4 ms·

The internet is not taking anyone's freedoms away, the internet is punishing people's reputations. big difference.

by supercanuck 9y ago

mieseratte 9y ago
Punishment when we have yet to assess guilt.
- supercanuck 9y ago
  What punishment would that be? People inside the company sold right before the dip. That is a fact. Seems like you are arguing they should be free of consequences. We judge people on their actions all the time, it is difficult to know their intentions. Other people have to be on the otherside of that trade. It’s publically good to know there are possible untrustworthy actors in a company, especially when it is extremely difficult to prove white collar crimes
  - Domenic_S 9y ago
    Selling before a dip is not a crime.
    - supercanuck 9y ago
      I feel like I'm being misunderstood. My point is that if you are a leader in a company and you sell before the dip which is based on some pretty negative event, you should not necessarily go to prison or have freedom's taken from you. BUT, I don't think that means you shouldn't be subject to some reputational consequence. Should we trust your statements when you get on that investor call? Isn't your prior actions relevant?
      - mulmen 9y ago
        I don't see the benefit to this system. If we assassinate reputation based on coincidence then we have introduced an unnecessary element of chance. I would much rather base my opinion on facts. If the CEO lied to shareholders on a call or used inside knowledge to sell shares illegally then the reputation damage will come from the conviction. In the absence of this evidence I see no benefit in assuming guilt or otherwise damaging the CEOs reputation.
      - saagarjha 9y ago
        > I don't think that means you shouldn't be subject to some reputational consequence. Why not? What if they were just unlucky? Why do you get to decided whether their reputation suffers?
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      When you know of something like the revealing of a huge breach, it is.
- Retric 9y ago
  Plenty of people have assessed guilt. It has not been demonstrated in the court of law which is an important difference. However, when you consider how many people don't trust the US court system. You can't expect them to reserve judgement based on what they consider a biased system.
  - dumbfounder 9y ago
    Exactly. Criminal convictions have a higher standard than civil, which obviously have a much higher standard than the court of public opinion. Just because you don't get arrested and convicted in criminal court does not mean you aren't "guilty" using a less stringent standard.
  - prewett 9y ago
    What exactly do you mean by "people don't trust the US court system"? That the guilty go free? That the innocent are wrongly convicted? That guilty people are not prosecuted? That justices are corrupt? And approximately how many people have this view? I'm getting kind of tired of this rhetoric on how the US is so bad/corrupt/untrustable/whatever the word is today. We have some of the best courts in the history of the world. How would you like to get tried in Chinese, Russian, African, or South American court? Or be tried in the middle ages? Are they perfect? No. Will there be miscarriages of justice? Yes. Are you likely to experience one? No. And if you think it's that bad, well, there are plenty of other countries you could move to and find out if they are better. Or you could work to improve the system we do have (after studying it enough to understand it well enough to actually improve and not just change it).
    - lovich 9y ago
      Just because other places are worse doesn't mean the US is good. The US legal system enforces the law, not justice. It does a lot of work to make it more equitable but it's still obvious that if you have money you live by a different set of rules. The majority of the population couldn't pull off what the affluenza teen did, beat up their girlfriend publicly like Chris Brown with little to no affect on their career, or rape a kid and only serve 60 to 120 days in jail[1]. Every one of these instances of injustice degrade people's trust in the system If I was an average person I'd rather be tried in the US, but if I was rich it seems like it doesn't matter. Our legal system seems pretty equivalent in outcome for the upper class. You only get more than a trivial punishment if you manage to upset someone with more money or power than you [1]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-07/news/sns-rt-us-usa-wisconsin-billionaire-20140606_1_sexual-assault-charge-wisconsin-billionaire http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-07/news/sns-rt-us...
saagarjha 9y ago
Why does the internet have the power to hand out punishment?

The internet is not taking anyone's freedoms away, the internet is punishing people's reputations. big difference.

mieseratte 9y ago

Punishment when we have yet to assess guilt.

supercanuck 9y ago
What punishment would that be? People inside the company sold right before the dip. That is a fact. Seems like you are arguing they should be free of consequences. We judge people on their actions all the time, it is difficult to know their intentions. Other people have to be on the otherside of that trade. It’s publically good to know there are possible untrustworthy actors in a company, especially when it is extremely difficult to prove white collar crimes
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  Selling before a dip is not a crime.
  - supercanuck 9y ago
    I feel like I'm being misunderstood. My point is that if you are a leader in a company and you sell before the dip which is based on some pretty negative event, you should not necessarily go to prison or have freedom's taken from you. BUT, I don't think that means you shouldn't be subject to some reputational consequence. Should we trust your statements when you get on that investor call? Isn't your prior actions relevant?
    - mulmen 9y ago
      I don't see the benefit to this system. If we assassinate reputation based on coincidence then we have introduced an unnecessary element of chance. I would much rather base my opinion on facts. If the CEO lied to shareholders on a call or used inside knowledge to sell shares illegally then the reputation damage will come from the conviction. In the absence of this evidence I see no benefit in assuming guilt or otherwise damaging the CEOs reputation.
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      > I don't think that means you shouldn't be subject to some reputational consequence. Why not? What if they were just unlucky? Why do you get to decided whether their reputation suffers?
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    When you know of something like the revealing of a huge breach, it is.
Retric 9y ago
Plenty of people have assessed guilt. It has not been demonstrated in the court of law which is an important difference. However, when you consider how many people don't trust the US court system. You can't expect them to reserve judgement based on what they consider a biased system.
- dumbfounder 9y ago
  Exactly. Criminal convictions have a higher standard than civil, which obviously have a much higher standard than the court of public opinion. Just because you don't get arrested and convicted in criminal court does not mean you aren't "guilty" using a less stringent standard.
- prewett 9y ago
  What exactly do you mean by "people don't trust the US court system"? That the guilty go free? That the innocent are wrongly convicted? That guilty people are not prosecuted? That justices are corrupt? And approximately how many people have this view? I'm getting kind of tired of this rhetoric on how the US is so bad/corrupt/untrustable/whatever the word is today. We have some of the best courts in the history of the world. How would you like to get tried in Chinese, Russian, African, or South American court? Or be tried in the middle ages? Are they perfect? No. Will there be miscarriages of justice? Yes. Are you likely to experience one? No. And if you think it's that bad, well, there are plenty of other countries you could move to and find out if they are better. Or you could work to improve the system we do have (after studying it enough to understand it well enough to actually improve and not just change it).
  - lovich 9y ago
    Just because other places are worse doesn't mean the US is good. The US legal system enforces the law, not justice. It does a lot of work to make it more equitable but it's still obvious that if you have money you live by a different set of rules. The majority of the population couldn't pull off what the affluenza teen did, beat up their girlfriend publicly like Chris Brown with little to no affect on their career, or rape a kid and only serve 60 to 120 days in jail[1]. Every one of these instances of injustice degrade people's trust in the system If I was an average person I'd rather be tried in the US, but if I was rich it seems like it doesn't matter. Our legal system seems pretty equivalent in outcome for the upper class. You only get more than a trivial punishment if you manage to upset someone with more money or power than you [1]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-07/news/sns-rt-us-usa-wisconsin-billionaire-20140606_1_sexual-assault-charge-wisconsin-billionaire http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-07/news/sns-rt-us...

saagarjha 9y ago

Why does the internet have the power to hand out punishment?