fiat_lux @ fiat_lux @kbin.social

Posts

12

Comments

1,008

Joined

2 yr. ago

It’s been defined in case-law.

It has been at least temporarily narrowed in scope by US courts, which I wouldn't quite consider to be the same as defined - given we're getting into the unnecessary details here. I'm not even convinced the US Supreme Court is always the best choice for ethical decision-making, let alone if the first amendment prevents all culpability for foreseeable risks.

I'm also not the Supreme Court, or a lawyer. Hell, I'm not even American, and neither were the victims or the defendant. In my opinion, Jones is responsible and in my opinion, there is enough ambiguity in the law for Jones' actions to be debated in courts in legal systems across the world where his audience lives.

From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.

In the US, from a 1st amendment standpoint, probably, yes. This is why I also mentioned libel, financial extortion and fraud though as possible crimes. Culpability / responsibility doesn't even need to be criminal or a violation of any jurisdiction's free speech laws though, even if it has better odds of preventing future bullshit. Infowars may not only have obligations under the jurisdiction of their local courts.

tl;dr shit is too complicated for social media posts written on my phone to convey with 100% accuracy for every audience member's context. I did not intend to suggest that my opinion of responsibility matches the US Supreme Court's in full or that the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" implies the US court system has jurisdiction over the entire concept of free speech and responsibility or a murder case in Canadian court. I apologise for not making that clearer up front. The point was around cases where speech can create clear and foreseeable risks.

But falsely shouting “fire!” In a crowded theater isn’t free speech if it creates a disaster and/or summons emergency services in various US jurisdictions

FTFYFMFY

My point was more around the idea that you are/can be held responsible for the things you say rather than exact implementation requirements though.

I appreciate you and the effort this took.

Perhaps think of it more as knowledge decentralization as a form of resiliency for unplanned network outages. Sometimes the library of Alexandria just happens to catch fire, and it might be nobody's fault at all.

Besides, plenty of people grew up in families with a basic encyclopaedia or dictionary or a repair manual. This is essentially the same thing, just with less paper.

Mostly due to previous physical constraints, I would argue. Thankfully there are fewer chances your hard drive is going to decompose into vinegar while sitting in your cupboard, and even if it does, it's likely not the only copy.

They're also more limited for current data because they're harder to parse and convert into other usable formats, but thankfully that will get better over time too.

I still preference text-first data for various reasons, but let's not dismiss the leagues of potential video has for communication and archival value, both intentional and unintentional.

Ever had to randomly spend your 'free' time on a legal issue about bullshit that you don't want to spend your time and energy on and have to go up against people who do that bullshit for a living? I have, it blows. This is a risk mitigation measure nobody really enjoys, except the people who pay lawyers to enforce copyright laws.

It's also a large vulnerability in volunteer-run systems operating in public spaces, unfortunately. I wish I knew of a fix for that.

Let's not go down the path of quantifying the 'value' of people's lives, it has historically led to bad things.

For sure. Which is why we need to figure it out now before we use up what resources we have left on making and shipping yet more bombs and tanks. I can't even begin to imagine the carbon footprint of that.

So are most complex problems or worthwhile efforts. I'd love a simple working solution just for once too, but no, situations got to be all contextual and nuanced and shit.

The part where they would need to prove "imminent" danger (without it being defined) and the Supreme Court overturned its previous decisions in making that ruling? Sure, it's not a clear cut crime and would need to be its own case. That's also why I originally qualified it with "if it creates a disaster". I'm not suggesting immediate conviction without trial(s).

I also think the media landscape is very different from 1969 when that ruling was made, and I disagree that calling for "revenge" against non-white people on the day of a specific rally is "abstract" like the ruling said, but that's a topic for a different day.

There are already millions of refugees in camps around the world. Countries won't take them. Turkey and Iran each host over 3 million already, and they host the most refugees of all countries. Where will this diaspora go?

I struggle to think of too many times any country has welcomed all refugees with open arms. Any refugees, from any conflict, fleeing to anywhere.

We should stop making refugees and forcibly displacing people, everyone loses. We already have 108 million forcibly displaced peoples, and 40% are kids globally.

If the whole thing is readily available, there’s no reason to copy/paste anything

Just a bit of a tangent: readily available unpaywalled content is not the same thing as accessible content. For people with disabilities, the archive links had the helpful side effect of stripping a lot of things that made the content inaccessible to them.

