8 ms·

Intent is the key ingredient to crime (or other behaviours society does not tolerate). You totally ignore this.

by 1ris 4y ago

ALittleLight 4y ago
Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing this up for me. When big, rich, powerful companies get people killed they didn't intend to, so, actually, no harm done. When big, rich, powerful companies accuse a small community of getting someone killed obviously they did intend to do it and so they need to be shut down. Very illuminating!
- therouwboat 4y ago
  Yeah, when you intentionally cause harm and even drive people to suicide, its worse than unintentionally causing harm.
- clucas 4y ago
  Can't you engage the point in good faith? Of course intent matters! If you have a fleet of trucks and occasionally one of your drivers gets in an accident, that's way different than if you have a fleet going out there running people off the road. I think you may have good point hiding in there (maybe "Facebook may not do it intentionally, but they've been so negligent that..."), but it's lost in the dripping sarcasm. The point you're replying to wasn't that ridiculous.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    I would say that I did engage in good faith. I mean the argument I'm making and I'm making my arguments the way I feel is best. It is, of course, completely ridiculous to think that "intent" separates Facebook and KiwiFarms. Facebook doesn't intend to cause civil wars, genocides, spree killers, gang violence, body dismorphia, self-harm, harassment, and suicide. Facebook intends to connect people so that they can develop a social network and monetize the social network and they are willing to break a few eggs to make that omelette. You might as well say that it is the color of Mark Zuckerberg's shoes that matters as say it is Facebook's intent. No, obviously, what matters is the bad stuff and the people harmed. It's not like any of those people are less dead because of Facebook's intentions. If Facebook had terrible intentions and excellent outcomes that would be a much better world. The other problem with saying intent is what matters is that the people who make this argument also make some kind of magical mind reading claim that they know the intentions of others. "Intent is what matters, and I know the intentions of KiwiFarms! They are bad!" Just save everyone some time and explain that you know KiwiFarms is bad and that is why they must be destroyed. KiwiFarms is bad because they intended to get people killed. No, there is no evidence for that. And yes, there is plenty of evidence against that in the form of trying to get people hurt being against the rules and moderation of the site. No, there was no police or legal action against KiwiFarms for the crimes we "know" they were committing - but all that is beside the point. We know their intent! It is bad and they must be removed!
    - clucas 4y ago
      If you had a crystal ball and could magically determine how many incidents of harassment per daily active user were coordinated on KF vs. Facebook, which site do you think would come out looking worse? Or... Let's say a group of a dozen people got together and decided to make life a living hell for their target. They are going to mock the target mercilessly, following up on any online interaction by posting vile shit, sending nasty DMs on every platform they can find, etc... Nothing illegal, but just being awful. But let's say in one world, they're coordinating this stuff on Facebook, and in another they're coordinating it on KF. Now let's say the target gets logs of the coordination, and they report it to the site where it happened. Which site do you think would be most likely to take action, FB or KF? I think the obvious answer is that FB is much more likely to try to put a stop to the harassment. Also, for you to claim you're arguing in good faith when your entire response to a reasonable argument was to mockingly agree with it and say "Very illuminating!" is really rich. If you want to actually convince people of your points, you're going to have to do a lot better. For the record, I really don't like that KF has been forced off the internet the way it has. But you're not going to convince anyone by being sarcastic and pretending that KF isn't an awful place where users try to do awful things.
  - tsol 4y ago
    How do you even define intent when Facebook knows this stuff is happening but doesn't do anything? Intent is hardly relevant when they are aware of consequences of their behavior and still don't change. Don't know intend for it to happen, but it does happen and they're aware of it and continue I do it. I honestly think this is just another case of third world lives being less important to people.
- rvz 4y ago
  Yeah I know, isn't it illuminating to see Facebook profit off of disinformation campaigns and to be used as tool and aided a genocide in another country, killing thousands. Here we also have Twitter [0][1][2] still unable to remove CP images off of their website for years despite it being absolutely illegal in many countries. I think the fine should be substantially higher since they are 'big, rich and powerful as well' [3]. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/30/india-twitter-kashmir-map-child-pornography https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/30/india-twitter-kashm... [1] https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-sued-for-failing-to-take-down-child-porn-videos/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-20/twitter-faces-claim-it-benefited-from-child-sex-trafficking https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-20/twitter-f... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
pclmulqdq 4y ago
Intent - mens rea in the law - is not about the intent to [commit insert crime here]. It is about the intent to do the thing that resulted in the crime. That is why if you get blackout drunk and drive through a crowd of kids, you get charged with manslaughter: you didn't intend to kill those kids, but you intended to get blackout drunk and drive, which resulted in the death of the kids. Facebook absolutely would have criminal intent the same way kiwifarms would - in both cases, they intended to serve content from their users.

