volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@byteseu nah, Trump doesn't have to consider the truth at all.
That's the thing about this whole situation.
Whether the truth is inconvenient or not is just not relevant when truth doesn't matter.
That's just where we are.
But this is key: they don't have power over you. They're powerless. It's the opposite: YOU want to have power over THEM, and they aren't always bowing to the demand.
Failure to grant power to you is not exertion of power. It's the opposite.
@dougiec3 What? No.
A SCOTUS justice would be subject to impeachment if they accepted bribes to change rulings, and Gaetz was drummed out for his behavior.
No, the record is clear saying the opposite of it being OK.
It's in the backend protocol: in Fediverse/ActivityPub everything has to happen through instances. Instances shuttle posts around, potentially moderating them, etc. Everything happens between instances, and users just interface with an instance to send and receive content.
Just like email servers.
In contrast, BlueSky is set up so that users can post their content to any one or more servers, and pull content from one or more servers.
Fediverse/ActivityPub is all about instances talking to each other while BlueSky is about users talking to each other.
This has practical effects when it comes to everything from moderation through algorithm through account portability.
@freeschool Well keep in mind that part of the design philosophy engineered into this platform involves choices that don't put people at the center of the system. Instead, instances are at the center.
These are engineering decisions that were made, and I'm really critical of them. I would much rather put people at the center.
But that's not how this platform was programmed. And I think BlueSky chose the better path making it more person focused.
@shalafi I didn't see any kind of link to what you're talking about, by the way, so just wanted to let you know.
It could be an issue with this platform not sharing backlinks or something.
@byteseu you realized that was a joke making fun of people who would take it seriously?
@europesays I mean, you're the one talking about it here on this account...
You are entirely welcome to stop talking about this stupid stuff.
@freeschool sure, I spend a lot of time learning about the different designs of different systems and try to let people know about how they work.
This is my professional background, BTW, working on distributed systems. So I'm very interested in seeing what people are coming up with and, well, pointing out potential flaws that I see because hopefully it will lead to a better system in the end!
@collectifission plus, there's the role that even satirical media can promote things it may be satirizing via contrast.
For example, the message that real world nuclear workers would embrace Homer as an example of what NOT to do may be compelling in its own right.
@Lazarou investment in people can be a solid part of making advancements in metrics like improving pollution.
@europesays what? Conservatives roll that out pretty often because so many think it's hilarious; they make fun of progressives with the line.
They are't losing their minds. They're using it as a joke at the rhetorical expense of their rivals.
@freeschool build up instead of tearing down
@ahltorp do you realize how nutty a person sounds with that kind of comment?
You're really leaning into crazy conspiracy theory land.
@copter_chief fortunately, some parts of the government still respect the idea of judicial independence and will judge Thomas on substance, not on this muckracking.
@Savvyhomestead no, the prosecutors who stood in front of the judges failed to do their jobs.
They chose strategies that were overly complex, legally dubious, and on nonsensical timelines. It was their choice, as prosecutors, and they chose badly.
There was absolutely no need to go into the longshot charges and sketchy filings when simple charges would have sufficed to get the guy convicted.
The prosecutors were in control here, and they botched their cases.
@fleeky they shared what they had, right? They put what they had toward the uses they saw best?
That IS capitalism.
People on this platform had capital that they wanted to devote toward this use, so they did. This is a triumph of capitalism! That people were able to share these resources they had brought together is capitalism at work.
@IanDSmith I don't know why you think it's a struggle.
It seems like the guy has pretty much confessed, so there's no struggle at all. There's just the question about why he doesn't proudly own what he did.
Why fight it? Proudly say, yes, I did this because I thought it was the right thing to do, if that's his stance.
@IanDSmith in general the vague intent to kick off social unrest doesn't match legal definitions of terrorism.
Terrorism generally requires a strategy to use violence to coerce personal goals, for example legislative action.
It's sounding like Luigi killed the CEO to try to pressure changes to the healthcare system. Very different from simply trying to start a race war.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
