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
@mhjohnson bans on foreign ownership of things that don't involve speech are completely different because they don't intrude into First Amendment issues.
The government can regulate the provision of electricity. It is barred from regulating who can speak, though.
The law does not apply to social media in general. That is exactly the kind of factual issue that screwed up this case.
And the people's data? Number one there's no such thing. Number two, that's not relevant to the government deciding who can and cannot speak, what perspectives can and cannot be presented to the public.
But these are exactly the sorts of topics that the Supreme Court got factually wrong.
@Tharpa No we already saw that didn't work.
They exist in a vacuum of good information. The reason they fall for things is because legit sources aren't answering their questions.
The strategy for educating them, the only one that works, is to simply engage with them and answer their questions.
@siguza It's important to emphasize that the executive branch doesn't get to flip switches back and forth like that legally.
Everything else has to be worked out in the other branches.
@siguza It's important to emphasize that the executive branch doesn't get to flip switches back and forth like that legally.
Everything else has to be worked out in the other branches.
That's fine, I just want to be clear that you're talking about debating matters of fact that aren't really up for debate.
Block away. But in the end, seems like you're just blocking some information that you don't want to hear.
Yes, we can absolutely see for ourselves that these rockets are being launched and they are being developed. I don't know why you're fighting that so strongly.
@volkris @pdiff1 @sundogplanets Now you are sealioning and blocked.
@jazzilla as others seem to have said, The difference is that this is fundamentally different because our elected representatives passed a law specifically targeting TikToc.
This isn't mere harassment from the government that might be legal, if that's what you're talking about. This is a specific law signed by the president with the specific intention recognized by the courts to shutter this one platform as it exists today.
To me that's a striking difference. It's not a general law about how things should work, it was a targeted piece of legislation specifically trying to take down this company because it had connections to a specific other country.
@tekkie Well more importantly we should return to the old norm where we recognized that there can be multiple name server systems, and end users can subscribe to whichever they want to.
The problem is that we recognize a single DNS. And part of that problem is legal recognition of a single DNS. That was a really screwed up legal conclusion, it was wrong, and I sure wish we could fix it.
@jgobble prosecutorial discretion.
But also the law does give the president some flexibility.
The law itself is a mess, and the the legal activity around the law only makes it messier.
We should stop reelecting the type of lawmakers that write this sort of law, that give presidents this amount of discretion.
@mastodonmigration again: time has told! You can pull up the information right now and see it if you care.
There is no debate here.
The #SCOTUS ruling on #TikTok was really unfortunate because it was based on the justices not understanding the technology, the facts of the situation.
You could see in the oral arguments that they didn't understand how the platform was engineered, they got multiple things very wrong about it. And that's really a shame.
The role of the Supreme Court in the US is to interpret laws and review lower court rulings, but in this case the issue wasn't either of those, it was a matter of fact that they struggled with, not law.
This legal proceeding was rushed. The two sides did not have time to hammer out their factual disagreement through the normal course of the normal process. And so when it got to the Supreme Court, the Court was presented with a record with inconsistencies.
And this is why we should never try to rush these legal processes.
The justices seemed to think that a shutdown wasn't even on the table. Well, the platform shut down. The justices were proven wrong. Unfortunately, as far as I know there is no procedure for the Court to fix a factual error like this. We are stuck with this ruling until who knows when some future case might provide the opportunity to fix it.
It's legally tragic.
@gabriel Oh it's definitely a something burger.
Between the politics and power shown by the incoming administration through the long-lasting legal consequences of the Supreme Court ruling, this has some serious indirect effects.
@Jigsaw_You keep in mind that a lot of people who would buy this kind of thing (and do buy this kind of thing) are paying money just to be involved.
It's not really about investment to those people, it's just basically a price of admission. So they get exactly the value that they expect.
It's like paying to attend the super bowl: not something I would care to do, but if they want to pay that money to be a part of it, well they get what they want.
@65dBnoise because Biden doesn't believe the message he's been trying to sell to the American people all these years.
I think Americans realized that the guy just wasn't trustworthy, and so they voted for the guy who pretty much doesn't claim to be trustworthy in the first place.
@mastodonmigration but that's my point: fact is we are seeing them address those issues.
There's really not room for debate when we can pull up everything from governmental filings through independent recordings--and there are SO many YouTubers producing videos taken from the development site--showing the fact that they are progressing in their development on these matters.
In the end, facts matter, and we can see for ourselves today, fact is they are moving forward.
@pop_justy No, you're missing that the ground order was part of the arrangement that is being followed.
We are watching the arrangement being followed right in front of us.
It's not like they launched outside of the arranged corridor or anything like that.
YES The filings with those entities do have within it potential for explosion and debris over international partners. That literally is part of the arrangement they made because everyone involved knows this is a experimental program with a serious likelihood of explosion.
That's why they created the area for the explosion to take place.
It is all there within the filings.
@brenttoderian.bsky.social meh, it was a bipartisan effort to bring the service down.
It's not about right-wing oligarchs. It's about xenophobia in the larger population that elected the representatives that imposed on the platform.
@chris I don't think comparing it to BBC or CBC is really the apples to apples comparison you think it is...
@DukeDuke but none of that matters.
If you believe in God then all of those worldly concerns don't actually matter.
So it's not an interesting argument. You either believe or you don't. If you do, then you do.
@thetruthaddict The two are not mutually exclusive.
Well right. Nobody anywhere should be optimistic about any of this. There is no real solution anywhere on any horizon, just two groups that are determined to keep fighting each other regardless of anything else or any other opinions.
They might get some hostages released, and that's nice.
But, as they say, peace is not an option.
Nobody with any authority has any commitment to a long-term peace.
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
