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 ;)
Public Key
npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 Profile Code
nprofile1qqs08tzdt22rp6qugd65j5au6ndemmlx3cschncdk3q04f7kku8mjsqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsh7kmr3
Show more details
Published at
2026-07-10T15:49:28Z Event JSON
{
"id": "98e6ddd0ab2578f402a84f2502681f4e6b478e83301b6be9cb96c584dd34e420" ,
"pubkey": "f3ac4d5a9430e81c43754953bcd4db9defe68e218bcf0db440faa7d6b70fb940" ,
"created_at": 1783698568 ,
"kind": 0 ,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://qoto.org/users/volkris",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://qoto.org/users/volkris",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "{\"name\":\"\",\"about\":\"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.\\n\\nThe 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.\\n\\nUnfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.\\n\\nSo 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.\\n\\nBut if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)\",\"website\":\"https://qoto.org/@volkris\",\"picture\":\"https://media.social.qoto.org/accounts/avatars/001/205/958/original/8fa3ed23115d8616.png\",\"nip05\":\"[email protected] \"}" ,
"sig": "ecacf12b620ee41ddbdcef29a950af2a67a54f6236c92ab03832d95a0b72abc6f29020258f82f4528e6c5b1458ef54a567c585322491a66204400518f8deef12"
}
Last Notes npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Nah, You're giving Trump too much credit. He just wanted some attention. That's the long and short of it. Globalize? The guy doesn't know anything about the rest of the globe, nor does he care. He just wants attention. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 That description doesn't accurately capture what's going on in this case. Federal law prevented Monsanto from including the warning on its label, but a state tried to preempt DC by requiring it, and that despite scientific consensus. This isn't so much about shielding Monsanto from liability as it is about keeping states from undermining the EPA. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/386073/20251201170732560_24-1068%20--%20Monsanto%20v.%20Durnell.pdf npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 "Of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred." Trump's self-defeating incompetency, that we can observe every day, is the controlling element here, and core to the situation. Sure, he can be both an idiot and corrupt and smelly, but because of the idiocy it doesn't even matter. But if you go after an assumed conspiracy that doesn't exist, that's going to distract from actually addressing the problem. @npub1t7r…dsf2 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 I don't know how you go from me saying it might be bad to thinking I'm defending it. I'm just asking you if you have evidence to support your own claims. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 I didn't defend anything. I asked if you had proof that the people who claim to be elected weren't actually elected. Whether that's good or bad is a different matter. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Yes! It's the simpler explanation, and Occam's Razor would have us assume it. Yes, Kooky Grandpa is the explanation that simply explains all of that PLUS all of the stuff that Trump has been botching. If there really was this whole conspiracy that you're describing, chances are he wouldn't be messing up so much other stuff. If Trump wasn't Kooky Grandpa then would would have to start assuming he's just really good at putting on this idiot act even though it makes his own life harder because he really is a super duper genius playing eight-dimensional chess against the rest of the world with some grand goal that we can't even imagine. Or maybe he really is just an idiot. That's the much simpler explanation. @npub1t7r…dsf2 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Y'all are giving this administration too much credit. TOFU: Trump Only Fucks Up, which you can see everywhere from botched prosecutions through botched international negotiations. Corruption? Oil fields? No, the administration is just continuing to fuck up. No need to look for anything more complicated than that. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 you have proof that there is widespread election fraud? You can prove that the folks in Congress weren't actually elected? npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Well... right, because it's not really up to the Supreme Court in the US system. It's up to Congress. SCOTUS has little real enforcement power by design. They only judge. It's up to the people we elect to Congress to really respond to a misbehaving executive. Congress can impeach and remove from office, can withhold funds, can generally engage with the executive branch as needed. The Supreme Court is limited to judging cases brought before them. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 I think it's important to emphasize that a lot of folks aren't so much voting over values as they are voting over their particular set of facts that don't necessarily match the real world. In analogy, you and I can both agree in terms of values that we should dress to be comfortable, but we're going to dress very differently if you believe the middle of a scorching summer while I believe we're in the depth of winter. Agreement in values, of fact. THAT is what I would say is the reason we are here as a nation. Different groups have completely different sets of facts that they are working with, and we no longer have institutions able to sort out what is true. People spend so much time addressing values that are actually shared without realizing the real dispute is over fact. So they talk past the actual problems. #USPolitics #journalism npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 meh, the subset of his voters that think he is orange Jesus would believe it either way. If Harris was president they would all be griping about how much better things would be if Trump had won, and probably be real annoying about conspiracy theories that stole the election from him. But a whole lot of Trump's constituents don't actually think he's Jesus. They just thought as crappy as he is, they didn't think Harris was better. