4 ms·

Is it not possible for one person to believe both of the following? 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts 2. since they obviously already do

Is it not possible for one person to believe both of the following? 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time?

philipov 8y ago
So, you agree with me?
- markovbot 8y ago
  no i just suck at making sentences apparently. See other reply, which made the same point much better.
Matticus_Rex 8y ago
Why is it not possible to believe both? I believe that governments shouldn't exist, but given the fact that they obviously do, that they should do certain things. There's no necessary conflict in either set of beliefs.
- markovbot 8y ago
  bleh, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tried to update my comment a little bit, i think i just phrased it poorly
vkou 8y ago
> 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts Why shouldn't LE monitor public social media posts? Should they also ignore Billy standing on the street corner, shouting about how he's going to shoot up <those ______ers in ________>? I understand not wanting the police to listen to your phone calls, or read your private messages. I don't understand the police having to shut their ears, and close their eyes, at public messages that you broadcast to the world. Should I be allowed advertise a murder-for-hire business on Facebook, without any risk of the police getting involved involved? Is there some magical property of the Internet that is supposed to protect me from this? > 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time? They do occasionally do something 'useful' about it. I have first hand experience. Last month, in my city, they've arrested an off-his-meds individual in my area, within hours of making specific threats of violence against a number of public establishments. (That he has had a bad history with.) I'd prefer it if he got medical treatment, for his issues, but the US being what it is, he's far more likely to get five to ten years of jail time, instead. Of course, oftentimes, they also don't do anything about it. Sometimes, it's because the regional prosecutor can't be arsed to deal with the threats, so they do a catch-and-release. Sometimes, it's because the police themselves can't be arsed to take the threats seriously. I don't have any stats for how frequently these sorts of situations turn out one way, or another.

philipov 8y ago

So, you agree with me?

markovbot 8y ago
no i just suck at making sentences apparently. See other reply, which made the same point much better.

Matticus_Rex 8y ago

Why is it not possible to believe both? I believe that governments shouldn't exist, but given the fact that they obviously do, that they should do certain things. There's no necessary conflict in either set of beliefs.

markovbot 8y ago
bleh, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tried to update my comment a little bit, i think i just phrased it poorly

vkou 8y ago

> 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts Why shouldn't LE monitor public social media posts? Should they also ignore Billy standing on the street corner, shouting about how he's going to shoot up <those ______ers in ________>? I understand not wanting the police to listen to your phone calls, or read your private messages. I don't understand the police having to shut their ears, and close their eyes, at public messages that you broadcast to the world. Should I be allowed advertise a murder-for-hire business on Facebook, without any risk of the police getting involved involved? Is there some magical property of the Internet that is supposed to protect me from this? > 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time? They do occasionally do something 'useful' about it. I have first hand experience. Last month, in my city, they've arrested an off-his-meds individual in my area, within hours of making specific threats of violence against a number of public establishments. (That he has had a bad history with.) I'd prefer it if he got medical treatment, for his issues, but the US being what it is, he's far more likely to get five to ten years of jail time, instead. Of course, oftentimes, they also don't do anything about it. Sometimes, it's because the regional prosecutor can't be arsed to deal with the threats, so they do a catch-and-release. Sometimes, it's because the police themselves can't be arsed to take the threats seriously. I don't have any stats for how frequently these sorts of situations turn out one way, or another.