3 ms·

Government officials are also known to be using non-governmental channels for official business, in violation of regulation, and avoiding accountability and tra

by 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.

by nickff 3y ago

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.