4 ms·

> This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof." That's exactly the problem with news publications like this; they are extrajudicial. They throw awa

by s7atic 5y ago

> This isn't a court of law, there is no "burden of proof." That's exactly the problem with news publications like this; they are extrajudicial. They throw away the right to due process. And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible. There are also important second order effects from legitimizing this rhetoric. A democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large. In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments. I cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate.

krapp 5y ago
>And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible. A promotion and a raise? The horror. > democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large. It's weird, Hacker News is usually extreme in its defense of absolute freedom of speech and the press, especially the freedom of the press to report negatively on people in positions of power. But when someone writes an article on a Google employee that they don't like, it's "destabilizing our society at large" and violates "basic legal principles." Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes? >In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments. What defamation? What punishment? He got a promotion. He was punished with money and power and being in line for CEO. > cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate. Are you trying to make this "cancel culture" now? This has nothing to do with "today's social media climate." There was no Twitter mob calling for Mustafa Suleyman's head, there were internal complaints made by employees.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  The underlying idea I think you're missing is that personnel disputes just shouldn't be litigated through the media. There's no reliable information that can be gained and no productive discussion that can be had; the only possible outcome is to feed our confirmation biases and provide a platform to get mad. For example, you mention: > Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes? But lots of people went to the mat for Gebru and Mitchell! And many more were willing to provide an assumption of good faith without necessarily taking their side. You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people. The article has tricked you into getting angry at phantoms and guesswork.
  - cma 5y ago
    > You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people. Can you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Should you have to?
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      Well, I’m not sure what “have to” means. If I got a Washington Post article published about how suchandsuch person made a HN comment I don’t like, I would call that a clear case of harassment, no matter how much proof I had that the comment was wrong.
      - cma 5y ago
        So the law should be Washington Post has a criminal-trial style burden of proof for articles?
- s7atic 5y ago

by s7atic 5y ago

krapp 5y ago

>And make no mistake: The consequences for the accused are very tangible. A promotion and a raise? The horror. > democracy cannot exist without a rule of law. When we violate those basic legal principles, we risk destabilizing our society at large. It's weird, Hacker News is usually extreme in its defense of absolute freedom of speech and the press, especially the freedom of the press to report negatively on people in positions of power. But when someone writes an article on a Google employee that they don't like, it's "destabilizing our society at large" and violates "basic legal principles." Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes? >In some jurisdictions, defamation is illegal irrespective of the claims' veracity in order to ensure the right to due process and avoid non-sactioned punishments. What defamation? What punishment? He got a promotion. He was punished with money and power and being in line for CEO. > cannot help but feel legalization in other countries, including the US and UK, have not yet caught up with the forces enabled by today's social media climate. Are you trying to make this "cancel culture" now? This has nothing to do with "today's social media climate." There was no Twitter mob calling for Mustafa Suleyman's head, there were internal complaints made by employees.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
The underlying idea I think you're missing is that personnel disputes just shouldn't be litigated through the media. There's no reliable information that can be gained and no productive discussion that can be had; the only possible outcome is to feed our confirmation biases and provide a platform to get mad. For example, you mention: > Where did all the Friends of Voltaire go, I wonder? Where was all of this sympathy and assumption of good faith for Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell? Why does HN only ever go to the mat for sociopaths, bigots and assholes? But lots of people went to the mat for Gebru and Mitchell! And many more were willing to provide an assumption of good faith without necessarily taking their side. You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people. The article has tricked you into getting angry at phantoms and guesswork.
- cma 5y ago
  > You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people. Can you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Should you have to?
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    Well, I’m not sure what “have to” means. If I got a Washington Post article published about how suchandsuch person made a HN comment I don’t like, I would call that a clear case of harassment, no matter how much proof I had that the comment was wrong.
    - cma 5y ago
      So the law should be Washington Post has a criminal-trial style burden of proof for articles?
s7atic 5y ago