volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@johnzajac yeah but the key is to recognize that incentive and make sure that the more effective treatment has the profit margin.

If it's worth more, pay more for it.

Don't complain about human nature when we can work with that to our advantage.

@professorhank@sfba.social it's past time that we kept listening to daily beast. We should call them out constantly for misleading and sensationalized headlines.

This one is no different. It's a sensationalized article to get clicks, and people who know their civics know that the article is pretty nonsensical.

No, Roberts does not have authority to direct the court, contrary to what this breathless article is trying to sell to the public.

The daily beast is not a reliable source. People need to stop listening to it unless it gets better.

@LoreleiArmstrong effective vaccine for what?

@SNerd fortunately democracy says nah, The sensational clickbait doesn't drive us to violate the independence of the judiciary.

Fortunately we have elected enough sane people who, even if they suck at everything else, won't go down that dangerous path.

@Andy_Tattersall I mean, as an academic on X I feel like I do have some basis for talking about the experience of academics on X...

@Andy_Tattersall honestly, it doesn't matter.

Academics posting on x were not really serious, so this sort of drama doesn't really have much impact on academia or the world at large.

In fact, I'd say the non-serious stuff posted on x might have been misinformation anyway, so we all might be better off in the end.

Serious academics have been critical of all that stuff anyway.

@sj_zero Yes, the point of consuming news should be to gain information that's not partisan, but your comment here seems to lean into partisanship, basically keeping for her party.

Yeah I would say the point should be to keep abreast of what actually happens, but your description here is not really accurate, doesn't accurately reflect the rulings that the court handed down.

The thing that you're missing in your analysis is the actual logic of the rulings. You're focusing on who you think different rulings might benefit and overlooking that there is actual objective reasoning behind them.

To put it a different way it sounds like you are saying the court is not partisan and then you go ahead and view the court through the partisan lens. Which is weird.

@mark_melbin

@mark_melbin jeez, these clickbait stories are spiraling out of control. No, that's not how that works.

I was critical of a different News outlet that had its own clickbait headline, but I was assured that people are going to take it seriously and it would be okay. And then you see nonsense like this.

No, that's not how the US government works. The daily beast is lying to you. It is not a reliable source, but it does promote certain interests, effectively spreading propaganda.

For goodness sake realize that you're being lied to from this source, and stop going to it.

You're being manipulated.

@JuanWild@newsie.social it's false, though, because when you look at the history, Roe v Wade had already been overturned as unworkable after decades of trying.

So this is trying to gin up drama where it really doesn't exist.

@DJ_2280 That's not what the leaks expose, even though the New York Times might try to get some clickbait headlines saying so.

No, it's not meddling. All of the justices get to write whatever opinions they want to write. It's just the normal course of coming to a consensus among people who sometimes disagree.

The whole matter is bad journalism that misleads the public and we need to call the press out on doing so.

@theguardian_us_environment it's not, though. The Guardian really doesn't know what it's talking about.

I often listen to such British outlets for both international news and just idle curiosity about what they think is happening in the US through their lens, but it's kind of academic because they really don't understand how things work in this country, they really are not up on American civics.

So, no. That's not what's at stake because they just really don't understand how the US government functions. It's not a parliamentary system and that is key.

@shuttersparks it all depends on what the goal is.

If Democrats prioritize winning the election then they would have nominated somebody with more of a chance of winning, not leaving it up to a dead heat.

So I don't know what master stroke you think they're going for, clearly there are things more important to them than winning the presidency, so what do you think they're up to if not that?

@shuttersparks The thing is, Democrats chose to nominate an awful candidate with a whole bunch of baggage. Had the Democrats nominated someone better they would run away with this contest, including a lot of Republican votes. If they had had a serious primary process maybe we would have had that.

So many people hate Trump. So many people are looking for a better alternative. It's so unfortunate that the Democratic party nominated Harris because she's pretty much the only alternative to Biden that wouldn't get the anti-trump vote by default.

But that's the world we're living in.

We need to call the Democratic party out for making that mistake.

@guacamayan well that's exactly what I'm saying, once again NYT publishes something with headlines that don't even really match the substance of the article.

Yeah, Supreme Court justices discuss things among themselves and then they come to their conclusions.

There's no big news there. But, the paper frames it as if Roberts is conducting some sort of coup, like he's directing the whole thing, which is just not factually correct when you get to the substance.

That's my entire point here. This is misleading. Even if the substance of the NYT content does clarify things, which I'm not sure it does, that's not the takeaway that people are echoing around social media right now.

What I want to rant about is the state of journalism. So often I hear panel discussions where journalists go back and forth not being able to figure out why people lose faith in them. Well, this. This is why people lose faith in journalists. And it's a damn shame.

@guacamayan I'm specifically saying that Roberts doesn't have the unilateral power that the article claims.

I am specifically criticizing the article for misleading the audience about how the Supreme Court works. The Chief Justice does not get to just order the rulings he wants, though that is the impression the article gives.

And this is why so many of us have lost faith in journalism these days, because these sensational, clickbait headlines just don't match reality.

@guacamayan no the New York Times article was not truly historic, it was sensationalism that misleads the public about how their government works.

No, Roberts does not have such unilateral control of the Court as the headlines and the article leads people to believe. It's really irresponsible of New York Times, but then that's just how that outlet has been going in recent years.

We really need to call them out for how antisocial they are.

@EtherNRhum because Donnie's not doing much at all. He's a loser. He really doesn't have nearly the stroke that people try to put on him, and so end up causing the exact level of influence that they are complaining about.

Donnie doesn't set the bar. When he goes out of line Republicans and conservatives rake him over the coals. He takes his marching orders from conservatives that come up with all this stuff far ahead of when he starts vomiting it out into a microphone.

Trump doesn't set the bar. That's the whole point. If you watch how that environment operates you'll see that the causality doesn't go that direction.

No, it's not good, but we can't fix it if we don't identify the problem that needs to be fixed.

@lindawoodrow but what they found is that that's quite a valuable trade for land, and just as importantly, questionable title to land.

It was a risky promise. The discount Factor is pretty big there.

@lindawoodrow that story has been roundly debunked by historians as a weird oversimplification, a myth, that people keep promoting for some reason even though it doesn't really make sense.