ricecake

Yeah, but why bother? They can just turn off the body camera and shoot them in self defense. Same outcome and way less work.

So for the first part, I don't disagree at all. I just don't think the logistics or theoretical necessity is a bearing on the symbolic-ness of it. Same for the effectiveness of it. Even if it changed literally nothing and no one would ever know I still wouldn't shake hands with someone I considered evil.

I don't see defining a subset of what you consider evil, like dissemination of hate speech, to be a downside.

There's a lot of complex questions around a platform curating ideological content which could possibly make them loose certain platform protections. Right now most platforms are roughly content neutral because it allows them to be viewed as platforms, rather than publishers. This is more a response to the claim that there's no reason for them not to remove ice. It may or may not be compelling, but it's a real reason.

As for the use of the word "service", sometimes my hands type slower than my brain thinks. My intent was to convey "those who develop and control the mastodon license". Hopefully my original statement makes more sense in that context.
Those are the people providing the printing press schematic analog. Obviously an idea can't support an ideology in that sense.

I'm not of the opinion either supports them in a way that's worth getting angry over.
We also aren't talking about being angry at ISPs for being willing to deliver packets to and from ice or Nazis, or any of the other entities that do less then the most they could possibly do to distance themselves.

Says the fact that it's come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren't used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been "in progress" for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it's not compatible.

Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not the person you were replying to.
Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.

If you're mad at one and not the other, you're applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.

Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I'm neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it's hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.

So the mastodon service supports Nazis.

nobody owns it and anyone can run it

They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put "free software" and "open source" above blocking hate speech.
They're providing software to Nazis, and I don't really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.

I agree with you. It's just that the "right to remain silent" is the name for the category of right that the fifth amendment provides, not the actual right.
The reason the interpretation is bullshit is because what the actual amendment says is stronger than a simple right to not speak: it's very clearly intended to be freedom from being coerced to provide information that could hurt you. They shouldn't be able to interrogate you at all until you clearly waive the right against self incrimination.
You don't have the literal right to remain silent. You have the right to tell them to stop coercing you, after which they have to end the interrogation.

It's not generally uncommon to have to do something to exercise a right. No one is passively invoking the right to petition their representatives or own weapons. The supreme Court has just unfortunately held that you have to tell the cops to stop pressuring you, instead of them not being able to start.

And that's exactly what I explained. There isn't an answer that doesn't involve the constitution and what judges had to say about things.
considering the police are legally allowed to lie to you, the Miranda warning using the name for a legal concept instead of a more accurate description of the right is about the least abusive thing they can do.

It's not particularly weird for rights to need to be explicitly actioned in general, as an aside. You have to actively get the arms to bare them, write a letter to petition the government, ask for a lawyer and ask them to stop interrogation. Invoking a right isn't weird, but in this case the actual right is freedom from being coerced into self incrimination. They shouldn't be able to start interrogation until you unambiguously waive your rights.

Where do those words come from? Are they written into law? The wording is often policy, not law.

The Miranda warning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and doesn't need to be read exactly because it's a description of your fifth amendment rights, amongst others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

It's not an exaggeration to say that you need to explicitly invoke the fifth to have its protections.
The reason there's a disconnect between what it seems like the warning is saying and the protections you actually have is because they've been rolling back the protections for years.
Did you know that the courts decided that the Miranda warning doesn't need to fully explain your rights?

Those are explicitly derived from the bit of the constitution I was referring to. That's what defines what they have to tell you and what it means.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. You asked why you would need to invoke a right, and why it would be this way. There's simply isn't an answer that doesn't involve the constitution or judges. The authority figure is using words that judges outlined the basic gist of in 1965 and different judges have dialed back the protections of in the 2000s and earlier.

To the best of my knowledge you telling someone you did something and them telling the cop is a good example of hearsay, or at least pretty arguable.

Far easier to just have a standard camera in the room, since a video of a confession is far more compelling and sidesteps any arguments about hearsay.

Fun fact: if you haven't been mirandized your silence is admissable, but not your answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

The correct answer is to plead the fifth if a cop says hello.
It would be great if our system was set up such that there were people responsible for public safety the way firefighters are and, also like firefighters, don't have the looming threat of crushing you with the weight of the law, but unlike firefighters don't need to be ready next to a lot of bulky specialized equipment to be effective.
But it's not, so....

The (obviously flawed) reasoning the supreme Court used is that it's the same as invoking the right to legal counsel: we tend to accept that you need to ask for a lawyer, they don't just get you one. Likewise, if you want them to stop asking you questions you need to say so.

Considering the right isn't the "right to remain silent" we nickname it, but No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it's a bit preposterous. Like saying it was a legal warrantless search because you never said "stop", you just locked the doors, tried to keep them out, and tried to keep them out of certain areas.