4 ms·
I guess my point is I don't see how your "jailed before being cleared" example could ever reasonably happen. The NYT is a best case, but also an average case, a
by ChrisKnott 3y ago
I guess my point is I don't see how your "jailed before being cleared" example could ever reasonably happen. The NYT is a best case, but also an average case, and in fact any other outcome would be absurd.
- yukkuri 3y agoThe system isn't reasonable, so your denial based on what you think can "reasonably" happen is just your privilege talking.
- ChrisKnott 3y agoThat might be the case, but there would still be examples of it happening to other people, wouldn't there?
- tremon 3y agoRe: unreasonable system, would you accept as evidence the 1115 children that were removed from their parents because the Dutch IRS labeled the parents as fraudsters (due to a biased and discriminatory AI system, of course)? https://www.bnnvara.nl/artikelen/hoe-konden-1115-kinderen-van-het-toeslagenschandaal-uit-huis-geplaatst-worden https://www.bnnvara.nl/artikelen/hoe-konden-1115-kinderen-va...
- kelnos 3y agoI think your understanding of the common vs. uncommon cases here is out of whack. The common case is that parents who have done nothing wrong lose their children for days or weeks (at best) before things are resolved in their favor. And then there's of course the (less-common, but happens often enough to be troubling) situation where parents lose their children and never get them back, even though they're innocent of causing any harm. Note that I'm talking about the broader effect of Child Protective Services when they investigate any kind of reported abuse, not just CSAM possession/distribution.