4 ms·

> Oh, this is simple. If you're commenting on something you don't understand, maybe don't start out with this? > I'm pretty sure 'reckless disregard for the t

> Oh, this is simple. If you're commenting on something you don't understand, maybe don't start out with this? > I'm pretty sure 'reckless disregard for the truth' would be pretty easy to prove in this case -- considering Clearview probably can't say specifically why this person selected for arrest. Sigh

pas 4y ago
... for us silent(ish) ignorants could you please explain what's wrong with the comment you have responded to? thank you!
- sseagull 4y ago
  It’s not even close to “reckless disregard for the truth”. Which isn’t even the right standard (reckless disregard for the truth/actual malice is the very high bar for defamation of public figures - regular folk have a lower bar). Reckless disregard for the truth is like still spreading lies, even though people around you are telling you otherwise, or even in the face of obvious reasons it is not true. Here, they believed a computer program that was promoted as being accurate. An average person would probably have no reason to strongly doubt it, especially if it has been correct before. If they were acting with their best intentions, based in the “facts” they had before them, defamation would difficult to prove.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Aunche 4y ago
  By the same standard, a witness who misidentified a suspect would be guilty of defamation as well.
  - pas 4y ago
    if the conditions were so bad that claiming that the suspect was so and so is absolutely unrealistic, isn't that reckless? eg. a psychic claiming they saw the suspect from 1000 miles?
bigiain 4y ago
> > Oh, this is simple. > If you're commenting on something you don't understand, maybe don't start out with this? HN is gonna get pretty damned quiet if techbros can’t immediately mansplain their opinions to each other about things they have no clue about. (“But but but, I work for FAANG! I passed their stupid gatekeeping recruitment quizzes! I’m _clearly_ the smartest guy in the room! Now, let me tell you all about epidemiology and airborne virus transmission. What? No, I studied CompSci not any of those boring soft sciences like medicine or biology. Anyway, what we need to do is…”). ;-)
- sgtnoodle 4y ago
  Yesterday in a work meeting, I qualified my thoughts on the present subject as the incoherent ramblings of an insane person. Oddly, that just seemed to make my coworkers take my ideas even more seriously.
  - smcin 4y ago
    Excellent. Tell me, were the walls of that meeting room rubber? Did your audience seem... restrained?
    - sgtnoodle 4y ago
      I was sitting in a room all alone, talking to the voices that sometimes come out of the warm inanimate box that I compulsively stare at while pushing complex, ever changing sequences of buttons on it in a futile attempt to find meaning. Why do you ask?
      - smcin 4y ago
        If you mean "phone support manager", just say "phone support manager"... :D

pas 4y ago

... for us silent(ish) ignorants could you please explain what's wrong with the comment you have responded to? thank you!

sseagull 4y ago
It’s not even close to “reckless disregard for the truth”. Which isn’t even the right standard (reckless disregard for the truth/actual malice is the very high bar for defamation of public figures - regular folk have a lower bar). Reckless disregard for the truth is like still spreading lies, even though people around you are telling you otherwise, or even in the face of obvious reasons it is not true. Here, they believed a computer program that was promoted as being accurate. An average person would probably have no reason to strongly doubt it, especially if it has been correct before. If they were acting with their best intentions, based in the “facts” they had before them, defamation would difficult to prove.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Aunche 4y ago
By the same standard, a witness who misidentified a suspect would be guilty of defamation as well.
- pas 4y ago
  if the conditions were so bad that claiming that the suspect was so and so is absolutely unrealistic, isn't that reckless? eg. a psychic claiming they saw the suspect from 1000 miles?

bigiain 4y ago

> > Oh, this is simple. > If you're commenting on something you don't understand, maybe don't start out with this? HN is gonna get pretty damned quiet if techbros can’t immediately mansplain their opinions to each other about things they have no clue about. (“But but but, I work for FAANG! I passed their stupid gatekeeping recruitment quizzes! I’m _clearly_ the smartest guy in the room! Now, let me tell you all about epidemiology and airborne virus transmission. What? No, I studied CompSci not any of those boring soft sciences like medicine or biology. Anyway, what we need to do is…”). ;-)

sgtnoodle 4y ago
Yesterday in a work meeting, I qualified my thoughts on the present subject as the incoherent ramblings of an insane person. Oddly, that just seemed to make my coworkers take my ideas even more seriously.
- smcin 4y ago
  Excellent. Tell me, were the walls of that meeting room rubber? Did your audience seem... restrained?
  - sgtnoodle 4y ago
    I was sitting in a room all alone, talking to the voices that sometimes come out of the warm inanimate box that I compulsively stare at while pushing complex, ever changing sequences of buttons on it in a futile attempt to find meaning. Why do you ask?
    - smcin 4y ago
      If you mean "phone support manager", just say "phone support manager"... :D