4 ms·

That's why in these cases you'd prefer a judgment without a jury. Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors, who can't be expected to understand deta

That's why in these cases you'd prefer a judgment without a jury. Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors, who can't be expected to understand details about sdk, data sharing, APIs etc. On the other hand, in a number of highprofile tech cases, you can see judges learning and discussing engineering in a deeper level.

echoangle 1y ago
Is it easier for the prosecution to make the jury think Facebook is guilty or for Facebook to make the jury think they are not? I don’t see why one would be easier, except if the jury would be prejudiced against Facebook already. Or is it just luck who the jury sides with?
- azemetre 1y ago
  I mean it totally depends what your views on democracy are. Juries are one of the few, likely only, practices taken from Ancient Athenian democracy which was truly led by the people. The fact that juries still work this way is a testament to the practice. With this in mind, I personally believe groups will always come to better conclusions than individuals. Being tried by 12 instead of 1 means more diversity of thought and opinion.
  - tracker1 1y ago
    I mostly agree here, but would add there's definitely a social pressure to go along with the group a lot of the time, even in jury trials. How many people genuinely have the fortitude to stand up to a group of 10+ others with a countering pov.
    - azemetre 1y ago
      I don't disagree, but think of the pressures a judge has as an individual as well. Pressures from the legal community, the electorate, and being seen as impartial. There is a wisdom of the crowd, and that wisdom comes in believing that we are all equal under the law. This wisdom is more self evident in democratic systems, like juries.
- dylan604 1y ago
  I'd imagine Facebook looking for any potential juror in tech to be dismissed as quickly as possible while the prosecution would be looking to seat as many tech jurors they can luck their way into seating.
mrkstu 1y ago
My understanding is defendants always get to choose, no? So that was an available option they chose not to avail themselves to.
zahlman 1y ago
> Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors... On the other hand, in a number of highprofile tech cases, you can see judges learning and discussing engineering in a deeper level. Not to be ageist, but I find this highly counterintuitive.
- willsmith72 1y ago
  how exactly? you expect the average joe to have a better technical understanding, and more importantly ability to learn, than a judge? that is bizarre to me
  - zahlman 1y ago
    I expect the average joe to use technology much more than a judge.
- pc86 1y ago
  Judges aren't necessarily brilliant, but they do spend their entire careers reading, listening to, and dissecting arguments. A large part of this requires learning new information at least well enough to make sense of arguments on both sides of the issue. So you do end up probably self-selecting for older folks able to do this better than the mean for their age, and likely for the population at large. Let's just say with a full jury you're almost guaranteed to get someone on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of age.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  The judge is at their job. The jury is conscripts that are often paying a financial penalty to be present.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    Weird deference to authority
    - BobaFloutist 1y ago
at-fates-hands 1y ago
>> Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors. This has been an issue since the internet was invented. Its always been the duty of the lawyers on both sides to present the information in cases like this in a manner that is understandable to the jurors. I distinctly remember during the OJ case, there were many issues that the media said most likely were presented in such a detailed manner, many in the jurors seemed to be checked out. At the time, the prosecution spent days just on the DNA evidence. In contrast, the defense spent days just on how the LAPD collected evidence at the crime scene with the same effect, that many on the jury seemed to check out the deeper the defense dug into it. So it not just technical cases, any kind of court case that requires a detailed understanding of anything complex comes down to how the lawyers present it to the jury.
dehrmann 1y ago
I've also heard you want a judge trial if you're innocent, jury if you're guilty. A judge will quickly see through prosecutorial BS if you didn't do it, and if you did, it only takes one to hang.

echoangle 1y ago

Is it easier for the prosecution to make the jury think Facebook is guilty or for Facebook to make the jury think they are not? I don’t see why one would be easier, except if the jury would be prejudiced against Facebook already. Or is it just luck who the jury sides with?

azemetre 1y ago
I mean it totally depends what your views on democracy are. Juries are one of the few, likely only, practices taken from Ancient Athenian democracy which was truly led by the people. The fact that juries still work this way is a testament to the practice. With this in mind, I personally believe groups will always come to better conclusions than individuals. Being tried by 12 instead of 1 means more diversity of thought and opinion.
- tracker1 1y ago
  I mostly agree here, but would add there's definitely a social pressure to go along with the group a lot of the time, even in jury trials. How many people genuinely have the fortitude to stand up to a group of 10+ others with a countering pov.
  - azemetre 1y ago
    I don't disagree, but think of the pressures a judge has as an individual as well. Pressures from the legal community, the electorate, and being seen as impartial. There is a wisdom of the crowd, and that wisdom comes in believing that we are all equal under the law. This wisdom is more self evident in democratic systems, like juries.
dylan604 1y ago
I'd imagine Facebook looking for any potential juror in tech to be dismissed as quickly as possible while the prosecution would be looking to seat as many tech jurors they can luck their way into seating.

mrkstu 1y ago

My understanding is defendants always get to choose, no? So that was an available option they chose not to avail themselves to.

zahlman 1y ago

> Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors... On the other hand, in a number of highprofile tech cases, you can see judges learning and discussing engineering in a deeper level. Not to be ageist, but I find this highly counterintuitive.

willsmith72 1y ago
how exactly? you expect the average joe to have a better technical understanding, and more importantly ability to learn, than a judge? that is bizarre to me
- zahlman 1y ago
  I expect the average joe to use technology much more than a judge.
pc86 1y ago
Judges aren't necessarily brilliant, but they do spend their entire careers reading, listening to, and dissecting arguments. A large part of this requires learning new information at least well enough to make sense of arguments on both sides of the issue. So you do end up probably self-selecting for older folks able to do this better than the mean for their age, and likely for the population at large. Let's just say with a full jury you're almost guaranteed to get someone on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of age.
BobaFloutist 1y ago
The judge is at their job. The jury is conscripts that are often paying a financial penalty to be present.
- mulmen 1y ago
  Weird deference to authority
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago

at-fates-hands 1y ago

>> Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors. This has been an issue since the internet was invented. Its always been the duty of the lawyers on both sides to present the information in cases like this in a manner that is understandable to the jurors. I distinctly remember during the OJ case, there were many issues that the media said most likely were presented in such a detailed manner, many in the jurors seemed to be checked out. At the time, the prosecution spent days just on the DNA evidence. In contrast, the defense spent days just on how the LAPD collected evidence at the crime scene with the same effect, that many on the jury seemed to check out the deeper the defense dug into it. So it not just technical cases, any kind of court case that requires a detailed understanding of anything complex comes down to how the lawyers present it to the jury.

dehrmann 1y ago

I've also heard you want a judge trial if you're innocent, jury if you're guilty. A judge will quickly see through prosecutorial BS if you didn't do it, and if you did, it only takes one to hang.