🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@veta Happy to help

@veta I just checked for you..

1) hackers.town doesnt publish their block list.. I think this is because it is such a huge block list (as I pointed out) that they are worried it might scare off new users. They block the majority of the fediverse.

2) It appears they did block qoto, their reason being because we do not block any instances apparent and not because of any content from QOTO itself.. seems like a poor reason, but there you have it.

@veta I can say that as an instance we are one of the most connected instances in the fediverse. In other words, due to the fact that we dont block any instances, and because so few block us, we have one of the highest peer counts of any instance. So that isnt a problem you'll face too often thankfully.

@veta No one, QOTO does not block a single instance.

Hacker.town however very liberally blocks other instances, there are a great many instances you usually cant follow people from hacker.town on, my guess would be they blocked us.

As a policity if a server blocks us we reach out to the server admins and encourage them to reach out to us so we can take action on whatever account might be misbehaving. However hacker.town hasnt done this so presuming they blocked us, as appears to be the case, I wouldnt be able to say why.

Me as I try to work out physics equations the last two days:

https://youtu.be/dslafN9afMg

#physics

@aluaces I dont actually recommend you buy it.. the fallout is pretty serious and they have little in the way of actual assets. While the response is almost entierly bad press without much substantial they had a pretty weak portfolio to begin with..

I am not going to be investing in them, just saying my guy says they will probably recover given enough time. Might take a year or more though if ever.

@josemanuel Its great to have you too. hit me up if you ever want to chat.

Wow Trevor Milton, CEO of Nikola, deleted his twitter account due all the allegations against him.. wow.

Seems he resigned too.. oh shit its going down... My gut tells me this may be a good time to invest in nikola as someone who has read the report and heard all sides. This seems to be more a public opinion crash rather than being based on anything solid.

Im not a huge tesla fanboy, but lol.

@flamingkeys@fosstodon.org I think thats a pretty good example of one of the many aspects of his personality I also object to. Sadly that has been there since before he went extreme right, but it was at least more muted before.

I never liked everything about the dude but at least before I could say he made many sound, compelling arguments I could agree with, even if he held a lot of opinions I disliked.. But now I cant even say he makes good arguments at all anymore.

@snow One other important note.. while 1466(a) does make an attempt to make the exchange of drawings of child pornography illegal across state lines and in public, that is as far as the law attempts to go.

The law explicitly **protects** such drawings in the privacy of ones own home, and does not in any way suggest that such material is legal when exchanged **within state borders**.

As such it is wholly false to argue that drawings of child pornography is illegal in the USA. In fact it is explicitly legal in many states (California) with no federal law contradicting that, and is explicitly protected within ones home so even should a state law attempt to make it illegal within the border of ones state it would still be perfectly legally when viewed in private or when exchanged in a private setting.

The court case from USA v. Wholey explicitly confirms and states this fact with the following case summary written by the judge in that hearing:

In Stanley, the United States Supreme Court carved out a narrow zone of constitutionally protected privacy which allows for the personal possession and perusal of obscenity in one's home. Id. at 565; 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1248, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969).

@flamingkeys@fosstodon.org Well we are talking about who is now vs who he was then. I too find him an insufferable human **now** but found many of his arguments sound in the past. Even now that I dislike him if i review some of his past arguments they still make a lot of sense whereby the ones he makes now are just lacking any real criticality.

It very well could be you are experiencing a similar effect, judging him on his behavior in the present and having that overshadow how he might have reasoned about things in the past.

@snow If you want to mute me, mute me, dont threaten to mute me, because I really dont care if you do, thats on you.

And yes that case was denied a trial at the Supreme Court without comment.. In other words, the Supreme Court has made **no** ruling as of yet whether or not 1466A is constitutional in any way.

Furthermore the grounds under which 1466A was being disputed in the United States v. Whorley case was based on the idea that no actual person was being harmed, which is very different than the grounds under which the 1466A was considered unconstitutional, which was based on being too broad with regards to the miller standard, which so far all courts have upheld but did not get tested at the supreme court either.

So again, what you are stating here is, yet again, in no way contradictory to any claims I have made.

@flamingkeys@fosstodon.org I think what happened is either as an intentional tactic to gain more popularity, or as a consequence of his own change in character, he just went too far right.

It used to be a lot of his arguments were strongly right leaning, but very freely contradicted strictly right thinking. He seemed to have the underlying mentality that extreme right thinking was moronic, but extreme left thinking was worse. So he was a moderate right, and as such he had enough play in his arguments to let logic dominate, albeit with some bias, and thus was capable of making very solid arguments.

Since then however he has turned full on right, he is extreme right now. As a matter of course he will mock anything even hinting at liberal ideology and support almost all right ideology even when it is clearly contrary to logic. This has caused him to loose his one big strength and that is logical argument, which has been replaced with mostly just mocking and mud slinging without much intellectual content left in his arguments.

@flamingkeys@fosstodon.org he was never perfect. In the past he usually had two categories of views "My religion tells me I am wrong so I am against it but I feel you should be free to do it legally"... and "That should be illegal and here is a well reasoned explanation of why.

I never liked the former as I dont feel creating personal morals based on "a book told me so" is sound ethical reasoning, so I disliked his personal decision there. But at least he reasoned that it shouldn't be enforced on others and as such still agreed with his legal conclusion in those cases.

As for the latter, his reasoning was almost always pretty sound in that regard and I could support a lot of what he used to say.

Most of my issues in the past with him were narrow and came where those two points had some gray area or overlap. For example he would be rather vocal in his feelings that being trans is a mental disorder, and while he could be right in that, or maybe not (I dont generally view it that way but its a tough argument to make), what crossed me is when he would treat people who were trans as being delusional, which is a big step up from sympathy and wanting to see them get help, thats just being hurtful and not productive. So I never liked that aspect.

But when we talk about the views he used to have on the law and what is politically acceptable, he used to be spot on. But lately he hasnt been as strong in that regard and his other more troubling qualities have seem to be the greater problem now.

@snow No you are misreading it. It was claimed to be unconstitutional by a judge, the reason it was unconstitutional was due to being "overly broad".

The district court judge **did not** rule that it was not unconstitutional however. What he ruled is that the Headley case, by virtue of the fact that it entered a plea bargain and thus did not have its ruling set legal precedence effectively failed to set the legal precedence of the law being unconstitutional due to being overly broad. Since it had failed to set the legal precedent the defendant in the Dean case was unable to use the ruling of it being unconstitutional as precedent in his own case. So in the Dean case again no precedent was reached either way.

You are also incorrect in your final statement implying that dean went to jail for 1466A, he did not. United States v. Dean was in NO way a charge under 1466A, which again is partly why it set no precedent with regards to the constitutionality of 1466A. The case was in regard to if SORA, a different law, was retroactively applicable. It was in no way ruling on 1466A itself. More over the consequences of United States v. Dean was **not** jail time for dean, in fact despite loosing the case it had no real consequences for him at all.

It should also be noted that at a state level many states laws explicitly state that cartoon child pornography is legal, for example in california, which puts the federal law in even further doubt and is unlikely to upheld int he future and its constitutionality will likely be challenged again.

In fact since the judge ruled act 1466A as unconstitutional there has not been a single person convicted under that law and its constitutionality has not been confirmed or reinforced by a single judge.

I used to really like Ben, but man at some point he drank that fucking kool aid