Text: It is reasonable to ask if this is the right approach at all. Should we be building tools to try and moderate at huge scale, even though moderating at scale has generally proven to be an impossible task to get fully right, and the training of models is expensive and bad for the climate? Hasn't the last decade proven to us that moderating at massive scale isn't just a technical problem but a market capture one? Once we have big scale and standard tools these platforms no longer are reliably on the side of the people subject to them. The incentives for both the users and the owners no longer align with good moderation. I suspect that others, like myself, can't help but imagine a better use for the money standing up Roost. Especially when money for media and community is tighter than it has ever been and getting more sparse with each executive order. Would it be a better use of this money to support and fund smaller online communities? Ones who might not even need these types of tools?
@Phil @realcaseyrollins the great thing about universal benefits is they are denied to no one (who meets very straightforward verifiable criteria, like age and actually attending school, for example). so no politician or bureaucrat gains power from making themselves a gatekeeper for access.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins what's good about the Nordics is everybody has the option to take benefits, you don't have to make being poor your job. most people take benefits that complement work (education, child care) rather than living on the dole as they could, because they want to live rich lives, even though they're not forced to. (they have higher labor force participation than we do!)
@Phil @realcaseyrollins at a sufficient level of generality we might agree on some things! i hesitate to get back into details, though, because i doubt we'd agree for long. and the day is passing with much undone.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins nothing has been perfectly binding. everything in real life "leaks". but, say, the 1st Amendment really has conditioned life here in a way quite different than most predecessor societies, and even most contemporary peers. the Constitution is not self-exercising, but it has been exercised a fair amount!
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i agree that pathological shirkers exist, but they are a tiny fraction of us. most humans are desperate to be of value to one another, one way or another (not always in commercial markets).
@realcaseyrollins @Phil sometimes laws are reasonable in general, but really not reasonable when applied to particular circumstances. it's already the case that jurors can refuse to convict despite finding in fact the law has been broken ("jury nullification"). but most jurors don't know this, and judges are forbidden from including it in jury instructions, so juries perhaps often do convict against their own consciences, out of a sense of duty to faithfully follow judges' instructions.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins would the states then serve the role of the Federal circuits, then? each state would interpret, but if there's a "split", the Supreme Court would step in? but states would reserve the right not to adhere to Supreme Court decisions?
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i generally oppose means-tested welfare, support nordic style universal benefits and insurance-style programs like FEMA. i might give everyone a certain amount of cash (UBI), might also be in favor of a community service obligation or a year of national service to emphasize the reciprocity in the arrangement. i think everything works better when people are not desperate, and people's incentive to better themselves is enough, they needn't be threatened with destitution.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins but the meaning and Constitutionality of Federal laws would be different in all the 50 states, because you say it's left to the states or the people to interpret them. so, Congress could make a law wrt interstate commerces, twenty states could decide it's unconstitutional while 30 states are cool with it, firms must deal with both legal regimes.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins the main functions of the Federal government are national defense and social insurance. we could have national defense as an alliance, a North American (rather than Atlantic) NATO. you think you don't want the social insurance, i think, though i also think you'd miss it if it were gone. social insurance is what requires a cohesive union, with taxation, obligations, and benefits defined in common.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i agree with 2 and 7! I'd like to see how we vote for Senators altered, but would not delegate it to State legislatures. As for the rest, if you got everything you want I don't think there'd be any point having a national government at all. if federal laws mean different things in different states, how do firms in interstate commerce comply? it seems to me you basically favor dissolution of the union.
@realcaseyrollins @Phil close enough is not in fact a majority. 50.2% of those who came out did so to pull the lever for someone other than Donald Trump. most of the country never endorsed any of this. most voters, even, never endorsed any of this.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i don't know. the best housing situation in the world is Vienna. the best overall standard of living, the best shot of a good life for someone who can't pick who their parents will be, is in the Nordics. i think experience supports my case more than yours.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i also feel like the country i live in is far less free than the one i was born in. but its not government regulations that oppress me, it's the conditions of the marketplace. homes are out of reach expensive, the likelihood my kid, however amazingly does in school, will have good opportunities is narrowing. i perceive in government more a solution to these oppressions than a cause.
@realcaseyrollins @Phil No, Harris did not win the popular vote.
Trump won a plurality, but not a majority. Most voters voted either for Harris or for a third party candidate.
Trump won the popular vote in the sense he got more votes than any other candidate. But no candidate, not Trump, got a majority of votes. A majority of voters voted against Harris. A majority of voters also voted against Trump.
