3 ms·

also: >Teachers also said Malachi’s camera was on and he did not appear to be doing anything unusual So he was supposedly doing this while on camera and in c

by jcomis 5y ago

also: >Teachers also said Malachi’s camera was on and he did not appear to be doing anything unusual So he was supposedly doing this while on camera and in class? This case seems so absurd.

wearywanderer 5y ago
While I agree the case is obviously absurd, I'm a bit confused what sort of evidence you think the webcam would give. In the hypothetical scenario where he did what he's accused of, and did it while on webcam, what would the webcam show? Probably just him looking at his screen, with maybe some typing noises? That wouldn't be evidence of anything, neither innocence nor guilt.
- spoonalious 5y ago
  One of the things he’s accused of of shouting racial slurs
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    Malichi (the accused) reported hearing somebody yelling racial slurs. But the school's allegations are about him joining the channel with abusive screen-names. One of his teachers says that it wasn't Malichi's voice yelling the slurs.
    - mynameisvlad 5y ago
      Malichi and an independent teacher both corroborated that there was someone shouting racial slurs, so by taking this side that actually the school is only going after the abusive screen names, are you saying that there were two separate people Zoom bombing this class, Malichi and someone else? The school clearly knows they can't go after him for the racial slurs because he was on camera that whole time, so they chose not to focus on that. But it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > While I agree the case is obviously absurd, I'm a bit confused what sort of evidence you think the webcam would give. In the hypothetical scenario where he did what he's accused of, and did it while on webcam, what would the webcam show? Probably just him looking at his screen, with maybe some typing noises? That wouldn't be evidence of anything, neither innocence nor guilt. It wouldn’t be strong evidence either way, OTOH, typing is probably fairly limited usually in Zoom classes and usually associated with other in-band indicators (like chat messages in the class); it's pretty likely that the feed of a student on cam and described as doing nothing unusual would have pretty strong evidence that they weren’t doing what he was accused of, even though if he was guilty and on cam you’d expect only weak confirming evidence.
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    > It wouldn’t be strong evidence either way, OTOH, typing is probably fairly limited usually in Zoom classes I think you're wrong about that. I can think of about a thousand reasons a kid might be typing instead of paying attention to the class. This hypothetical evidence is too weak to damn the kid, and the only reason it would even be considered at all is because all of the other evidence is weak as well. The whole thing is a farce.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      ??? Here, the kid's lack-of-obviously-doing-anything-else is being used to provide (weak) evidence to exculpate the kid, not to damn him.
      - wearywanderer 5y ago
        The only thing it would show is that he was either at his computer when it happened, or wasn't at his computer. Either is so weak it's worthless.
        mlyle 5y ago
        I think you massively overestimate how well 11 year olds are at avoiding visual "tells" of what they're doing when on an educational videoconference. The kid not appearing to do anything else, not having light from opening new windows flashing on his face, etc, would make me far less likely to think it was him. Source: Have been teaching remote middle schoolers this entire year, and it's been pretty easy to spot a pretty big fraction of those kids that are opening other windows, playing Fortnite, etc.
jquery 5y ago
We are hearing the side of the case solely from Malachi’s lawyer, it would be wise not to jump to conclusions. We don’t know much about the case.

by jcomis 5y ago

also: >Teachers also said Malachi’s camera was on and he did not appear to be doing anything unusual So he was supposedly doing this while on camera and in class? This case seems so absurd.

wearywanderer 5y ago

While I agree the case is obviously absurd, I'm a bit confused what sort of evidence you think the webcam would give. In the hypothetical scenario where he did what he's accused of, and did it while on webcam, what would the webcam show? Probably just him looking at his screen, with maybe some typing noises? That wouldn't be evidence of anything, neither innocence nor guilt.

spoonalious 5y ago
One of the things he’s accused of of shouting racial slurs
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  Malichi (the accused) reported hearing somebody yelling racial slurs. But the school's allegations are about him joining the channel with abusive screen-names. One of his teachers says that it wasn't Malichi's voice yelling the slurs.
  - mynameisvlad 5y ago
    Malichi and an independent teacher both corroborated that there was someone shouting racial slurs, so by taking this side that actually the school is only going after the abusive screen names, are you saying that there were two separate people Zoom bombing this class, Malichi and someone else? The school clearly knows they can't go after him for the racial slurs because he was on camera that whole time, so they chose not to focus on that. But it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> While I agree the case is obviously absurd, I'm a bit confused what sort of evidence you think the webcam would give. In the hypothetical scenario where he did what he's accused of, and did it while on webcam, what would the webcam show? Probably just him looking at his screen, with maybe some typing noises? That wouldn't be evidence of anything, neither innocence nor guilt. It wouldn’t be strong evidence either way, OTOH, typing is probably fairly limited usually in Zoom classes and usually associated with other in-band indicators (like chat messages in the class); it's pretty likely that the feed of a student on cam and described as doing nothing unusual would have pretty strong evidence that they weren’t doing what he was accused of, even though if he was guilty and on cam you’d expect only weak confirming evidence.
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  > It wouldn’t be strong evidence either way, OTOH, typing is probably fairly limited usually in Zoom classes I think you're wrong about that. I can think of about a thousand reasons a kid might be typing instead of paying attention to the class. This hypothetical evidence is too weak to damn the kid, and the only reason it would even be considered at all is because all of the other evidence is weak as well. The whole thing is a farce.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    ??? Here, the kid's lack-of-obviously-doing-anything-else is being used to provide (weak) evidence to exculpate the kid, not to damn him.
    - wearywanderer 5y ago
      The only thing it would show is that he was either at his computer when it happened, or wasn't at his computer. Either is so weak it's worthless.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        I think you massively overestimate how well 11 year olds are at avoiding visual "tells" of what they're doing when on an educational videoconference. The kid not appearing to do anything else, not having light from opening new windows flashing on his face, etc, would make me far less likely to think it was him. Source: Have been teaching remote middle schoolers this entire year, and it's been pretty easy to spot a pretty big fraction of those kids that are opening other windows, playing Fortnite, etc.

jquery 5y ago

We are hearing the side of the case solely from Malachi’s lawyer, it would be wise not to jump to conclusions. We don’t know much about the case.