5 ms·

I would say your effort wasn't very high then. Keywords to search for are "Mental anguish" and "Emotional distress". "Depression" is not a thing you can reall

I would say your effort wasn't very high then. Keywords to search for are "Mental anguish" and "Emotional distress". "Depression" is not a thing you can really sue for, but mental harm associated with it definitely is.

Kranar 5y ago
Given your response that you think emotional distress could in anyway be applicable here, I am fairly confident at this point that few people are properly informed to discuss the legality of this with the degree of certainty and authority that is being expressed. For one, as per White v. Monsanto [1] mental anguish and emotional distress requires "conduct that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society." I think at this point it's quite clear that people are just speaking from a very superficial understanding or outright just making things up about this topic but are doing so as if they are subject matter experts and while this is a open discussion forum and you can say whatever you want, I suppose I expected better. [1] https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=16203665367533693646&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=1620366536753369...
- will4274 5y ago
  Does Facebook actually need to inflict the distress or just be complicit? Cause I have little doubt that "conduct that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society" takes place on social media - after all, high schoolers use social media.
- zepto 5y ago
  Earlier you said: > From my uninformed point of view that I am happy to be challenged on Now you say: > I think at this point it's quite clear that people are just speaking from a very superficial understanding or outright just making things up about this topic but are doing so as if they are subject matter experts How would you know, if your point of view is uninformed? Are you a lawyer?
  - Kranar 5y ago
    I realized maybe a week or two ago regarding subjects that I am an expert on and professionally trained that people on Hacker News discuss it in a very uninformed manner and out of ignorance and that this ignorance spreads across the site like wildfire. People make bold and categorical claims that one would only expect of a subject matter expert when it's clear that they're anything but that. The issue is that the number of experts on a topic is much smaller than the number of people who read a comment, find it appealing, and upvote it, so it's hard to dispel a lot of misinformation. Furthermore based on my own experience, the amount of effort needed to demonstrate that someone is wrong is significant, consumes a lot of time, and even if you manage to do so, it likely is nested deep within the conversation and goes unnoticed. In my own area of expertise, I have literally been downvoted for providing links to primary sources that conclusively disprove unsourced claims. So given that I know that discussions in my area of expertise on this site is full of misinformation, I have now come to doubt the quality and reliability of conversations on this site on some other topics that tend to attract a lot of assertive discussion. Topics that don't attract a lot of assertive discussion still seem legit, for example few people make assertions or categorical claims in physics discussions or pure math discussions and the few who do I think are trustworthy since they tend to provide extensive explanations justifications, and sources. Most people in those topics are inquisitive, they ask questions, they make clear that they have an opinion or a belief and wonder if others share that opinion... but when it comes to law people just downright state things as if they're facts and they're qualified to know that it's a fact. So I now doubt that many people on this site who discuss the law with such authority are remotely informed to do so and that motivated my original line of inquiry; is the original poster and everyone else in agreement with them actually informed to understand the law to make such a big statement on the subject, or are they just making things up the same way people on this site make things up about the topic that I know I am an expert on. Are other readers upvoting comments because they can verify it and upvotes are serving as a kind of quality control mechanism, or are people upvoting comments that sound appealing and that they wish was true, but really are not qualified to know, and hence upvotes are a reflection of this site's ignorance on a topic. I can only answer that for myself, but I think the replies to my line of inquiry have been poor and misinformed, and so I think the best way to make use of this site going forward is to avoid participating in discussions other than those I think still retain some degree of quality: physics, math, machine learning, things where I trust there are enough experts here that no one would make such strong claims that are false without being shut down by the community for doing so. Law, biology and health care, the environment, finance/economics are not among those topics.

Kranar 5y ago

Given your response that you think emotional distress could in anyway be applicable here, I am fairly confident at this point that few people are properly informed to discuss the legality of this with the degree of certainty and authority that is being expressed. For one, as per White v. Monsanto [1] mental anguish and emotional distress requires "conduct that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society." I think at this point it's quite clear that people are just speaking from a very superficial understanding or outright just making things up about this topic but are doing so as if they are subject matter experts and while this is a open discussion forum and you can say whatever you want, I suppose I expected better. [1] https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=16203665367533693646&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=1620366536753369...

will4274 5y ago
Does Facebook actually need to inflict the distress or just be complicit? Cause I have little doubt that "conduct that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society" takes place on social media - after all, high schoolers use social media.
zepto 5y ago
Earlier you said: > From my uninformed point of view that I am happy to be challenged on Now you say: > I think at this point it's quite clear that people are just speaking from a very superficial understanding or outright just making things up about this topic but are doing so as if they are subject matter experts How would you know, if your point of view is uninformed? Are you a lawyer?
- Kranar 5y ago
  I realized maybe a week or two ago regarding subjects that I am an expert on and professionally trained that people on Hacker News discuss it in a very uninformed manner and out of ignorance and that this ignorance spreads across the site like wildfire. People make bold and categorical claims that one would only expect of a subject matter expert when it's clear that they're anything but that. The issue is that the number of experts on a topic is much smaller than the number of people who read a comment, find it appealing, and upvote it, so it's hard to dispel a lot of misinformation. Furthermore based on my own experience, the amount of effort needed to demonstrate that someone is wrong is significant, consumes a lot of time, and even if you manage to do so, it likely is nested deep within the conversation and goes unnoticed. In my own area of expertise, I have literally been downvoted for providing links to primary sources that conclusively disprove unsourced claims. So given that I know that discussions in my area of expertise on this site is full of misinformation, I have now come to doubt the quality and reliability of conversations on this site on some other topics that tend to attract a lot of assertive discussion. Topics that don't attract a lot of assertive discussion still seem legit, for example few people make assertions or categorical claims in physics discussions or pure math discussions and the few who do I think are trustworthy since they tend to provide extensive explanations justifications, and sources. Most people in those topics are inquisitive, they ask questions, they make clear that they have an opinion or a belief and wonder if others share that opinion... but when it comes to law people just downright state things as if they're facts and they're qualified to know that it's a fact. So I now doubt that many people on this site who discuss the law with such authority are remotely informed to do so and that motivated my original line of inquiry; is the original poster and everyone else in agreement with them actually informed to understand the law to make such a big statement on the subject, or are they just making things up the same way people on this site make things up about the topic that I know I am an expert on. Are other readers upvoting comments because they can verify it and upvotes are serving as a kind of quality control mechanism, or are people upvoting comments that sound appealing and that they wish was true, but really are not qualified to know, and hence upvotes are a reflection of this site's ignorance on a topic. I can only answer that for myself, but I think the replies to my line of inquiry have been poor and misinformed, and so I think the best way to make use of this site going forward is to avoid participating in discussions other than those I think still retain some degree of quality: physics, math, machine learning, things where I trust there are enough experts here that no one would make such strong claims that are false without being shut down by the community for doing so. Law, biology and health care, the environment, finance/economics are not among those topics.