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 No that is not what's happening in this case. The legality of same-sex marriage is not at all being questioned by this case. Instead it's a case about procedures and penalties to be applied under state law toward ministerial offices. It has nothing to do with whether same-sex marriage is legal. Unfortunately there are a lot of very misleading sensationalized headlines going around. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Bizarre to talk about voters not having control and democracy not existing in context of a system of voters voting and democratically empowering officials. No, that's just conspiracy theory that doesn't really match reality. In reality, we voted for this mess. We should stop submitting our votes for a bunch of idiots, but we did and we do. Yay democracy. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 The problem is that going nuclear and overriding the Democratic vote against proceeding to funding will lead to serious consequences, as it did when that option was taken with regard to judicial nominees. The current state of the judiciary in the US came out of a party doing exactly this, overriding the minority party's traditional power of objection. They CAN end the impasse by changing Senate rules, but blowing up that dam is a seriously consequential proposal. @npub1h7u…nfql #USPolitics #Senate #shutdown npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 that misses the argument here. It's NOT that torture is protected free speech but that talking to people is not torture. As for the science, it's not the role of the Court to judge science. They're experts on law, not science, and often times poor results come out of courts wading into matters of science. The Court is to apply the law as they receive it. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Correct. A century of segregation doesn't count because in modern times that has been relegated to the dust heap of history. That's how constitutional interpretation works. If there is general consensus today, then there is a lack of controversy today, and that counts for a whole lot in the way these questions are addressed. This is nothing new, this has been the norm for a long time. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 one doesn't have to wonder very far. Loving v. Virginia would pass tests that Thomas has espoused, from its lack of controversy through basis in text and tradition. That's in stark contrast to Humphrey’s Executor, as the excerpt above shows. That Humphrey's has been chipped away at shows that the "stability in the law" isn't always protected by blind adherence to precedent. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 maybe they started paying attention to the fact that it wasn't written into the Constitution? @npub1nzj…pmgc npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 notice, if you will, how JD Vance tends to use very simple words even when talking about big picture issues. He gets it. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 A lot of people are missing at the moment that the safeguard against unconstitutional actions is NOT through #SCOTUS but through the Congress, and more importantly, through voters electing representatives who will react to unconstitutionality appropriately. SCOTUS has no enforcement power against the Executive Branch. That was left to the Congresss. Both SCOTUS and Congress can and should judge the President in different ways, but at the end of the day, it's up to the people we elect to Congress to react to whatever has been found about what the president has been doing. Far too many congresspeople shirk their duties by pointing fingers at the other two branches when they're the only ones with the actual power to act, and that's critical to the US system. @npub1lh4…v34t @npub153l…caex #USPolitics #Trump npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 yeah, I think you're getting this exactly backwards. #Mastodon/#ActivityPub makes it way too hard to move instances. It's unfortunately a core problem with this platform, but we shouldn't pretend it's not. Other platforms like #BlueSky make it much easier, but #Fediverse is behind on this one. We need to recognize that as a rough edge, a legit reason users might choose another platform. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Just based on the headline on the paywall, sounds like they're planning on inflating their way out of tariffs? Their undermining their own economy isn't exactly sticking it to Trump. It just means they'll leave the US more competitive without Trump even having to do anything. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 except #ActivityPub DOESN'T give the people total say over what stories go viral. We see so much consternation over instance owners censoring what people can see, and that's one of the huge criticisms of this platform that needs to be emphasized. YES, people can shut down hashtags and links here, and I think that's problematic. We can't address it by denying that it exists, though. #Bluesky doesn't just retain that resistance to being shut down. With its relays it does a better job of having the features you're promoting here. BlueSky comes much closer to giving the people total control over what stories go viral. #Fediverse falls short, empowering instances over people. [@mmasnick.bsky.social](https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social ) npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 they didn't though! That's so notable, the efficiency Department was not actually made into a department. It has no power, it's just a PR stunt. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Often it may be a matter of your instance being administered in ways that block things you actually want to see. Talk to your instance operator about the issue. @npub1l0a…j7dh npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 I think I'm being very clear, I'm not sure what your confusion is. I don't know how to put it any more simply. You're supporting letting murderers off the hook, okay, I'm just wondering how you would feel if the murderers were coming after you. Still okay with that? If you are, great! I'm just asking if you're okay with that. If people are deciding to murder you, literally not figuratively or anything like that, knowing that they would be let off the hook through jury nullification, that's all right in your book? Or would you have a problem with that? I guess the simple question is, would you be equally okay with excusing murder if you were the target? @npub1egy…8ye0 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 okay, but I repeat, what might happen if the people decide that you're on the wrong side of justice? The deflection doesn't absolve you from thinking about that. What if they decide that you are up for murder? You okay with that? I really don't care about oligarchs. I'm just suggesting that maybe you think about yourself and what might happen when you face the guillotine. @npub1egy…8ye0 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 uh huh. Consider what might happen if "the people" decide that you're on the wrong side of justice. Careful with how you set your interests. @npub1egy…8ye0 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 more important than compromising vs uncompromising, they've failed to engage with the broader public to make their case. That's the real lesson here, captured by Harris missing chance after chance to make a solid argument for her perspective. Democrats acted like they could just be right and waltz into office. That's just not how democracy works, though. They need to engage with those outside their spheres. They haven't been doing that. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 It's not a lie at all. This is how the system is engineered, and whether or not that has taken off or not is a different question. @npub1j2m…ngt0 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 I don't see it. Obama was so much better at laying out policies, answering questions, doing press events, and generally engaging with the realities of the office of President. We don't get that these days. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 The problem is that we keep hearing such stories and then noticing that they're just not true, noticing that what people say about the law doesn't correspond with what we can read in the law for ourselves. If you want to be convincing, this strategy of making it personal hasn't been working because the rhetoric just doesn't match the facts. It ends up preaching to the choir. It doesn't really get anyone anywhere except more divided and less likely to find ways forward. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 I don't think y'all realize how well that played with Trump's audience. He's not afraid of 60 Minutes or fact checking. He doesn't really care. But he did enjoy using that to score political points with his base. [@aureliano](https://mstdn.party/@aureliano ) npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 That’s a nice conspiracy theory you’ve got there. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 that seems really counterproductive. You don’t like the messenger so you kill the message, no matter how positive and pro-social it may be. I just want to call out how selfish that is. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 so you’re going to deprive the rest of us of interesting information because you personally don’t like the source? npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 … I mean they have? npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 but it’s not the role of the Supreme Court in the US system to reflect current perspectives. Wrong branch of government. That’s the legislative branch that’s supposed to be reflecting the opinions of the people as they evolve over time. And the Senate doesn’t block appointments. That’s not how the process works. Rather, the president works with the Senate to settle on an appointee that our elected senators can accept. This process was set up this way to ensure that presidents don’t wield too much power. It’s really important to get it right. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 I’m under the impression that the US did enter an obligation to protect Ukraine in exchange for their giving up nukes. But even that doesn’t really matter. The US decided to spend a lot of money and resources to defend Ukraine, but Biden wasted that, trickling it out and putting limits on its use. Had he simply provided it without limitation all at once it would be a very different story today. I think the US was obligated, but regardless of whether it was or not, the US decided to engage, but it engaged in a strategically flawed way, and we really need to call the president out for that. He botched it. He continued to botch it. We can’t take back what has happened over the last 2 years, but we should recognize how badly it was botched. @npub1m9m…d70p npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 with the help of Western allies they absolutely could have. Unfortunately, the Western allies dropped the ball and screwed it up. We should hold them accountable for that. Folks like Biden snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. @npub1m9m…d70p npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 No, AOC is a moron so you should not read too much into anything that she does. She just really does not know how the government works at all, she’s just a celebrity, so I guess look to her for lipstick recommendations but beside that, yeah she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. @npub1rs8…na04 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 how do you get to that conclusion? The decision merely points out that in support of our civil liberties the Constitutional order limits the ability for presidents to prosecute. @npub1ax9…8tmg @npub19gv…x4p4 @npub14pt…t548 @npub163l…qkgx npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 If you’re fine with administration prosecuting anyone, well, that’s just the sort of thing that I’m going to simply disagree with. Personally I don’t think we should allow presidents, including Trump, to go after their enemies with unfounded prosecutions. But that’s just me. @npub153l…caex @npub19gv…x4p4 @npub14pt…t548 @npub163l…qkgx npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Right, the true impact of this ruling is to bind the hands of