6 ms·

The crime is violence and threats of violence which, as you're saying is easy to monitor. All we need is to let people use social media to incriminate themselve

The crime is violence and threats of violence which, as you're saying is easy to monitor. All we need is to let people use social media to incriminate themselves. The real issue is just that we don't have the resources to give them all due process. If we can fix that part we'll be ready for everyone to have global reach and social media. We didn't solve that problem before the technology came about which indicates that the we just weren't ready for social media. Sadly the whole world is suffering for it, and extremist anti Western and anti civil rights groups are exploiting that.

psychlops 3y ago
Are you suggesting that technology should be only be permitted after some group of people deems it ready for the masses?
- blitzar 3y ago
  I think they are suggesting that people should have a brain and think before they post death threats on social media.
  - psychlops 3y ago
    Really? I reread his comment and didn't get that interpretation. In any event, I doubt the people posting death threats on social media are the type to reflect rationally on their actions.
    - dleink 3y ago
      You are painting the mentally ill with too broad a brush. There is a difference between 'ill' and 'dangerous'. We should not engender a society that encourages people to toe that line.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      I'm not sure. There's two[1] types of errors at play, correct axioms but incorrect logic, and incorrect axioms and correct logic. Which of these errors do you tend to see death threat makers engaging in? 1. I'm oversimplifying. Ofc it's possible to combine the two as well. But we are talking about tendencies.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  No. I'm suggesting that a modernized justice system is a likely frontier.
  - psychlops 3y ago
    Interesting thought. I have many more questions than I'm willing to type in this tiny box of expiring interest but will think more on this. Government is naturally reactive so I don't think innovation will come from that area, but what is intriguing is what type of justice system would be fair in a modern era.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      > this tiny box of expiring interest Did you coin that phrase? It wonderfully expresses the idea.
everforward 3y ago
It’s an intractable problem, that’s why we haven’t solved it. Crimes were intended to be serious transgressions worthy of the government spending untold sums enforcing for the good of society. Thus all of the expensive due process; it’s a serious transgression that carries serious penalties, so it’s important to be correct. The system was never intended to handle an explosion in regulations to the point where the average person accidentally routinely commits felonies. The world’s judicial systems are collapsing because we are unwilling to admit that the judicial system would need to be like a quarter of our society to actually enforce all the laws we have, and we’re also unwilling to repeal laws to a subset we could actually effectively enforce.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  I think automation can help, and that it is an inevitability.
  - everforward 2y ago
    I’m skeptical; we’re already automating as hard as possible by extorting defendants to not exercise their right to a trial. E.g. a typical court case will involve a plea deal for X days in jail, with the prosecutor threatening to argue for 10*X days if the defendant goes to trial. 98% of federal cases never make it to trial. Most states have rates above 90%. Some counties haven’t had a case go to trial in like a decade, everyone pleas out. To be clear, we have already gutted everything not strictly necessary from the judicial system, and it’s faltering even under the ‘crisis mode’ operations they’ve been pursuing. There’s a latent black swan event waiting to happen there. If defendants ever band together and collectively refuse to take plea deals, our judicial system would cease to function almost overnight. We barely have enough judges for the couple of percent of cases that actually go to trial; we would be talking an order of magnitude or two more cases. More generally, I think the complexity of law grows exponentially based on the size of the corpus that makes it up. The laws interact with each other, so the number of interactions grows exponentially rather than linearly. Our ability to automate grows quickly, but not as quickly as that exponent.
    - 2y ago

psychlops 3y ago

Are you suggesting that technology should be only be permitted after some group of people deems it ready for the masses?

blitzar 3y ago
I think they are suggesting that people should have a brain and think before they post death threats on social media.
- psychlops 3y ago
  Really? I reread his comment and didn't get that interpretation. In any event, I doubt the people posting death threats on social media are the type to reflect rationally on their actions.
  - dleink 3y ago
    You are painting the mentally ill with too broad a brush. There is a difference between 'ill' and 'dangerous'. We should not engender a society that encourages people to toe that line.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    I'm not sure. There's two[1] types of errors at play, correct axioms but incorrect logic, and incorrect axioms and correct logic. Which of these errors do you tend to see death threat makers engaging in? 1. I'm oversimplifying. Ofc it's possible to combine the two as well. But we are talking about tendencies.
trimethylpurine 3y ago
No. I'm suggesting that a modernized justice system is a likely frontier.
- psychlops 3y ago
  Interesting thought. I have many more questions than I'm willing to type in this tiny box of expiring interest but will think more on this. Government is naturally reactive so I don't think innovation will come from that area, but what is intriguing is what type of justice system would be fair in a modern era.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    > this tiny box of expiring interest Did you coin that phrase? It wonderfully expresses the idea.

everforward 3y ago

It’s an intractable problem, that’s why we haven’t solved it. Crimes were intended to be serious transgressions worthy of the government spending untold sums enforcing for the good of society. Thus all of the expensive due process; it’s a serious transgression that carries serious penalties, so it’s important to be correct. The system was never intended to handle an explosion in regulations to the point where the average person accidentally routinely commits felonies. The world’s judicial systems are collapsing because we are unwilling to admit that the judicial system would need to be like a quarter of our society to actually enforce all the laws we have, and we’re also unwilling to repeal laws to a subset we could actually effectively enforce.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
I think automation can help, and that it is an inevitability.
- everforward 2y ago
  I’m skeptical; we’re already automating as hard as possible by extorting defendants to not exercise their right to a trial. E.g. a typical court case will involve a plea deal for X days in jail, with the prosecutor threatening to argue for 10*X days if the defendant goes to trial. 98% of federal cases never make it to trial. Most states have rates above 90%. Some counties haven’t had a case go to trial in like a decade, everyone pleas out. To be clear, we have already gutted everything not strictly necessary from the judicial system, and it’s faltering even under the ‘crisis mode’ operations they’ve been pursuing. There’s a latent black swan event waiting to happen there. If defendants ever band together and collectively refuse to take plea deals, our judicial system would cease to function almost overnight. We barely have enough judges for the couple of percent of cases that actually go to trial; we would be talking an order of magnitude or two more cases. More generally, I think the complexity of law grows exponentially based on the size of the corpus that makes it up. The laws interact with each other, so the number of interactions grows exponentially rather than linearly. Our ability to automate grows quickly, but not as quickly as that exponent.
  - 2y ago