I understand the position you're taking regarding copyright issues, and the choice of implementation, and I will be following the rules around it. I just didn't watch people to think it was as simple as "no other reason".

Good luck generally with moderation efforts though, I appreciate the effort you're all making.

The same way we know who is going to commit what crime now. There are no guaranteed signs, just clues and maybe even historical patterns of behaviour. So ultimately, you don't and can't know for certain.

But you do assume a portion of the population (currently estimated at 15-20%) may have medical problems that affect their daily life and provide enough accessible public welfare systems that try to help people experiencing those problems, and you also foster a culture where getting help isn't a declaration that you're broken or weak. You also keep an eye out for your friends and family who might have been behaving unusually or... you know, radicalising. Normal collaborative society stuff.

None of us know when we might experience illness of any variety, including ones that affect our brains. Biology and chemistry often do weird shit, organic creatures have significant construction variation.

Society and community is a large part of how humans have prevented unexpected problems from killing humans unnecessarily. It is also how we should be preventing people from exploiting others.

Does shouting "Fire!" In a crowded place cause people to panic and stampede?

People who legitimately have a disability that affects their cognition are at increased risk of being abused and scammed. They are also more likely to not be able to afford help, especially when they need it most. Exploiting people's disabilities for personal gain is not only unethical, but arguably already illegal financial exploitation.

If a person provides a steady supply of lies and manipulation with the intention of stirring up xenophobic outrage to fill their wallet, then... yes. They do hold some responsibility for the foreseeable risk that promoting outrage inspires outrage. At best, the liar believe their own lies, in which case they still need to show their math when claiming very specific things like "crime by Muslims is being systemically under-reported". That's not just an opinion like "i don't trust Muslims" anymore, it's a quantifiable and verifiable or falsifiable claim. There are multiple laws around fraud, libel, etc. that deal with these sorts of arguments daily.

Just like we condemn phone scammers for preying on grandparents with dementia, it is very much not ok to steal from people who are ill and need real genuine help.

You're right, but the blame does lie with multiple people too. Yeah, his only chance of saving his skin is if other's responsibility somehow diminishes his own culpability, but he will soon find out this is not a zero-sum game.

But shouting "fire!" In a crowded theater isn't free speech and will get you a jail sentence if it creates a disaster. Infowars (and Alex Jones specifically), and other organisations (they identify libertarian and mainstream conservative content plus youtube algorithm) also need to be held to account for inflammatory speech that encourages violence; provided that it can be demonstrated that they're pushing dangerous misinformation. Especially if they are making money doing it.

I won't hold my breath waiting to see that happen though.

It relies on slow legal mechanisms that vary widely by jurisdiction. It also highlights the huge problem with forcing users to find workarounds for legal manipulation. Instead of employing an "economies of scale" approach and having authorities crack down on obvious bullshit, you have to go through this process or pay someone to do it for you and pay companies for their credit reports on you and pay to file the lawsuit etc. etc.

Additionally, any of these companies can close down and then open back with with a new name at any time and force you to start the process all over again. It's called a "phoenix company" where I am.

I also consider it pretty likely that trying to remove your information just verifies your information and therefore makes it more valuable for brokers. There's no reason to assume they handle information ethically and are doing anything more than providing the opt-out for plausible deniability.

"They didn’t reveal all the evidence that made me totally innocent of anything that they say"

Emphasis mine, but that's an interesting choice of words. Usually someone would say the evidence shows or demonstrates they're innocent. Or they might accuse the others of withholding or hiding evidence. But "made" sounds a lot like there was manipulated or manufactured information Trump was hoping that the case would rely on.

Perhaps he's just referring to his "you can't charge me, the President is immune to that" line or the cherry-picked property valuations. But it feels suspicious as all get-out.

They're probably scratches though, just on skin that is very angry about being scratched. The case report said he was scratching in his sleep, and if you look at the pattern, it lines up with the ability to reach certain spots and what orientation his hands would need to be in to scratch those spots.

Otherwise your theory works. A bunch of people scratching themselves in their sleep and then freaking out over the results.

Add a little oil, and a few minutes in a frying pan or microwave will do it. Maillard reaction (browning) starts at around 140°C and shiitake aren't exactly thick, so they won't take much longer than it takes to get some extra colour on them. Average frypan and oven temp is usually around 180°C, so it's not something you really need to think or worry about.

They also think you need a certain hypersensitivity for this to happen. If this were a significant risk, there would be huge amounts of cases in East Asia. This case became a science tabloid spam piece because it's so unusual.