volkris @volkris@social.cleverlibre.org

@talleraas well, talking about Mastodon specifically, I think it's about the same, which brings up a hobby horse of mine:

Mastodon simply doesn't offer users very powerful tools for them to tailor their own experiences. Hashtag filtering and user following are so rudimentary and even problematic

If users had better tools then things might get better, but until then I'd expect it to be pretty stagnant.

The same old hashtag filtering will just get you to the same old types of content, supporting echo chambers, and generally leaving things stuck.

@mk what you've written above is RIFE with speculation!

@Nudhul @freemo

@mk even if for the sake of argument we run with your claims of vast conspiracy, what Trump did wrong was to adopt strategies that played into those instead of countering them.

Great, the public is subject to vast amounts of social control? Well what Trump did wrong was in his failure to counter that.

@J12t yeah, I wouldn't be looking for One Single Vision in a system that's federated and ideally distributed.

So many people came here exactly to get away from that kind of thinking.

What are we building? More like whats are we building, if that pluralization makes any sense.

We're building many different things.

@joesabin ha, we don't have such standardization to have such rules and overruling.

That's my opinion and my practice, so take it for exactly what you paid for it :)

Lots of people do it differently? Sure, of course they do.
@dave

@talleraas sadly, to me, so many people on this platform that talk about freedom from platforms that they've left are also quite explicit about demanding an echo chamber.

It's not all light and goodness here. Some portray it that way, though.

There's so much hate on my feeds here, and people pumping each other up to amplify the hatrid instead of pausing to reexamine their beliefs about the world.

@tsyum but that's exactly what the Supreme Court said, that officials do seem confused about what constitutes violence, so legally they need to go work that out before it can be further addressed by the courts.

In this case the claim is that an "individual threw a piece of concrete or a similar rock-like object, striking respondent Officer Doe in the face. Officer Doe suffered devastating injuries in the line of duty, including loss of teeth and brain trauma."

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to consider that violent and consider how it would be handled under the state law, independent of anything involving protest.

So yep, SCOTUS said to go back and figure out some of the confusion about violence.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/mckesson-v-doe.pdf

@SirBemrose imagine not realizing that claims of deepstate are thrown around to explain anything the claimer doesn't want to hear, to the point that apparently pretty much the whole country must be involved in that conspiracy, except that one person.

I guess they're just lonely?

Have you considered that when the public basically IS the deepstate, based on how vast the conspiracy claims must be, then the will of the public is the will of the deepstate, since they're the same people?

Now if you'll pardon me, I need to go laminate my deepstate membership card. The line at the deepstate coffee shop was too long this morning so I had to put it off.

@mk @freemo

@SirBemrose as neither side is open to hearing each others' perspectives, they are functionally equivalent.

Oh the truth is on your side? That's nice. But your own claim to a highground doesn't actually move the ball.

At best you can feel smug about it, but then again, both sides are arriving at that same conclusion, ending in the same smugness that doesn't really matter to anyone not satisfied with narcissism.

@freemo @mk

@mattmcirvin even if SOMEHOW Dr. Fauci was such a poor judge of humans that he wouldn't foresee that (which I find very hard to believe) he kept on the job long after that sort of thing would have become blindingly apparent.

So Fauci somehow misjudged the situation. Fine. He could have admitted his mistake and resigned, leaving it to someone else with more ability to deal with the situation.

I just don't give him a pass for any of that.

He could have remained an expert working behind the scenes to support the work while leaving the public engagement to folks with that skillset.

He is at fault for remaining and mishandling the situation so badly.

@quatrezoneilles

@Jennifer they aren't.

They believe they're doing the exact opposite.

@tsyum the vox article is misleading, though, as vox so often is.

The right to protest is not on the table here. This case is all about how state law engages with a person potentially demonstrating negligence by directing a situation that ended in violence.

That has nothing to do with protesting itself (unless one believes protesting is necessarily violent, at which point eek), but relates to a content neutral application of community standards of responsibility for safety.

It says, protest all you want, so long as you do so in a reasonably responsible manner.

@thisismissem I take it the ads don't apply/respect community labels?

@photomatt

@jby perhaps one way to look at it is that the first time Trump was elected by a coalition of different voters with diverse interests, so the garbage he spewed back then was moderated by push and pull in different directions.

This time it seems to me like much of the coalition is absent, leaving Trump in an echo chamber without as much rhetorical challenge and (as seen here) fewer ideas to fewer ideas to regurgitate, so he has to return to the same line to fill the time.

GOP primary voters seem pretty insular this time, so I think you might be on to something.

@danwentzel and just to follow up on my response from last night, one part of the picture is the position by many Republicans (and others) that all of this really is a team sport, and that in this case only Republicans should be choosing the nominee.

For those people, they really don't care what non-Republicans anywhere think, which is why I emphasized the party in my comment.

It's sad for them since they'll sure have to care about what those people think if they want to win, but it's a childish box they're painting themselves into, depriving themselves of input from voters who actually do really matter.

@quatrezoneilles no, I don't extend that excuse to him.

Dr. Fauci wasn't just an expert but someone who had taken a job as a public facing public official. Communicating with and engaging with the public was part of the job.

And he blew it.

He didn't foresee bad faith and water-murkying? How? If he was THAT out of touch with the public then he was unfit for holding a position where understanding the public was so critical.

So I don't know if he could have played his cards better. If he couldn't foresee water-murkying then he was unfit to play the game.
@mattmcirvin

@mattmcirvin I would take exception to some of that, but more to my point, the scientific method's requirement of rigorous experimental design pushes back on blind combing of the universe.

This is part of my proposal: if "science" is maintained as the specific process, but the critic skips steps, then we'd avoid them being able to claim the mantle of science or scientific disproof.

But that's only if we refuse the dilution of terminology that otherwise allows them to claim the authority of science.