Intent is the key ingredient to crime (or other behaviours society does not tolerate). You totally ignore this.

by 1ris 4y ago

Intent is the key ingredient to crime (or other behaviours society does not tolerate). You totally ignore this.

Oh, I see. Thank you for clearing this up for me. When big, rich, powerful companies get people killed they didn't intend to, so, actually, no harm done. When big, rich, powerful companies accuse a small community of getting someone killed obviously they did intend to do it and so they need to be shut down. Very illuminating!

therouwboat 4y ago
Yeah, when you intentionally cause harm and even drive people to suicide, its worse than unintentionally causing harm.
clucas 4y ago
Can't you engage the point in good faith? Of course intent matters! If you have a fleet of trucks and occasionally one of your drivers gets in an accident, that's way different than if you have a fleet going out there running people off the road. I think you may have good point hiding in there (maybe "Facebook may not do it intentionally, but they've been so negligent that..."), but it's lost in the dripping sarcasm. The point you're replying to wasn't that ridiculous.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I would say that I did engage in good faith. I mean the argument I'm making and I'm making my arguments the way I feel is best. It is, of course, completely ridiculous to think that "intent" separates Facebook and KiwiFarms. Facebook doesn't intend to cause civil wars, genocides, spree killers, gang violence, body dismorphia, self-harm, harassment, and suicide. Facebook intends to connect people so that they can develop a social network and monetize the social network and they are willing to break a few eggs to make that omelette. You might as well say that it is the color of Mark Zuckerberg's shoes that matters as say it is Facebook's intent. No, obviously, what matters is the bad stuff and the people harmed. It's not like any of those people are less dead because of Facebook's intentions. If Facebook had terrible intentions and excellent outcomes that would be a much better world. The other problem with saying intent is what matters is that the people who make this argument also make some kind of magical mind reading claim that they know the intentions of others. "Intent is what matters, and I know the intentions of KiwiFarms! They are bad!" Just save everyone some time and explain that you know KiwiFarms is bad and that is why they must be destroyed. KiwiFarms is bad because they intended to get people killed. No, there is no evidence for that. And yes, there is plenty of evidence against that in the form of trying to get people hurt being against the rules and moderation of the site. No, there was no police or legal action against KiwiFarms for the crimes we "know" they were committing - but all that is beside the point. We know their intent! It is bad and they must be removed!
  - clucas 4y ago
    If you had a crystal ball and could magically determine how many incidents of harassment per daily active user were coordinated on KF vs. Facebook, which site do you think would come out looking worse? Or... Let's say a group of a dozen people got together and decided to make life a living hell for their target. They are going to mock the target mercilessly, following up on any online interaction by posting vile shit, sending nasty DMs on every platform they can find, etc... Nothing illegal, but just being awful. But let's say in one world, they're coordinating this stuff on Facebook, and in another they're coordinating it on KF. Now let's say the target gets logs of the coordination, and they report it to the site where it happened. Which site do you think would be most likely to take action, FB or KF? I think the obvious answer is that FB is much more likely to try to put a stop to the harassment. Also, for you to claim you're arguing in good faith when your entire response to a reasonable argument was to mockingly agree with it and say "Very illuminating!" is really rich. If you want to actually convince people of your points, you're going to have to do a lot better. For the record, I really don't like that KF has been forced off the internet the way it has. But you're not going to convince anyone by being sarcastic and pretending that KF isn't an awful place where users try to do awful things.
- tsol 4y ago
  How do you even define intent when Facebook knows this stuff is happening but doesn't do anything? Intent is hardly relevant when they are aware of consequences of their behavior and still don't change. Don't know intend for it to happen, but it does happen and they're aware of it and continue I do it. I honestly think this is just another case of third world lives being less important to people.
rvz 4y ago
Yeah I know, isn't it illuminating to see Facebook profit off of disinformation campaigns and to be used as tool and aided a genocide in another country, killing thousands. Here we also have Twitter [0][1][2] still unable to remove CP images off of their website for years despite it being absolutely illegal in many countries. I think the fine should be substantially higher since they are 'big, rich and powerful as well' [3]. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/30/india-twitter-kashmir-map-child-pornography https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/30/india-twitter-kashm... [1] https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-sued-for-failing-to-take-down-child-porn-videos/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-20/twitter-faces-claim-it-benefited-from-child-sex-trafficking https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-20/twitter-f... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

AndrewUnmuted 4y ago

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Intent - mens rea in the law - is not about the intent to [commit insert crime here]. It is about the intent to do the thing that resulted in the crime. That is why if you get blackout drunk and drive through a crowd of kids, you get charged with manslaughter: you didn't intend to kill those kids, but you intended to get blackout drunk and drive, which resulted in the death of the kids. Facebook absolutely would have criminal intent the same way kiwifarms would - in both cases, they intended to serve content from their users.