volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@anarchic_teapot well, it's slightly complicated in that Fox is a publicly traded company, and so while Murdochs own the majority of shares, the corporation is still subject to normal laws governing publicly traded corps in the US.

Mainly I'd say Fox seems to be after profit rather than kingmaking here. They enjoy their market niche and exploit that rather than push for successful candidates.

For example, Fox support for Trump gets them cash even if he's not the most capable candidate.

@MarkAB @GottaLaff

@fasnix one thing to keep in mind is the difference between the website and the user and content.

If you see the website as just the front end, the interface, then sure, get to the website via domain names as usual. Heck, at that point you can have more than one website serving as interfaces to the same system. That's still distributed even though it involves domain names.

But, user handles and content have to be unique, so you can still disconnect that from domain names even as the web interfaces still use them.

@reiver @laurenshof

@Martin no, that's not what Bush v Gore was about, it wasn't what the justices voted on.

In Bush v Gore the question before the Court was whether a lower court had acted legally and appropriately in interfering with Florida's voting process. The question was not whether the recount should proceed.

The Court found that the lower court had exceeded its authority and thus its ruling wasn't legal.

I really wish more people had been better informed about what happened in that case.

@OccuWorld @trans_caracal

It's a misleading description of what the Court found in that case.

The union wasn't to be sued for mere striking, but for arranging active sabotage of the employer beyond mere striking.

That's why the ruling was adopted by a broad coalition of justices and not just a few ideologues.

@realTuckFrumper she's so divisive in moments like this.

Just really a bad choice for a nominee, she doesn't have the high road.

And it's a really low bar against Trump. The only

@realTuckFrumper I'd say the poor choices to react at all.

As we say, don't feed the trolls.

Trump is looking to get a reaction. Don't give it to him.

@rhys That's not how PACs legally work, though.

The guardian is not a reliable source for news on US current events.

@rhys That's not how PACs legally work, though.

The guardian is not a reliable source for news on US current events.

@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.