• D1G17AL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          That’s what I said as soon as they nabbed Luigi. Does not look like the original shooters profile.

        • arc@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Just some other random guy with weapons and a manifesto admitting to killing a health exec

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            He’s pleading not guilty, claiming that the cops planted that shit.

            And the cops routinely lie and plant evidence, so it’s not out of the question.

            • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Know what?

              I’m thinking you might be right. Walking that confidently? The show of police presence? The assuredness of the police? The publicly shared evidence? A guy that kinda fits the profile?

              He’s also a smart dude. He sees this for what it is. He also probably understands that regardless of what happens, the public will probably obtain justice.

              We’re all furious with the state of things. We’re furious over the lack of police accountability, the laws for the poor and not the elite. We’re furious that they can look at what health insurance can do to make profit, and let it be completely legal to let people die.

              It doesn’t matter if he did or did not do the crime at this point. The elite showed their hand too early, the public is calling it. He’s probably scared shitless, but he knows. He knows that regardless of what the outcome is, the people have rallied to him. He knows they can’t risk making him a martyr, and an acquittal would be devastating. The entire Spirit of the Constitution (regardless of it’s interpretation by the Supreme Court) and the people is behind him.

              He knows justice is coming.

            • arc@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here. He shot the guy and confessed to it. Lord knows what else he said during interviews with the cops but probably lots. His defense team will attempt to disqualify evidence and diminish his culpability while transforming the trial into one about private health care. They only need one not guilty and that’s what they’ll do their best to achieve.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                If the cops did indeed plant evidence then happy days for the defence since it should be easy to disprove. e.g. by simple handwriting analysis or other such means. But this is fantasy wishful thinking since he did write the words. So stick to the reality here

                Handwriting analysis is hardly objective.

                He shot the guy and confessed to it.

                He’s pleaded not guilty, and unless you have more up to date information, he’s made no confession outside of the alleged note.

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Murder is murder no matter how much the victim had it coming.

          Edit: as others have told me murder is only applicable after conviction. My post here is wrong and dumb.

          • oshu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            The word murder has a specific meaning in law: The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

            • slingstone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Given that the whole point of the act was that the CEO and his company were indifferent to human life, one could argue that the shooter valued the life and dignity of his fellow beings far more than his target. Furthermore, the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to the vile strategies of this company in particular would seem to offer a very significant justification and excuse. Of course, malice aforethought is inherent to an assassination, so I guess they have him there.

              In the end, though, the jury will be under no legal obligation to follow the law and could choose to find him not guilty if they agree with his reasons for acting.

              • oshu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                I agree, its entirely possible that a jury may find his act of killing justified.

      • FLeX@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Eveyone is the parasite of someone else. Think of it before spitting nazi shit next time.

    • arc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      He’s 100% guilty. He crossed state lines to stalk and shoot his victim dead. He even wrote a mini manifesto where he admitted the crime.

      The issue is that his victim was a piece of shit and so there is a great deal of sympathy with the killer who appears to have suffered his own health issues. It must be hard to find jurors who haven’t been personally negatively impacted by United Health or else know someone who has.

      That means in a jury of 12 it might be impossible to ensure the verdict is unanimous. I am sure the defence will also try to make the trial about private health insurance and will be leaning hard into things like the victim and his company’s culpability in so much pain, suffering & death.

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        So far we have not seen any evidence of his guilt. We have opened an investigation with the IDF to check whether he is guilty and we will come back to that in the future.

        • arc@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          He was literally caught with a written confession.

          To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.

  • Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oh, so like when it goes the other way and the public decides someone is guilty long before they go to trial and prosecutors go after him anyway.

    Big deal. The jury will decide one way or another and I will be very surprised that the highest charges will stick if they get normal people on the bench.

    The fact that this guy had a manhunt out for him when people are murdered every day and nearly no resources are used at all to go after them is astounding. Just shows the law is there for the rich, not the rest of us.