the administration against prosecuting people without legal basis, and that goes both ways. Heaven forbid Trump get elected president, this ruling prevents Trump from prosecuting Biden for his policies on immigration. @npub153l…caex @npub19gv…x4p4 @npub14pt…t548 @npub163l…qkgx npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Oh we are! This decision reinforces the idea that invalid prosecutions need to be nipped in the bud. This is a restatement of the idea that when the administration takes a run at anybody without a valid process, that has to be kicked out of court right away without having to go through trial and appeals process. This decision does apply to all of us, most directly to any government officials, but more generally to all of us if the administration tries to charge someone without solid legal basis. Again, that’s why despite criticism the Supreme Court was looking to a general rule and not focusing on Trump himself, because this rule applies to all of us. @npub19gv…x4p4 @npub14pt…t548 @npub1ax9…8tmg @npub163l…qkgx npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 It doesn’t only crumble for the president of the United States. That’s not what happened. In fact, a whole lot of people are pissed off that that’s not what happened. The Supreme Court didn’t judge Trump. That’s not its role in the system. That’s for lower courts. Instead, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that applies to everybody, with a general rule that really applies to officers in general. The Supreme Court said that the the executive branch may not prosecute anybody for carrying out their legal duties as per law. No matter the mess that might exist out there, the president cannot, effectively, harass people for doing what is legal. That’s the long and short of it. It was basically saying that no matter what mess the criminal statutes may be, the president may not harass people for doing legal things. I remember hearing all of the criticisms of the court after oral argument when people were pulling their hair out that justices weren’t laser focused on getting Trump. But they weren’t because that’s not their job. So you say you don’t know why it would crumble only for the president, and that’s not the case, it doesn’t, the Supreme Court laid out a general rule regardless of the people complaining that it was looking to lay out a general rule. And regardless of the dissenters who often seem completely oblivious of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do in the first place. @npub19gv…x4p4 @npub14pt…t548 @npub1ax9…8tmg @npub163l…qkgx npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Yes and that is itself problematic, that is one thing that’s being highlighted by this whole case, the mess that we have made with criminal law over the generations. Criminal law has really wound itself up into a ball, and we’re going to have to deal with that going into the future. It was always a house of cards. We’re beginning to see how it crumbles. So we have these legal grants of authority that didn’t involve motivation running up against criminal law that does involve motivation, and you see what a mess that is? That’s what the Supreme Court is dealing with here, the mess of law that has been created through statute. Aunt this is really just reflecting the mess that has been made of it all. @npub19gv…x4p4 @npub14pt…t548 @npub1ax9…8tmg @npub163l…qkgx npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 There is so much focus on motive, but the thing is, the law so often doesn’t really care about motive, and that’s part of the point. We have law that gives presidents authorization to act regardless of why they are acting. Maybe we should change those laws. Maybe we should change the law to consider motive, although I would say that is a really thorny direction to go, but that’s what we have right now. The Supreme Court is pointing out that our democratic process produced law that doesn’t care about motive. The Supreme Court is merely respecting that outcome. Again, we can reform that if we want. We can change the law if we want. It would be a democratic process that in some cases involves constitutional amendment, but we have that power. In the end, until we make that change, though, this is the law. The Supreme Court is merely working with what we have today, not how you or I might want the law to be. @npub19gv…x4p4 @npub14pt…t548 @npub1ax9…8tmg @npub163l…qkgx npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 Except that this case and its resolution was *itself* an exercise of accountability against an executive that was engaging in faulty prosecution. To ignore the overstepping of the Biden administration here, THAT would have been letting the executive go without accountability. The Supreme Court decision here made clear that former presidents are still to be held accountable for following the law, are still subject to prosecution for lawlessness. It’s just that, the current president too has to be subject to law in his decisions to bring down the hammer of prosecution on civilians. @npub163l…qkgx @npub14pt…t548 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 you say there is no reason for that, but the reason for that is staring us in the face: IF a person is being prosecuted for something that’s not illegal in the first place, that’s a strong call for immunity from improper prosecution! And that’s what this is all about, reigning in an administration that’s overreaching in its prosecution. When people get hung up on the motivation aspect they’re missing that there are some things that current law allows regardless of motivation. AND we can democratically change that law if we wish, adding in the motivation aspect. Other authorizations are more limited, hence the categorical tiers that came out in this ruling. Regardless, to claim immunity from prosecution the accused would first have to demonstrate that their actions have legal basis. There’s no automatic get out of jail free card here. @npub163l…qkgx @npub14pt…t548 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 the key point is, absolute immunity is only recognized for legal actions. Can you cite legal basis for ordering violent lawlessness? Seems like a tall hill to climb. If you can’t cite legal basis for that