I don’t think people here realize that not holding on to is different from no longer processing the data for their own means… There’s no doubt in my mind that Google just simply has no need to keep the old data around anymore once other processing like for ML models and ad targeting are completed

The US will do everything in its power to dismantle socialism and convince people that it “doesn’t work” (just ignore how much work they put in to dismantle it)

Treat drinking any kind of juice - even orange juice - as if you are splurging on a dessert. That’s the best way to frame it as part of your diet

Surprised this brazenly says to vote no. Usually telling people how to vote is the line they dance around with all the negative “facts”

At least you’re honest about your ignorance

I don’t see it being on the radar of the major parties at the moment. RCV is in the spotlight so far. But that can change very soon because in Eugene, Oregon this week they are finishing up getting STAR on the ballot for their elections, then they’re also pushing for it to appear on the state ballot in May. The effort is led by non-partisan groups like the equal vote coalition.

So far my conversations with both sides of the aisle have been fruitful, and I hope that is how it continues

Well the thing about that is, RCV has been repealed in 6 states and counting for producing poor results. And it’s also given right wing groups like the heritage foundation a foothold to attack it. I’m actually seeing negative RCV sentiment on the ground when I talk to people about STAR so their message is spreading. When I explain STAR and how it fixes several of RCVs issues they come around to it, so it may in fact be better to push that instead of tag along with RCV if it’s going to end up being a waste of political capital

RCV is a rebrand of the voting method IRV, which was used by many cities in the early 20th century. Due to inconsistent results, it was repealed. So, unfortunately, conservatives have a leg to stand on when they attack RCV.

For clarity: their specific attacks take things to the extreme and often have some racist underpinnings, but there is a kernel of truth to attacking specifically on the method itself.

That is why I support something like STAR voting, it doesn’t suffer from many of RCV’s issues

I wish your ballot measure luck however, because at the end of the day it still is, mildly better than FPTP

RCV will do nothing to break the duopoly in America. RCV will basically allow you to vote for the Democrats or Republicans without bubbling their name on your ballot.

Contrary to what is stated, RCV falls apart as soon as more than 2 parties become viable. It suffers from the spoiler effect.

RCV, like plurality voting, only reflects your preference for one candidate at a time. In fact, it’s relatively accurate to say that RCV is just plurality with (literally) extra steps (rounds).

One of the better ballot changes we can make is to move to something like STAR voting, which can capture the nuance of magnitude of preference for ALL candidates at once.

However, changing voting method alone is not enough. Proportional representation and expanding the number of elected officials are two powerful ways to introduce new ideas and break up power structures.

And, of course, campaign finance reform such as democracy vouchers

No, it’s not.

Given ballot options of Socialists, Democrats, and Republicans, I’d rank them 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, when expressing my feelings about the election: I love the Socialists, dislike the Republicans, and prefer the Democrats slightly over the Republicans.

This nuanced opinion isn’t captured on a ranked ballot.

With a score ballot, like STAR voting, I’d give the Socialists 5 stars, the Democrats 1 star, and the Republicans 0 stars. This method not only captures my preferences but also the depth of my feelings for each party. This is then reflected in both the final score and the automatic runoff step of tabulation.

I prefer score ballots over ranked ballots, expressing magnitude of preference is important!

Ranked choice specifically is one of the worst ranked ballot options out there and I hope we can push for something else

Multi account containers is the reason I use Firefox over ungoogled chromium

Currently using signal but have been intrigued by some of the no phone number alternatives like SimpleX

Capitalism gonna capitalize…

There’s only been a limited selection up until this point

In examining the intricacies of federation and centralization within the context of a democratic society, we’re faced with a rich tapestry of challenges and opportunities. The Federal Republic of Germany’s response to COVID-19, with its 16 federated states, serves as an illustrative example of a model that facilitates diverse approaches towards a common goal. It’s a demonstration of what can be described as decentralized centralization, allowing for creativity, adaptability, and the potential for mutual learning.

However, the attraction towards centralized leadership, particularly when vested in a single figure, reveals a tendency that should be approached with caution. It often leads to the erosion of democratic principles and individual liberties, a phenomenon not unknown in various historical contexts.

In the digital realm of the Fediverse, we find an interesting parallel. The absence of dark money can be seen as a safeguard against the undue influence of concealed financial interests. It fosters an environment that encourages open dialogue, collaboration, and community-driven decision-making. Yet, the tension between the need for extensive discourse and the desire for immediate action presents a challenge that’s emblematic of democratic processes.

The proposal for the creation of Cartas is an ambitious pursuit, one that seeks to balance the freedoms and responsibilities that define our existence, and in doing so, constructs a framework for a more equitable and humane digital landscape. It’s a path that demands careful consideration, relentless effort, and a commitment to the ideals that underpin the very essence of democracy.