    • nomous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      There was another school shooting this week, i think that’s the 80th this year and people don’t seem to care. Why would anyone care about some parasite millionaire when innocent kids are gunned down everyday and that’s just the way it is.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The media likes to downplay that the CEO had straight up killed people. Eye for an eye applies. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice to find Luigi guilty.

  • 2ugly2live@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s never “so much sympathy” for a killer cop, or genocide, but one CEO is just a step too far.

  • DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Juror 1: It wasn’t him. I know it in my heart…because I’ve had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I’m acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.

    Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn’t. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.

    Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn’t covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn’t murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we’ll never know now.

    Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.

    Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the “victim” killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.

    Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion…Oh, the law states that someone can’t be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public’s sympathy.

    Juror 7: I’m glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she’s too weak to fight it.

    Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn’t even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn’t able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.

    Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.

    Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.

    Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.

    Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn’t smoked before. We have to consider that.

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    They will try Luigi until it sticks. It’s critical to the powerful that they send the message they are beyond reproach.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 days ago

      Which is exactly why people like Luigi resort to the actions he took. It can never be undone no matter what they do to him afterwards.

    • prof_wafflez@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I’m sad I won’t get picked for the jury. I’d refuse to convict on all counts. If Trump gets no punishment for literally anything this dude should get no punishment for fighting back against an absolutely broken system. Honestly, I don’t view his actions to be something to cause a public backlash. The prosecution is what will cause the public backlash, imo.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s not really how jury’s work though.

        You’re not there to dispense justice. You’re there to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.

        Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about Jury Nullification, a refusal to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that it would be unjust, despite the defendant’s obvious guilt.

        This pretty much reduces the court process to a popularity contest - how does the jury “feel” about the defendant, what are the “vibes” of the circumstances before them.

        Jurors determine guilt, and judges determine punishments. The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.

          Lol…phew…omg…phew. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today.

          The US justice system is easily one of the most corrupt in history at this point. It’s honestly kind of disturbing someone can make a statement like that with a straight face.

        • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          60,000 Americans die every year because of the insurance industry, but how many oligarchs were brought to justice? How many oligarchs were arrested for raping children on Epstein’s island? How many oligarchs were arrested for funding Israel’s genocide of Gaza? How many oligarchs were arrested for the massive tax evasion revealed from the Panama papers???

          Justice that only punches down is not justice. If our system will not hold the wealthy accountable for their crimes against humanity then our system is utterly rotten

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Everything you said is true, but it doesn’t really contradict my point.

            The current system is terrible, but it’s better than having a jury of laypeople make up the law based on the vibe of the case.

            I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better judicial system.

            • exploitedamerican@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              A better judicial system, one where it implicitly illegal for those with money to receive preferential treatment. And one where victimless crimes built on abstract ideals of abstinence only moralism dont ruin the lives of marginalized people while wealthy privileged individuals engage in these same behaviors with impunity, and one where qualified immunity isn’t grossly abused to avoid consequence for a militarized police force and portray a fantasy image tjat police generally always have a pristine moral compass and aren’t just flawed human beings with a propensity to abuse their power in a system with so many unjust laws that are designed to favor those with privilege and wealth.

              How about just that for starters and i will get back to you for any further improvements.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          Maybe they should fix the justice system if they want juries to actually act like they’re intended to.

          But they won’t, billionaires, CEOs, business execs, and other parasites will continue to do what they like and harm who they like with a slap on the wrist at most.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?

            More than half of American voters just chose to subvert the already ineffective legal system, to install a corrupt felon as dictator.

            Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?

              The oligarchs that own the country.

              Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?

              I’m proposing that the inherent protections the judicial system gives people be used to protect Luigi.

              Justice is dead so long as billionaires can cause immeasurable death and suffering without repercussions.

              You’re operating under the incorrect assumption that the public can control the law.

              If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Dude your last sentence was the cherry garnish in a big cup of government Kool aid.

          A just system wouldn’t have 98% of its convictions arriving out of plea deals.

