volkris @volkris@qoto.org
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
But... people are always going to be wrong on the internet, as the saying goes.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Just speaking into the void, since I figure it's an exercise in futility to conduct discussions on these platforms.
Joined Dec 2022
Well I'd frame it as a question of overhead and cost benefit.
E2EE necessarily carries administrative and resource overhead, and for one category of message that's completely worth the trade to keep secrets secret. But for other messages? Might as well leave them fairly exposed because you don't care that much about secrecy.
In this case, though, aren't they talking about real time voice communication? It's harder to do that over TLS through trusted servers.
You're missing the context and why she asked the question. It's not about whether it's OK or not OK, but rather it was referencing previous court decisions that analyzed discrimination claims in terms of de jure history.
She was giving the challenger an opportunity to prove discrimination using an existing legal framework for showing it.
It sure would have been nice for the article to give that context.
@yamainu but that's exactly why under the US system the Supreme Court isn't charged with deciding between studies. That's not its job.
SCOTUS is to rule on law, not on studies.
It's the wrong forum to try to battle out studies. That's to be done in the other branch, the legislative bodies, not the judicial bodies.
THEY'RE the ones tasked with considering studies to set the law. After that, the courts are to rule on the laws as they were passed.
@delve but that's not at all the question before the Court.
The Court doesn't rule on medical opinions. It has neither the expertise nor the authority to make such determinations.
The Court rules on legal questions only.
Whether suicides are cut or not and how to approach that is a matter for our legislative branches, and this misunderstanding often ends up letting them off the hook for doing what we want them to do.
@lisagetspolitik that's not how the legal system in the US works, though.
SCOTUS sitting as an appellate court here doesn't rule on whether you can never prove sex discrimination. The question is whether in this particular case there is clearly sex discrimination, and this case is very different from so many others where that charge is made.
SCOTUS cannot rule through this case that sex discrimination is a thing you can never prove.
@lps yeah, at the least IPFS would be great for hosting static content like memes and cat pictures.
IPFS is a little weak on serving dynamic content like a feed of posts, but it can be done.
The big problem is in overhead, though. Decentralized systems like IPFS trade inefficiency for their features, so who knows how well IPFS would be able to scale.
@breedlov hey, look at it the other way: this is this idiot handing millions to others who will hopefully put the money to better use.
Access to medical care in the US has long been highly regulated. Politicians interfere in personal medical decisions every single day.
Personally, I don't think that's right, but it's the status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon, especially when so many insist on turning a blind eye to that fact.
But it's in that context that "hands off my body" arguments fall flat. We have long lived in a society where political intrusion into personal medical decisions is not only tolerated but actively demanded.
At this point it's not about whether to keep politicians out but rather which politicians to give the power to.
People need to realize, though, that the Supreme Court doesn't sit to judge medical questions. Whether or not medical associations support the procedures is irrelevant to the question before the Court.
The Court rules on matter of law, not medicine. The question is whether the TN law runs up against federal law, not medical determinations.
Folks misunderstand that quite often.
@kimwulff but don't underestimate the value of old approaches that just worked.
Boring policies that work are much better than shiny new policies that don't.
@benroyce I really can't say it anymore plainly, so maybe if you think on it some more you'll figure it out.
Pointing out differences doesn't discount similarities.
I'm sure if you think more about it you can find other examples in daily life that will help you understand this concept.
@europesays You're above the law! And you're above the law! Everyone's above the law!
@theguardian_us_opinion this article is stretching really hard.
It basically runs through the reasons that it's reasonable to call it a landslide before just saying, "Nope it's not!"
There's no technical definition of a landslide. But this article does a pretty good job of laying out just why people could reasonably say there was one.
@benroyce it seems like you're getting distracted by distinctions without differences, like you're so busy trying to categorize different forms of questionable behavior that you're not noticing the similarities.
Yes, the issues with moderation are related because they are similar. That makes them related. Because of the similarities.
@manton The way I always put it is that Mastodon is centralized around instances.
@Brandon Well that sounds like pretty good reason to think it's actually not that great and not that interesting 🙂
Good content appeals to both.
@knittingknots2 keep in mind that many on the GOP side have seriously lost faith in the FBI in the last couple of years, so if you're coming from that perspective, why would you care what the FBI had to say?
Anybody stunned by this hasn't been paying attention to the political environment.
@Nerde there are serious legal questions about whether a president can pardon somebody for unspecified crimes.
It's not actually clear that's legal.
To give somebody such a blank check is pretty questionable, really putting them above the law.
The very important answer is no, because what the Supreme Court actually said was that presidents can't prosecute for things like that.
The Supreme Court did not say presidents had free reign to violate the law. What it said was that presidents were restricted from inappropriate prosecution.
A whole lot of people get that backwards.
The Supreme Court ruling does much more to protect Biden from Trump than it gives to Trump.
Except, no that's not quite right. These infractions were judged to be so substantial that they needed to be prosecuted at a very high level. The administration already determined that significant resources needed to be poured into prosecuting these infractions.
Biden's administration already concluded that these were not minor infractions.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY (yeah, my voice goes up because, wow) Biden pardoned Hunter for anything else as well, not just these things that you call minor infractions, but also anything else at all that he did.
That's incredible!
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
But... people are always going to be wrong on the internet, as the saying goes.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Just speaking into the void, since I figure it's an exercise in futility to conduct discussions on these platforms.
Joined Dec 2022
