This quote from Pew seems particularly telling: "While psychologists say belief in conspiracy theories is often linked to paranoia or other mental health issues, the racial conspiracies that Black people believe are rooted in factual acts of intentional or negligent harm."
0 replies
1 reposts
8 likes
As a historian-turned-lawyer, this historical turn should generate a certain frisson of excitement in me rather than the frisson of terror I feel every time I read this phrase (“history and tradition,” shudder)
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
I mean, there might be some utility in using an LLM to do something link sentiment analysis over a corpus of comms to extract a kind of zeitgeist from it but (1) that isn’t actual polling and (2) we really need some rigorous analysis of what’s happening “under the hood” if we’re going to use it
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Reposted by @krisnelson.org
Don’t mean to brag, but I can just make up polling numbers without using AI
4 replies
11 reposts
70 likes
Oh I can definitely see uses for “plausible but inaccurate in impossible-to-determine ways” (tho who needs AI for that), but those aren’t the same uses as actual polling, lol
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
“it can generalize to new scenarios and survey topics, and spit out a plausible answer, even if its accuracy is not guaranteed”
WHAT?!
1 replies
0 reposts
3 likes
I know! But if I get myself back onto ground I'm more familiar with, I'm struggling to see how meaningful appellate practice would be possible if it was OK to hide from defense counsel that an ex parte meeting with a witness *even happened*?
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
From what I've gathered from criminal law practitioners so far, the answer seems to be "unlikely but maybe but regardless, hiding it from the defense would still not be ok."
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I guess state schools should all be purely vocational* and we give the thinkin’ stuff to the aristocrats at elite private schools as god intended. Anything else might give the common folk idea above their station.
* vocational ed is good! But it should be a choice not a limitation.
1 replies
1 reposts
7 likes
The US response might be "more (& better) speech" to counter plus better education, laws against acts not speech content, etc. (I would suggest private restrictions/de-platforming not mandated by gov has a (tricky) role too.) US view is that speech limits by gov are too easily weaponized by bad gov.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
I'm not so sure the rise in power globally of the right is explainable by differences in current approaches to speech between countries. We in the US have our problem children, but eg the rise of the AfD in Germany, Le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands, suggests a broader problem.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
I can't think of any rights that don't have some outer limit that could conceivable swallow the entire enterprise if allowed to do so. Is it the concept of "balancing" that creates a greater risk of this than some other characterization or mechanism of navigating conflicts of rights?
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
I would usually be inclined to make some obvious joke about a lawyer maximizing billable hours (can I bill for the entire 48 hours I'm incarcerated with my client or just the time we're awake?) but this whole thing is just too wild
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Seems like all rights require balancing—I'm not sure a democracy can survive if rights are too absolutist, even speech rights? But I do worry that some EU approaches to allowing content-based restrictions too easily allow illiberal regimes legal cover to block "good" speech and not just eg Nazis.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Yes, I think the better critique of the article and its position is to focus on the distinctions of a US-based viewpoint & legal regime versus an EU-based one.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Lol, I don't always agree with @cathygellis.bsky.social, but she most definitely has way more than a clue on speech & Internet issues! She's even, like, a legal professional? 😉
1 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
For me, it depends on what you really mean by “homeopathic.” If you mean a few drops of something in water then diluted further still, then it’s still a no from me. If you mean using actual stuff that just isn’t pharma, then yeah (with caution). Lots of actual but non-pharma stuff has medical uses!
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Relatedly, what if I filled up my filing cabinet with photos? Or filed lots of scientific papers with diagrams and images? Etc.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Legally, yes absolutely, though I do wonder if it’s even possible for them to reverse their having lost public support/opinion by changing the law vs just making us all miserable?
Put another way, are they overvaluing law and a certain kind of power as the driver of (long-term) change?
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes