3 ms·

One difference is that writing and digital communication more broadly is a far more efficient communication mechanism than in person voice communications. > of

One difference is that writing and digital communication more broadly is a far more efficient communication mechanism than in person voice communications. > of using the ephemeral messaging app for months after the feds notified Amazon of the antitrust investigation I think switching to ephemeral messaging apps specifically in response to antitrust investigation is evidence of mens rea that you’re in an illicit conspiracy. As for the crime: > The FTC accused Amazon of creating a secret “Project Nessie” pricing algorithm that may have generated more than $1 billion in extra profits.) You can distrust the government or not believe their argument, but our criminal justice system does depend on the government being able to perform an investigation.

nickff 3y ago
Government officials are also known to be using non-governmental channels for official business, in violation of regulation, and avoiding accountability and transparency. It seems to me that whats’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Unfortunately, that just leaves you in a low-trust dysfunctional society. The correct response is to make sure that all parties are behaving above board. Engaging in whataboutism just degrades society and honestly I thought most people learned to mature outside of this childish way of thinking after puberty.
  - nickff 3y ago
    I think we’re already in a low-trust state of affairs, at least with respect to the relationships between individuals and goverments. If the government trusts you so much, then why do they compel yourself to verify your identity to them so often? Why do they constantly threaten you with punishments?
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      I don’t disagree that we’re now in a low trust environment but you don’t get to a higher trust environment through further erosion of that trust. I’m not really sure what you’re talking about in terms of verifying your identity, but verification is 100% part of the “trust but verify” philosophy. You should be able to trust your government while simultaneously being able to verify they’re behaving above board. Also you have to be very careful to distinguish government vs individual, government vs small business, and government vs massive multinational. This is the last bucket and concerns in the former don’t really apply to this last bucket. None of this of course is relevant here - the government is saying that after they begin legal proceedings with Amazon, when Amazon would be under explicit orders to preserve documents and evidence, Amazon spoiled evidence. That’s a very serious accusation and lawyers don’t typically make such claims if they’re baseless because judges typically frown on claims that turn out to be baseless. If the government wins this argument in court, my understanding is that then there’s a presumption that all the documents were negative in Amazon’s favor.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> I think switching to ephemeral messaging apps specifically in response to antitrust investigation is evidence of mens rea that you’re in an illicit conspiracy. This theory assumes that the company believes the justice system is infallible. Suppose you're engaged in an illicit conspiracy and you find out there is an investigation. You'd want to stop writing things down that could prove your crimes, because you're guilty. Suppose you're not engaged in an illicit conspiracy and you find out there is an investigation. You'd want to stop writing things down that could be taken out of context in a malicious prosecution, because you're being investigated even though you're innocent, perhaps because of lobbying by your competitors who have it in for you, maybe because the prosecutor wants to run for office, but certainly for no good reason and therefore evidently for a bad reason. Since the expected behavior is the same in both cases, it provides no evidence of which case it is.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  That’s not how the legal system works though. Once a legal proceeding begins, there’s typically an order from a judge to preserve evidence. Failure to do so can have serious consequences.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Not preserving evidence and not generating evidence are two different things.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      That’s not how it works if you’ve been under these kinds of legal proceedings. You have an order to retain all documents and communications regardless of what you think is relevant. So switching to an ephemeral messaging app would 100% be considered you not obeying the court order. Even in person meetings that aren’t documented as they normally would, could be construed as evidence of a conspiracy to destroy evidence.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago

nickff 3y ago

Government officials are also known to be using non-governmental channels for official business, in violation of regulation, and avoiding accountability and transparency. It seems to me that whats’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

vlovich123 3y ago
Unfortunately, that just leaves you in a low-trust dysfunctional society. The correct response is to make sure that all parties are behaving above board. Engaging in whataboutism just degrades society and honestly I thought most people learned to mature outside of this childish way of thinking after puberty.
- nickff 3y ago
  I think we’re already in a low-trust state of affairs, at least with respect to the relationships between individuals and goverments. If the government trusts you so much, then why do they compel yourself to verify your identity to them so often? Why do they constantly threaten you with punishments?
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    I don’t disagree that we’re now in a low trust environment but you don’t get to a higher trust environment through further erosion of that trust. I’m not really sure what you’re talking about in terms of verifying your identity, but verification is 100% part of the “trust but verify” philosophy. You should be able to trust your government while simultaneously being able to verify they’re behaving above board. Also you have to be very careful to distinguish government vs individual, government vs small business, and government vs massive multinational. This is the last bucket and concerns in the former don’t really apply to this last bucket. None of this of course is relevant here - the government is saying that after they begin legal proceedings with Amazon, when Amazon would be under explicit orders to preserve documents and evidence, Amazon spoiled evidence. That’s a very serious accusation and lawyers don’t typically make such claims if they’re baseless because judges typically frown on claims that turn out to be baseless. If the government wins this argument in court, my understanding is that then there’s a presumption that all the documents were negative in Amazon’s favor.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> I think switching to ephemeral messaging apps specifically in response to antitrust investigation is evidence of mens rea that you’re in an illicit conspiracy. This theory assumes that the company believes the justice system is infallible. Suppose you're engaged in an illicit conspiracy and you find out there is an investigation. You'd want to stop writing things down that could prove your crimes, because you're guilty. Suppose you're not engaged in an illicit conspiracy and you find out there is an investigation. You'd want to stop writing things down that could be taken out of context in a malicious prosecution, because you're being investigated even though you're innocent, perhaps because of lobbying by your competitors who have it in for you, maybe because the prosecutor wants to run for office, but certainly for no good reason and therefore evidently for a bad reason. Since the expected behavior is the same in both cases, it provides no evidence of which case it is.

vlovich123 3y ago
That’s not how the legal system works though. Once a legal proceeding begins, there’s typically an order from a judge to preserve evidence. Failure to do so can have serious consequences.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Not preserving evidence and not generating evidence are two different things.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    That’s not how it works if you’ve been under these kinds of legal proceedings. You have an order to retain all documents and communications regardless of what you think is relevant. So switching to an ephemeral messaging app would 100% be considered you not obeying the court order. Even in person meetings that aren’t documented as they normally would, could be construed as evidence of a conspiracy to destroy evidence.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago