volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Jerry I hate to break it to you, but I personally have heard from people who have said they gave up on Harris after her performance in the last couple of weeks, from the interview last week through her skipping the charity dinner.

So yeah, Trump has gotten new votes.

Because Harris is just that much of a train wreck, and we need to hold Democratic Party officials accountable for making that obviously dumb choice to nominate her without a public process.

@jschauma we don't know that, though.

Specifically, we don't know a way to implement a solution that the people get behind, and unfortunately, turns out you have to get to people to get behind a solution if you are asking them to get behind it.

So no, we don't know the solution. If we knew the solution we would have done it by now.

@benda

Yeah, it's one of the drums that I bang that I can't believe the Democratic Party (the party itself, not party members, not the everyday person) has botched this so badly.

This should not be close. Harris was a terrible choice that the party made, and if they had had even an abbreviated competition, maybe at the convention, to choose the new nominee, heaven forbid with a process that was vaguely democratic, they would have come up with pretty much any other nominee that would have run circles around Trump.

And I just really feel like we need to hold the party accountable for this whole mess.

@arrrg

@arrrg never forget that so many Trump supporters support him specifically because of this sort of behavior out of him.

He's melting down? He's babbling? Well yeah, that's the sort of stuff that a bulk of his supporters gravitate toward him for. So he's just responding to his audience by embracing that sort of behavior.

To them it's a feature, not a bug.

@jenzi The algorithms are absolutely accountable because if people don't like them people leave the platform, so that's how we hold them accountable.

SO MANY PEOPLE don't want to hear anything else about this election. They don't want to hear about either of these candidates, or about voting, they just want an escape from it all, and the algorithms are serving them by giving them the stuff they want instead of stuff about voting.

So defending stupidity? No not at all! I am solidly supporting these platforms that are giving people the experience that they want instead of subjecting them to nonsense about voting that they don't want to see, because they are just sick of it.

@Nonilex a lot of users are tired of that kind of content, though.

Mrs. Frazzled comes across as being disappointed that she can't force her content on people that might not want to see it, might not be interested in it, and even might be specifically trying to get away from that kind of stuff on the platform.

It's not the end of democracy, if anything in a way it's democracy outvoting Mrs. Frazzled in terms of the type of platform they want to participate in.

@cmdr_nova@mkultra.monster It's not election interference. The election can go on as it wants to.

It's responding to users who don't want to see that stuff, giving them the experience they prefer from the platform.

@ainmosni I think you're overlooking that BlueSky interface is surprisingly lacking in features, and that holds back its adoption.

It also had surprisingly slow development.

With those two factors alone it really shot itself in the foot, overcoming any benefit it may have gotten from marketing.

In any case, the system itself is distributed and technically in a way that's probably superior to fediverse, but the developer missteps have left it looking kind of tragic at this point.

@losttourist It's not a question of choosing to allow proper native integration with AP, though. The two systems are not natively compatible at their cores, and those incompatibilities make proper native integration impossible.

At best there can be translators to bridge between the two.

The two systems were simply designed differently with AP focusing on instances and bluesky focusing on users

@Infrogmation What you said here is incoherent.

If he's fucked then this isn't about other people being disposable toys.

What in the world are you talking about?

@Scienceisnotopinions but that's not the idea.

You're looking at only a cost without considering the benefit, so you're only considering part of the picture.

We burn gas to benefit humans. We don't do it for fun, we do it because it makes people's lives better.

So we might lower the price of gas so that more people can have better lives. And that is arguably a great idea.

@samohTmaS That's hilarious because libertarians bash the Republican party for having such an anti-libertarian platform, when they have one at all.

@normalguy The thing is, I work in academia, and I and so many of my colleagues are completely frustrated with MSM misreporting things in our various areas of expertise.

Once you see MSM saying things that you know to be false because it's what you do for a living, well you start to see why so many fellow Americans have lost all faith in that reporting. More and more MSM publishes articles that you know to be false because they're saying things that run counter to your own area of professional expertise.

So yeah, the fact that you publish some articles from outlets that we know to be unreliable doesn't really say anything.

Anyway, in this case I don't support any candidate. I emphatically blame both major parties for nominating candidates that are not worth supporting. I absolutely say that we need to hold the two major parties accountable for their failure to nominate someone worth voting for.

The Democrats are a particular disappointment because they skipped the democratic process that might have resulted in a better candidate, one I would have wanted to support.

Republicans are just lost in this cycle. They didn't want to win. They just wanted to fight, and that's obnoxious, and they deserve to lose. But the Democratic party could have nominated someone worth voting for.

But instead we got this terrible selection without democratic input.

@uspolitics

@stefan can you mention the goals of the signature of verification system?

@mu I mean, I'd respond that it's such a privilege to not only own books but to have the leisure time to read them, so in that context we should be making the most of what we have, that our ancestors didn't, and using that opportunity for self-advancement with better books is a calling.

@cedar thanks!

I'd say that's close, but with one key step: yes, let's be solutions oriented, but part of getting to the right solution is properly identifying the problem.

To say homelessness is violence is to misidentify the problem, and that stands in the way of finding a solution, both practically and in terms of getting people on board.

On that last point, you mention inciting action to fix the problem, and that's one way this is counterproductive: if you say homelessness is violence, that will turn a lot of allies off as they say, "Well, that's clearly false" and walk away from the effort.

@noodlemaz

@normalguy

I watched the interview directly, so if the articles describe something different from what I saw with my own eyes, well, there's a good reason journalism has lost so much legitimacy lately.

But I will say, one of the weak parts of Harris's interview was her frequent dodgy by trying to talk about Trump when the question was about her.

So same thing here.

It's exactly why we criticize whataboutism.

Yes, Trump is awful, but we're talking about Harris here, not Trump. And Baier kept trying to get her to talk about her own points of view, again, not about Trump, but she kept going back to whatabout Trump?

She came across as incredibly weak and incompetent and unable to lay out her own ideas, always having to dodge to other things... like Trump.

People keep talking about that as a lion's den, but the questions Baier was asking, that she refused to answer, seemed like a great opportunity for her to connect with the audience.

She failed to do so, and that's on her.

@uspolitics

@dougiec3 well, it's not really their call.

The Supreme Court rules on law, what is law, not what should be.

That's really a question for the Congress that writes the law, not the Court that's bound by what our representatives pass.