3 ms·

- "“The interest in protecting the safety of public employees and ensuring research that benefits the public can proceed without risk of violence clearly outwei

- "“The interest in protecting the safety of public employees and ensuring research that benefits the public can proceed without risk of violence clearly outweighs the public's interest in viewing said photographs,” the document says." By that logic, wouldn't you conclude you should censor anything that causes people to protest in the streets? I doubt this one-sided document written by attorneys representing the Univ. of California is an accurate representation of applicable law—I hope it isn't, this is just awful civics. The public-interest priorities are inverted: stuff that infuriates the public is precisely the stuff that's most strongly in the public interest to disclose.

fsckboy 3y ago
>>protecting the safety of public employees and ensuring research that benefits the public can proceed without risk of violence >By that logic, wouldn't you conclude you should censor anything that causes people to protest in the streets? no, only in cases where you're ensuring research that benefits the public, and also ensuring that things that are legal can proceed without risk of violence. If the photos were to lead only to petition signing, that would be a different matter. now, you can be cynical about things "the authorities say", and you can be worked up about monkeys and feel that their lives are equal to human lives; but just going on what the words mean, I don't think your interpretation is correct.
- perihelions 3y ago
  - "If the photos were to lead only to petition signing, that would be a different matter." What you're describing is a heckler's veto: denying the right of the public to participate civically, out of a fear response to a fringe minority.
- 20after4 3y ago
  It's a pretty big assumption that this research benefits the public. It sounds like the results of said research remain the proprietary property of Neuralink and that's not what I would call a public benefit.
simonebrunozzi 3y ago
> stuff that infuriates the public is precisely the stuff that's most strongly in the public interest to disclose. I tend to pretty much agree with this. At least in so-called democratic nations.
bitshiftfaced 3y ago
> By that logic, wouldn't you conclude you should censor anything that causes people to protest in the streets? Risks of protest on the street is different from the risks of someone targeting an individual working on the project with violence, isn't it?
tomjen3 3y ago
Hard disagree. The only thing these dead monkeys pictures speak to are feelings and we have seen what happens when the public gets animated and the public easily gets animated with dead animal pictures and the name Elon Musk. Logically, if you want to protect animals rights, focus on factory chickens. The suffering impact of of these monkeys is epsilon compared to that.
- perihelions 3y ago
  If pictures are persuasive, then let people have access to the most persuasive arguments they want, for their civic debates. Whether I agree with them or not, I respect their right to speak, and let them do so in whatever format they please. And gathering and using whatever documentary evidence they think they need—no one has the right to suppress that. The public indeed has a statutory right to all of this information in California, and to attempt to make an exception to that, for the explicit purpose of suppressing civic debate they don't like and in fact find odious, is a government overreach. - "we have seen what happens when the public gets animated and the public easily gets animated" If your disdain for the public extends so far as "and therefore let's control the masses; let's deny them information; let's suppress their overly-animated speech", then there's not much to discuss, as we live in incompatible universes. I hope your contempt doesn't really stretch that far.
  - tomjen3 3y ago
    I have no issue with them getting all the relevant information (ie not researchers private information) as long as there is no images to take out of context and slap some cheap click bait on. I have some faith in the public, but we should all know what happens when bloggers optimise for clicks.
    - perihelions 3y ago
      - "as long as there is no images to take out of context and slap some cheap click bait on" We're talking about the relationship between a government actor and members of the public criticizing it. If that criticism is unfair, out of context, or completely wrong, well, that's too bad: but a government actor has no power to tell the public "no, you are not allowed to criticize us in that manner; criticize us accurately, or not at all".

fsckboy 3y ago

>>protecting the safety of public employees and ensuring research that benefits the public can proceed without risk of violence >By that logic, wouldn't you conclude you should censor anything that causes people to protest in the streets? no, only in cases where you're ensuring research that benefits the public, and also ensuring that things that are legal can proceed without risk of violence. If the photos were to lead only to petition signing, that would be a different matter. now, you can be cynical about things "the authorities say", and you can be worked up about monkeys and feel that their lives are equal to human lives; but just going on what the words mean, I don't think your interpretation is correct.

perihelions 3y ago
- "If the photos were to lead only to petition signing, that would be a different matter." What you're describing is a heckler's veto: denying the right of the public to participate civically, out of a fear response to a fringe minority.
20after4 3y ago
It's a pretty big assumption that this research benefits the public. It sounds like the results of said research remain the proprietary property of Neuralink and that's not what I would call a public benefit.

simonebrunozzi 3y ago

> stuff that infuriates the public is precisely the stuff that's most strongly in the public interest to disclose. I tend to pretty much agree with this. At least in so-called democratic nations.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago

> By that logic, wouldn't you conclude you should censor anything that causes people to protest in the streets? Risks of protest on the street is different from the risks of someone targeting an individual working on the project with violence, isn't it?

tomjen3 3y ago

Hard disagree. The only thing these dead monkeys pictures speak to are feelings and we have seen what happens when the public gets animated and the public easily gets animated with dead animal pictures and the name Elon Musk. Logically, if you want to protect animals rights, focus on factory chickens. The suffering impact of of these monkeys is epsilon compared to that.

perihelions 3y ago
If pictures are persuasive, then let people have access to the most persuasive arguments they want, for their civic debates. Whether I agree with them or not, I respect their right to speak, and let them do so in whatever format they please. And gathering and using whatever documentary evidence they think they need—no one has the right to suppress that. The public indeed has a statutory right to all of this information in California, and to attempt to make an exception to that, for the explicit purpose of suppressing civic debate they don't like and in fact find odious, is a government overreach. - "we have seen what happens when the public gets animated and the public easily gets animated" If your disdain for the public extends so far as "and therefore let's control the masses; let's deny them information; let's suppress their overly-animated speech", then there's not much to discuss, as we live in incompatible universes. I hope your contempt doesn't really stretch that far.
- tomjen3 3y ago
  I have no issue with them getting all the relevant information (ie not researchers private information) as long as there is no images to take out of context and slap some cheap click bait on. I have some faith in the public, but we should all know what happens when bloggers optimise for clicks.
  - perihelions 3y ago
    - "as long as there is no images to take out of context and slap some cheap click bait on" We're talking about the relationship between a government actor and members of the public criticizing it. If that criticism is unfair, out of context, or completely wrong, well, that's too bad: but a government actor has no power to tell the public "no, you are not allowed to criticize us in that manner; criticize us accurately, or not at all".