4 ms·

> I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk "go on..." > What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "oh god... don't stop!" > ..

> I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk "go on..." > What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "oh god... don't stop!" > ... the secret passcode of another person ... brilliant. yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling. and now the gov't is going to find out what happens when those entities start testing the boundaries of their container. (plot twist: the container walls are permeable)

komali2 9y ago
>we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling Holy shit I hadn't even considered this, this is awesome. New story idea.
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  In describing "Metacognates" to friends I often use the example of FedEx as a weird type of animal which eats gasoline and shits boxes on doorsteps.
  - lsseckman 9y ago
    I like this, I'm using it. I'll contribute that this is a good way to explain to someone why corporations inherently care about their employees only to the extent of their usefulness.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
colejohnson66 9y ago
> yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling. Except that's not true. Corporations have always had personhood. See 1 U.S.C. §1[0]: > In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— > ... > the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; Corporations being people is what allows them to own property, use the judicial system (to sue), etc. Basically anything corporations are able to do is because they are people. The speech of a corporation is protected under the First Amendment. Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no? If I donate $25 to the EFF, I'm agreeing with what the EFF does. That's a form of expression that is protected under the First Amendment. All Citizens United v. FEC did was affirm that money can be a form of speech. Citizens United didn't establish any president of corporate personhood anymore than Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886)[1] did back in 1886. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  > Except that's not true. You're right. And now there's precedent.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  Note that corporate personhood also allows them to be sued. Used to be that, if someone ran a train into your house, you could sue the driver (if he survived) and maybe his immediate boss. Personhood makes the corporation as a unit responsible for the actions of its employees.
- gech 9y ago
  > Corporations have always had personhood. Always? You cite the U.S. Code, which was first published when? 1926. >Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no? It's a hell of a lot different when it comes to influencing people during elections. Bad analogy, and an insincere play to the audience here with the EFF. If we allow money to be speech, we allow outsized influence on governance by a few. Corporations have much more money to spend on campaigns which works against the public interest. > Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company The precedent of corporate personhood didn't even come from arguments in the case, it came from an oral remark by the Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who earlier worked as a lawyer for railroads. It was recorded by the court recorder J.C. Bancroft Davis, who earlier was a president of a railroad. The precedent and its house of cards should be thrown out.

komali2 9y ago

>we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling Holy shit I hadn't even considered this, this is awesome. New story idea.

mr_spothawk 9y ago
In describing "Metacognates" to friends I often use the example of FedEx as a weird type of animal which eats gasoline and shits boxes on doorsteps.
- lsseckman 9y ago
  I like this, I'm using it. I'll contribute that this is a good way to explain to someone why corporations inherently care about their employees only to the extent of their usefulness.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

colejohnson66 9y ago

> yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling. Except that's not true. Corporations have always had personhood. See 1 U.S.C. §1[0]: > In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— > ... > the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; Corporations being people is what allows them to own property, use the judicial system (to sue), etc. Basically anything corporations are able to do is because they are people. The speech of a corporation is protected under the First Amendment. Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no? If I donate $25 to the EFF, I'm agreeing with what the EFF does. That's a form of expression that is protected under the First Amendment. All Citizens United v. FEC did was affirm that money can be a form of speech. Citizens United didn't establish any president of corporate personhood anymore than Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886)[1] did back in 1886. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....

mr_spothawk 9y ago
> Except that's not true. You're right. And now there's precedent.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Note that corporate personhood also allows them to be sued. Used to be that, if someone ran a train into your house, you could sue the driver (if he survived) and maybe his immediate boss. Personhood makes the corporation as a unit responsible for the actions of its employees.
gech 9y ago
> Corporations have always had personhood. Always? You cite the U.S. Code, which was first published when? 1926. >Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no? It's a hell of a lot different when it comes to influencing people during elections. Bad analogy, and an insincere play to the audience here with the EFF. If we allow money to be speech, we allow outsized influence on governance by a few. Corporations have much more money to spend on campaigns which works against the public interest. > Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company The precedent of corporate personhood didn't even come from arguments in the case, it came from an oral remark by the Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who earlier worked as a lawyer for railroads. It was recorded by the court recorder J.C. Bancroft Davis, who earlier was a president of a railroad. The precedent and its house of cards should be thrown out.