5 ms·

You seem to be arguing that because cases 1-9 were without merit, case 10 and beyond are too. That may turn out to be true, but it is also quite literally pre-j

by esja 6y ago

You seem to be arguing that because cases 1-9 were without merit, case 10 and beyond are too. That may turn out to be true, but it is also quite literally pre-judging. Your argument also accepts that the courts judged these cases to have no merit, while implicitly denying that such judging was necessary. How should a Google staffer differentiate between case number 9 (dismissed) and case number 10 (still on the docket)? And what hope can they have of coming to a better understanding of the details and merits of a case than the exact body (a court) which is set up to do precisely this? The whole legal system is premised on every case being judged on its own merits, and rightly so.

tptacek 6y ago
Cases 10 and beyond are, too. One way you can see that is the subsequent cases have been relying on the same batshit evidence as the dead cases. If Google was a courtroom, you might have a point --- the courts are in many circumstances obligated to hear and dispassionately resolve batshit frivolous cases. Google is not.
- esja 6y ago
  My concern is that you as an individual have used your personal judgement to come to the conclusion that these cases are batshit (as have I incidentally), and in this specific case you are most likely correct. But had Google prevented you from seeing this information, you would not have been able to form any view at all. And that is the direction all these platforms are moving in. I also have absolutely zero trust in Random Googlers being capable of determining truth and falsity in the general case (which is where this is heading), or in managing this power in such a way that is a net benefit to society. If they didn't have monopolies on information consumption I would be a little less concerned. A different example: Google could have stopped people seeing "false" information about COVID earlier this year. Twitter and other platforms labelled this "misinformation", and Google could have censored it from YouTube, searches, etc. The tech companies anointed the WHO as the arbiter of truth, yet the WHO was wrong for quite a while about several important things. I would prefer to live in a world where individuals are allowed to see all the contested facts and arguments, and decide for themselves. One last example: Ignaz Semmelweis would have been censored as "misinformation". Ditto Galileo and many others. I suppose the real solution is to break up the information monopolies, then let them do all the censoring they want.
  - wcarey 6y ago
    How, even in principle, would google prevent a person from seeing legal documents? Most (all?) jurisdictions publish them on the web themselves? https://www.courtlistener.com/ https://www.courtlistener.com/ is great.
    - esja 6y ago
      I'm not arguing Google are censoring legal documents. But let's take this trend in that direction... 1. How would the average person find that website? A search engine perhaps? 2. How many search engines does the average person use? One, perhaps? Which one?
      - tptacek 6y ago
        Nobody has accused Google of burying search results about these court cases, so you can't reasonably pretend that's the debate we're having. Please keep the goalposts static, so we can discuss productively.
        esja 6y ago
        I already said it was off topic... it was a hypothetical.
      - wcarey 6y ago
        1. Well, I just told you about them. It's old fashioned, but talking to people works wonders. You're not the first person I've encouraged to go directly to legal documents. 2. Probably the median person uses several -- google, facebook, and the like.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    We're talking about Youtube, not Google search results for Fox News. I don't find any of this persuasive. Google is also preventing me from forming my own opinions about content featuring firearms, hate speech, violent criminal organizations, sales of regulated goods, nudity, and sexual content. I'm waiting for an argument from you that would be persuasive to someone who thinks it's just fine for Google to ban porn from Youtube.
jcranmer 6y ago
The election occurred over a month ago. The counting of votes was complete enough 4 days later that any violations subsequent to then could not have changed the outcome. The relief sought--to prevent the results from being certified--would have been impossible to grant two weeks ago. At this point, any case being filed now over the results of the election is doomed to fail either by the doctrine of laches (you should have filed it sooner) or inability to grant relief, and that's even without considering any other possible failings it may have (including merit!). While the courts will operate under the assumption that a case is meritorious until proven otherwise, there is no reason for the court of public opinion to operate under the same assumption, especially when there is clear precedent and established case history demonstrating why the case must be dismissed that the filing makes no attempt to address.
- esja 6y ago
  I don't think "the court of public opinion" is a high enough standard for a prospective world-wide monopolistic censor of information. Such an authority needs to be completely rigorous, completely fair, completely objective, completely informed, and so on. Google cannot meet that bar. By your standard, Semmelweis would have been censored as "misinformation". Ditto Galileo and the rest.
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    Or for an even more recent example, the scientific community largely rejected plate tectonics initially
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      And was that borne out in the public square or in scientific journals and conferences? There are reasonable arenas for this material. In this case, that arena is the courts.
SurfingToad 6y ago
Just because the sun has risen every day of your life, that doesn't mean that you can expect it to do so tomorrow.
- esja 6y ago
  Of course we can, because it's a law of nature. Whereas man-made laws are subject to human action and interpretation, so outcomes are far less predictable.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by esja 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

