This feels like a basic misunderstanding of how the fediverse works. There are instances that embody your preferences and you can sign up for them.
One of the most important reasons I believe it is so useful to have a federverse that allows defederating is because ever since 2014 and 2015, and growing since then, there's been a phenomenon of rabid online trolling and hyperpoliticization that's had tendency to take over and destroy whatever pre-existing culture and norms existed, and the people doing it have leveraged bad faith free speech arguments to attempt to expose more platforms to their behavior, often making the same copy paste echo chamber argument that you are right now. I found the people making this argument to be operating from really shallow understandings of what intellectual diversity really means, because these people tend to ignore important components such as the paradox of tolerance, they tend not to believe that trolling or harassment campaigns are real, they tend not to be able to distinguish between "echo chamber" and the high level of discussion that's possible when you found a community based on a common interest or shared set on principles, tend not to understand that you're actually reducing the diversity of ideas by destroying each communities and turning all communities into the same thing, and tend to think of the full range of human ideas is represented in the unfortunately narrow framing of left-right spectrum which is most pertinent in American politics.
And for the fediverse, it calls the bluff perfectly, because for people who are concerned about echo chambers or "exposure to ideas" (yeah, which ones??), such people are able to join an instance that gives them the thing they say they want. But what they really tend to want is unmoderated unfiltered exposure to a captive audience, and the tangled contradictory mishmash of arguments about free speech and being open to ideas are just a means to that end. And so, they tend to be completely empty-handed when you ask them to explain why they feel specific instances need to federate or de-federate, you just get vague nothingburger speeches.
To be clear I don't think that everyone making the argument thinks that way, I think some people are unwittingly doing the work of bad actors without meaning to. It's just that I've seen this argument made over and over, and I feel like there's some sort of boot camp we should all put ourselves through that involves understanding the history and some core ideas, because it could save everyone a lot of time.
they don’t vote anyone into any office, as “being the official candidate for party X” is not an government office. So the judge used A14 on an issue where it does not apply to in the first place
The political primary process still falls under electoral law, and state law can be brought to bear on questions of how the primary process is administered. Even the dissenting justices in this case appear to agree that finding of insurrection can trigger the enforcement of Colorado State law to remove someone from the ballot.
So having participated in an insurrection absolutely can be a factor that's pertinent to legal decisions about his eligibility, and in fact it's that very connection that seems to be the entire point of Colorado's state level law disqualifying insurrectionists from electoral office.
I mostly agree with you - Republicans participating in insurrection should be disqualified from seeking higher office, and one of the best weapons to safeguard our democracy is our legal system.
There are a bunch of other states that tried to disqualify Trump, and Trump's legal team has won almost every time. He lost basically every case about overturning the election, but when it comes to being allowed to be on the ballot he has mostly won.
Surprisingly, yes! I ended up opting for Libre cloud, a paid next cloud provider. You can get there two terabyte monthly plan for $15 a month, and then if you go through the steps of leaving, you can get a half off price of $7.50 a month as a lifetime discount. At least I was offered that.
The prison escape in the first Deus Ex, when you learn where you really are. I guess for some people this was easy to figure out beforehand, but when I first played it at age 15 it was a shock to me.
I also think the website is exceptionally good, and has a unique distinction of being equally good on desktop and mobile. Feel that the website is so good on mobile that I don't need to use a mobile app, and I sure as heck can't say that about Reddit.
Right, and to some people of a certain temperament, being aware of, and concerned about a vast range of entirely different issues, all of which can be engaged with on a number of levels that build on your knowledge and understanding, all of that is just an "echo chamber".
The echo chamber argument doesn't account for the fact that people can have shared fundamental values and nevertheless have constructive valuable informative conversations that engage in nuanced analysis. Being concerned about climate change, for instance, you can have all kinds of productive conversations about new research showing how hot September was, or how to make cities more walkable, or any number of things, and those are valuable conversations where describing them as echo chambers is silly. They're actually good conversations where we gain something from having them. If your primary test of a community is whether it does or doesn't have echo chambers, it doesn't have meaningful things to say about cases like this.
I would understand if at least 20% of the Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel would be comprised of western volunteers talking about terrorists and no negotiations.
Now do Russia. There must be more western volunteers on that side, I take it?
not sure why you are facepalming, I live in a neighboring country to Ukraine and a lot of people here according to polls think that Ukraine should just give up Crimea and accept peace.
That's the frying pan saying "at least I'm not as bad as the fire!"
I agree with the other guy, you're wording it in a way that is attributing all the agency to Ukraine and none to Russia. It probably would lead to much more needless death in the long run, because it sets the stage for additional aggression. Which of course would be staged from a much more consolidated position that would be much harder to roll back than if Ukraine just rolls it back now.
I was wondering what it might look like to get an r/nba started over here. Private message a bunch of users, repost some things, maybe get some volunteers to get weekly threads going?
I don’t think it’s possible, or desirable, to try to create rules around how people use their preference buttons.
I also don't think it's possible to actually end mean-spirited disagreement in internet comment sections, but it's a valuable thing to strive for as a value and emphasize, like you did in this post.
I think the same can be said for group-downvoting and stalking threads to downvote people based on what side they take without engaging with the substance of what is said. Minority viewpoints that add information are probably the most needed thing, and if anything I would say group downvoting is worse here than reddit on certain topics, unfortunately.
I think the attention spans are better here, and many/most things are better here but this is a sore spot.
This feels like a basic misunderstanding of how the fediverse works. There are instances that embody your preferences and you can sign up for them.
One of the most important reasons I believe it is so useful to have a federverse that allows defederating is because ever since 2014 and 2015, and growing since then, there's been a phenomenon of rabid online trolling and hyperpoliticization that's had tendency to take over and destroy whatever pre-existing culture and norms existed, and the people doing it have leveraged bad faith free speech arguments to attempt to expose more platforms to their behavior, often making the same copy paste echo chamber argument that you are right now. I found the people making this argument to be operating from really shallow understandings of what intellectual diversity really means, because these people tend to ignore important components such as the paradox of tolerance, they tend not to believe that trolling or harassment campaigns are real, they tend not to be able to distinguish between "echo chamber" and the high level of discussion that's possible when you found a community based on a common interest or shared set on principles, tend not to understand that you're actually reducing the diversity of ideas by destroying each communities and turning all communities into the same thing, and tend to think of the full range of human ideas is represented in the unfortunately narrow framing of left-right spectrum which is most pertinent in American politics.
And for the fediverse, it calls the bluff perfectly, because for people who are concerned about echo chambers or "exposure to ideas" (yeah, which ones??), such people are able to join an instance that gives them the thing they say they want. But what they really tend to want is unmoderated unfiltered exposure to a captive audience, and the tangled contradictory mishmash of arguments about free speech and being open to ideas are just a means to that end. And so, they tend to be completely empty-handed when you ask them to explain why they feel specific instances need to federate or de-federate, you just get vague nothingburger speeches.
To be clear I don't think that everyone making the argument thinks that way, I think some people are unwittingly doing the work of bad actors without meaning to. It's just that I've seen this argument made over and over, and I feel like there's some sort of boot camp we should all put ourselves through that involves understanding the history and some core ideas, because it could save everyone a lot of time.