. We choose not to. So here we are.

@rberger sounds like Vanity Fair is missing that the GOP is largely ignoring this issue.

It's not so much an albatross as it's simply misleading oppositional rhetoric.

@bespacific Right, but that's how the US was supposed to be. Not so much a patchwork, I'd say, but individual communities doing what they think best for their own residence.

It's about not putting all the eggs in one basket.

By distributing this out to the different communities we allow different places to do the right thing even if others don't.

@Hyolobrika Oh I'm just generally in a bad mood.

We live in a stupid world full of stupid people saying stupid things.

We live in a world where facts don't matter, and people have lost faith in institutions like journalism because journalism itself has pretty much earned that.

So welcome to social media where nothing matters, but I might as well just go ahead and yell at the clouds.

@freeschool The core issue is that this platform was designed around instances and not users. Everything happens in the instance. One way to put it is that this is not actually a decentralized platform but rather one that is re-centralized around instances.

It's not that your post goes to everyone, but your post goes to your instance and then your instance broadcasts it to whoever your instance feels like broadcasting it to.

So it's a chain where you can decide how much you can trust each link on the chain.

You send your post to your instance, and hopefully you can trust them. Your instance will send your post to a bunch of other instances, and every single instance that gets the post decides for itself what to do with it.

Does that make sense?

Even if you trust your own instance, that doesn't mean all of the instances of your followers are also so trustworthy.

@dangrsmind never forget that a lot of the people pushing for posters in the classroom are flat out being trolls.

The theory is that people are going to get upset by it.

So don't get upset. Don't play their game. That's what they want, and it encourages them, and they'll do more stuff like it the more response they get.

Just roll your eyes, file the appropriate lawsuits, stop voting for idiots to the representative bodies, and don't give them what they want.

@freeschool when you post followers only it attaches a notation to your content that says followers only, but any recipient is perfectly free to ignore that notation.

So it's really a suggestion, you're suggesting that this post only go to your followers, but any recipient is perfectly free to vacuum that content up into a database or do anything else they want to with the post.

Followers only is only a suggestion, only a notation tacked onto your post. It's up to the recipient, including whatever corporation, to decide whether or not they want to respect it.

@JenniferSlack If you read the opinion they spell out pretty clearly that the founding fathers did have things to say about depriving abusers of that right.

You say the founding fathers had nothing to say, but the opinion spells out that they said a lot!