4 ms·
The fact that making certain decisions can be hard in some cases is not a good reason for simply refusing to make those decisions at all. It’s hard in some cas
by baddox 6y ago
The fact that making certain decisions can be hard in some cases is not a good reason for simply refusing to make those decisions at all.
It’s hard in some cases to determine whether someone murdered someone, or stole from someone, or committed fraud, etc. That doesn’t mean we just throw up our hands and say it’s foolish to ever try to determine whether any rules have been broken.
Fraud is a particularly good example here, because it literally involves making reasonable interpretations of someone’s speech. And I’m pretty sure you can’t weasel your way out of a fraud conviction because of technicalities with the way you phrased something.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- concordDance 6y agoMaking those decisions should require either extensive training (judges) or some random selection (juries). Not the same people from the same subculture making all the decisions.
- pas 6y agoElected judges? Juries that have the same biases as the general population? (See how many cops are/were acquitted of assault.) I'm not saying FB and it's completely opaque outsourced subcontracted byzantine soulless lowest-bidder sweatshop moderation system is better (or somehow will be better), but it's not like the US criminal/justice system is flawless.