Cases 10 and beyond are, too. One way you can see that is the subsequent cases have been relying on the same batshit evidence as the dead cases. If Google was a courtroom, you might have a point --- the courts are in many circumstances obligated to hear and dispassionately resolve batshit frivolous cases. Google is not.

esja 6y ago
My concern is that you as an individual have used your personal judgement to come to the conclusion that these cases are batshit (as have I incidentally), and in this specific case you are most likely correct. But had Google prevented you from seeing this information, you would not have been able to form any view at all. And that is the direction all these platforms are moving in. I also have absolutely zero trust in Random Googlers being capable of determining truth and falsity in the general case (which is where this is heading), or in managing this power in such a way that is a net benefit to society. If they didn't have monopolies on information consumption I would be a little less concerned. A different example: Google could have stopped people seeing "false" information about COVID earlier this year. Twitter and other platforms labelled this "misinformation", and Google could have censored it from YouTube, searches, etc. The tech companies anointed the WHO as the arbiter of truth, yet the WHO was wrong for quite a while about several important things. I would prefer to live in a world where individuals are allowed to see all the contested facts and arguments, and decide for themselves. One last example: Ignaz Semmelweis would have been censored as "misinformation". Ditto Galileo and many others. I suppose the real solution is to break up the information monopolies, then let them do all the censoring they want.
- wcarey 6y ago
  How, even in principle, would google prevent a person from seeing legal documents? Most (all?) jurisdictions publish them on the web themselves? https://www.courtlistener.com/ https://www.courtlistener.com/ is great.
  - esja 6y ago
    I'm not arguing Google are censoring legal documents. But let's take this trend in that direction... 1. How would the average person find that website? A search engine perhaps? 2. How many search engines does the average person use? One, perhaps? Which one?
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Nobody has accused Google of burying search results about these court cases, so you can't reasonably pretend that's the debate we're having. Please keep the goalposts static, so we can discuss productively.
      - esja 6y ago
        I already said it was off topic... it was a hypothetical.
    - wcarey 6y ago
      1. Well, I just told you about them. It's old fashioned, but talking to people works wonders. You're not the first person I've encouraged to go directly to legal documents. 2. Probably the median person uses several -- google, facebook, and the like.
- tptacek 6y ago
  We're talking about Youtube, not Google search results for Fox News. I don't find any of this persuasive. Google is also preventing me from forming my own opinions about content featuring firearms, hate speech, violent criminal organizations, sales of regulated goods, nudity, and sexual content. I'm waiting for an argument from you that would be persuasive to someone who thinks it's just fine for Google to ban porn from Youtube.

jcranmer 6y ago

The election occurred over a month ago. The counting of votes was complete enough 4 days later that any violations subsequent to then could not have changed the outcome. The relief sought--to prevent the results from being certified--would have been impossible to grant two weeks ago. At this point, any case being filed now over the results of the election is doomed to fail either by the doctrine of laches (you should have filed it sooner) or inability to grant relief, and that's even without considering any other possible failings it may have (including merit!). While the courts will operate under the assumption that a case is meritorious until proven otherwise, there is no reason for the court of public opinion to operate under the same assumption, especially when there is clear precedent and established case history demonstrating why the case must be dismissed that the filing makes no attempt to address.

esja 6y ago
I don't think "the court of public opinion" is a high enough standard for a prospective world-wide monopolistic censor of information. Such an authority needs to be completely rigorous, completely fair, completely objective, completely informed, and so on. Google cannot meet that bar. By your standard, Semmelweis would have been censored as "misinformation". Ditto Galileo and the rest.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  Or for an even more recent example, the scientific community largely rejected plate tectonics initially
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    And was that borne out in the public square or in scientific journals and conferences? There are reasonable arenas for this material. In this case, that arena is the courts.

SurfingToad 6y ago

Just because the sun has risen every day of your life, that doesn't mean that you can expect it to do so tomorrow.

esja 6y ago
Of course we can, because it's a law of nature. Whereas man-made laws are subject to human action and interpretation, so outcomes are far less predictable.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]