action, then no, the text does not provide it. @npub163l…qkgx @npub14pt…t548 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 But that’s just the theory. In theory they raise taxes sufficiently to pay people enough that they will jump up and fix patients, but in reality there are things like not enough doctors to fix the people, not enough doctors willing to accept that trade, etc. There is no universal healthcare. Even if governments force doctors to operate at gunpoint, which to be clear I’m highlighting as the problematic thing, there will be a limited supply of doctors. It cannot be universal. It’s always going to be a negotiation, and the issue is how constraining that negotiation is on doctors, how much pressure we put on them to work for others when they don’t want to. In theory everything is wonderful and everybody gets fixed. Reality is much more harsh because it requires people to work to fix people. @npub1jaj…u768 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 The unavoidable problem is that healthcare requires people to work, input from workers, and so anyone stating that healthcare should be free runs into the issue of requiring people to work without compensation. It runs into the issue of you’re going to fix me for free. You’re going to work for me for free. You see how problematic that is? @npub1ax9…8tmg npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 sure, although I think it needs to be appreciated that there are a lot of people who flat out reject long-form content here, so they would oppose any such move. Personally, obviously that’s not my position🙂 But to be clear, my feedback was to say that I wasn’t really sure what was being said, personally I would love more long-form content on the platform and I wish there would be more, but I couldn’t tell if the composition was actually promoting that or not. @npub1qm3…d0q6 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 I don’t know how to conceptualize the story, though. It sounds to me like (bear with me) the proposal is to recenter microblogging around long-form content, by which they mean linking out to longform content elsewhere That is full of contradictions, though, both in the conflict between micro- and long- and in longform being on the outside, not the center. I WISH there would be a recentering around long-form content, but this doesn’t sound like that. @npub1d2v…0l89 npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 how about putting it this way: we here ARE broadcasting content that companies are free to use, and so many of us don’t know we’re doing that. Do companies use it? Well I imagine so, and it might be largely undetectable. As Fediverse grows it seems like a goldmine for training AIs, collecting marketing stats, etc, all without encumbrances of TOS agreements. But sure, you’re asking what has actually happened, and what’s actually happened is that all of these users are making content available to companies. That part’s true. And my personal focus is that it’s being done without the consent or knowledge of so many users here. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 It’s all in the ActivityPub protocol that I’ll link below. If you read it, it’s strikingly clear that there is no actual guarantee that your permissions will be honored. In fact, the standard uses the term “SHOULD” quite a lot when leaving servers free to ignore your privacy notation. Are you familiar with the FRS radios? They had a feature called privacy codes, where a group of people would set the same code to communicate. BUT, really all of the comms were all on the same channel, but the codes simply filtered out what one wanted to hear. So they provided no actual privacy, just the illusion of it. Same thing here, unfortunately. The ActivityPub protocol is largely a broadcast protocol, sending content into the cloud with only suggestions as to who should see it. You can believe that every link in the chain will behave and respect your wishes, but a scraper is free to ignore them and do what they want even if your post is marked private. https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#outbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Radio_Service npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 again, that’s not how this platform works. Behind the scenes, it doesn’t matter if you make your posts followers only or not, the way this platform is engineered behind the scenes, the content goes to people who aren’t followers. Maybe it will only be shown to followers. Or maybe not. You have no way to know. That’s just how this platform is programmed. Again to be clear what I’m saying is, you need to be aware that if you make your posts followers only, they will still be subject to going to people who aren’t followers. This is a design choice that the programmers made, that I disagree with, but you need to know that it is happening. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 but it’s not though! Scrapers are very much able to scrape your content, and everybody needs to be aware of that as they post on here. People are posting content here left and right and saying they love to do it because it’s safe from the big corporations or whatever, and I would be absolutely amazed if those exact businesses aren’t having a field day vacuuming it all up. This is why it’s so important to me to spread the word about how insecure this platform is, for better or worse. There are trade-offs, and I’m comfortable with them, but there’s a lot of people who don’t know the risks they’re taking here. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 this is an ax I grind because people need to be aware: **NO, there is no way to make your posts private so that there’s no way for anyone to see them without your permission.** Anyone posting to Fediverse need to be aware that by virtue of how this thing is engineered, there is absolutely no guarantee of such privacy. A lot of people are posting things they think are private when they’re not, and I find that hugely problematic. npub17wky6k55xr5pcsm4f9fme4xmnhh7dr3p308smdzql2naddc0h9qqwgv452 npub17w…gv452 just view it as a language that you might not be fluent in. Don’t feel dumb, just feel like it’s another language that you get rusty from not using!