4 ms·

It's Black Mirror already.

jandrese 4y ago
I'm not sure I agree. If they are rating these public servants on their service to the public that would be within the scope of a job review. Or think of it as one of those "how was your service today" questionnaires you get sometimes. This isn't about policing someone's personal life. But on the other hand, Yelp reviews are already problematic and extending them to civil servants probably doesn't help the situation.
- tehlike 4y ago
  someone above commented: "Hmmm should I let an unroadworthy car endanger someone's life or turn a blind eye. What about my impeccable 5 star rating?"
- aksss 4y ago
  I think the down-board view is that Uber’s rating works because the drivers also review the riders. Are police able to rate the people (I hate saying citizens because police are “just” citizens too.)? Will this still work “like Uber” with only one side of the transaction doing the rating? What happens when police rate people? Who views this score? Is it a precursor to dating someone? Hiring someone? This is where it starts to resemble black mirror.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  An interaction with police is usually an inherently negative experience. There are plenty of people that would rate an officer 0/5 for giving them a speeding ticket regardless of how pleasant and polite they were. In fact, a police officer giving a speeding ticket with a smile on their face would come off as extremely condescending and feel like they're doing it as a power move asserting their authority.
  - jandrese 4y ago
    There are others were you will appreciate the job the police officer is doing. Like if you get your bike stolen and they track it down and return it to you. Or you get mugged and they catch the mugger. Of course if your police are not doing this then you may not be inclined to rate them as highly.
linkingday 4y ago
no, a state where the police/government has a monopoly on violence is the dystopia. and we already live in it. giving citizens a way to speak up about potential abuses is in no way harmful
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > a state where the police/government has a monopoly on violence is the dystopia “State“ or “government“ is just whoever, taken together, has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular (usually geographically bounded) context. So, apparently, dystopia is universal.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ameister14 4y ago
    > "Whoever, taken together, has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular context" Are you sure that's the definition of "state" or "government?" I don't think it is.
    - mellavora 4y ago
      I agree that the definition is problematic, though commonly accepted. The argument for goes back to Hobbes, and thus is in one sense foundational to western democracies. But it runs into problems when you look at the other aspect of western democracies, which is that power resides in the people and is only conditional granted to authority figures (i.e the "king" rules by consent of the governed, not by divine right). Thus the people have the ultimate right to legitimate violence. Also remembering that Hobbes was arguing for a king, not an elected representative...
      - ameister14 4y ago
        That argument might come from Hobbes but it wasn't his definition of a government either. Absolute authority as he saw it was simply a requirement for effective government. Boxers have something of a monopoly on legitimate violence in the context of a boxing ring, but that doesn't make them a government.

I'm not sure I agree. If they are rating these public servants on their service to the public that would be within the scope of a job review. Or think of it as one of those "how was your service today" questionnaires you get sometimes. This isn't about policing someone's personal life. But on the other hand, Yelp reviews are already problematic and extending them to civil servants probably doesn't help the situation.

tehlike 4y ago
someone above commented: "Hmmm should I let an unroadworthy car endanger someone's life or turn a blind eye. What about my impeccable 5 star rating?"
aksss 4y ago
I think the down-board view is that Uber’s rating works because the drivers also review the riders. Are police able to rate the people (I hate saying citizens because police are “just” citizens too.)? Will this still work “like Uber” with only one side of the transaction doing the rating? What happens when police rate people? Who views this score? Is it a precursor to dating someone? Hiring someone? This is where it starts to resemble black mirror.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
An interaction with police is usually an inherently negative experience. There are plenty of people that would rate an officer 0/5 for giving them a speeding ticket regardless of how pleasant and polite they were. In fact, a police officer giving a speeding ticket with a smile on their face would come off as extremely condescending and feel like they're doing it as a power move asserting their authority.
- jandrese 4y ago
  There are others were you will appreciate the job the police officer is doing. Like if you get your bike stolen and they track it down and return it to you. Or you get mugged and they catch the mugger. Of course if your police are not doing this then you may not be inclined to rate them as highly.

linkingday 4y ago

no, a state where the police/government has a monopoly on violence is the dystopia. and we already live in it. giving citizens a way to speak up about potential abuses is in no way harmful

dragonwriter 4y ago
> a state where the police/government has a monopoly on violence is the dystopia “State“ or “government“ is just whoever, taken together, has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular (usually geographically bounded) context. So, apparently, dystopia is universal.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ameister14 4y ago
  > "Whoever, taken together, has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular context" Are you sure that's the definition of "state" or "government?" I don't think it is.
  - mellavora 4y ago
    I agree that the definition is problematic, though commonly accepted. The argument for goes back to Hobbes, and thus is in one sense foundational to western democracies. But it runs into problems when you look at the other aspect of western democracies, which is that power resides in the people and is only conditional granted to authority figures (i.e the "king" rules by consent of the governed, not by divine right). Thus the people have the ultimate right to legitimate violence. Also remembering that Hobbes was arguing for a king, not an elected representative...
    - ameister14 4y ago
      That argument might come from Hobbes but it wasn't his definition of a government either. Absolute authority as he saw it was simply a requirement for effective government. Boxers have something of a monopoly on legitimate violence in the context of a boxing ring, but that doesn't make them a government.