          A just system wouldn’t jail a dude for stealing bread from a company that steals money from all of its employees. Employees that are already so underpaid, that they qualify for food stamps, that largely get spent at the same damn company.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I never said the system was just.

            Merely pointing out that separating the finding of guilt from the determination of punishment is the best way we have to mitigate corruption.

            I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better system.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      They will make it slow so they can twist the knife they shove into the publics stomach to keep everyone too scared to act. Government repression is the first cousin of terrorism, and Israel has innovated this year in making repression and racist terrorism cool again.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        You think?

        I’d think they’d want to push him off the front page first. Then push him out a window later.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    430
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    He has the right to be judged by a jury of his peers, and it appears as if his peers agree with his actions.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      254
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      “As this man’s peers, you must be the judge of his actions.”

      “Ok”

      “Wait, not like that”

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yup. The article mentions that the prosecutors have a problem, but the U.S. people certainly don’t.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      “Friedman Agnifilo would ask potential jurors where they reside in Manhattan and where they get their news sources from to determine their political leanings,” Kerwick said.

      I mean, he is from a wealthy family, but there’s still not going to be many working class people in Manhattan.

      I think people are expecting too much from the jury.

      It’s going to be a bunch of insanely wealthy people who will 100% want to remind everyone the rich are untouchable

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      agree with

      I’d accept ‘excuse’ his actions. I’m firmly of the belief that pain caused the shooter to lose grip of the “hey don’t kill people” to where “yeah maybe just this scumbag” seemed okay. And while we wanna kill evil people, vigilante justice is less about them and more about us. And I don’t like that us that is willing to kill people outside of the Justice system we built and maintain.

      I’m okay with supporting Luigi (if it was him ;-) ) get through this break with reality that was engineered by shitbag HMOs, accepting that a person died (terrible as he was, still a person who could have been rehabilitated), accepting that it was an insanity of a kind, and getting Luigi any help he needs, medical or mental, to get back up to a productive and fulfilling life.

      As in, let’s not ruin Luigi completely, as already one fixable human is dead so lets not kill another.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        4 days ago

        And I don’t like that us that is willing to kill people outside of the Justice system we built and maintain.

        I think this is the disconnect. I don’t believe I have any (even 1/330 million) input into what the justice system is. When the Supreme Court is being openly bribed and stacked through legislative malfeasance, and as a result are taking away rights that a majority of the country supports, and yet nothing happens in response, it’s not our system. The very fact that there was a massive manhunt for this particular killer while others get ignored and he now has a federal murder charge because he was on a cell phone or planned it in another state or some bullshit is demonstration that this isn’t a system built to pursue justice equally. Neither the justice system nor the health system that provoked this reaction is based on codifying the broad cultural consent about “how things should work”.

      • sepi@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Maybe he’s guilty of manslaughter in my book. Murder? I don’t see it.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    There’s a McDonald’s worker able to be jury. Oh wait, he didn’t get the reward money as his claim got denied for bullshit reasons, just like insurance… Never mind.

    • Mad_Punda@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      Is there a source for this? Last time I heard about it, it turned out to be just a ”possibly, maybe, it could be denied”, but nothing was decided yet.

      • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        3 days ago

        So, the reports say “might not get it” Like this report but in almost all cases reward money isn’t paid. In this case I’d think he has somewhat of a chance to get it due to public pressure, now that it’s in the media. But in most cases it is denied because of bullshit reasons. “Thanks to your tip we were able to catch the guy, but through other sources we would have found him as well, so, no” or “multiple agencies offered reward money, so they both say the other one should pay up, so none pay up” or “you didn’t follow the right procedures to get the money” or any other bullshit reason to deny payout. Often you’d have to prove you were the sole reason the person got caught, while you don’t have access to restricted case files so good luck with that.

        It basically works like the health insurance system in the US. They will do anything they can to reject your claim while you will have to fight to get what you should.

        Fun fact: radio stations do the same. They offer amazing prices, get loads of people to listen ‘to find the hidden clue’, have them call an expensive phone number. They pick a winner, have them on the air over the phone, everyone hears how happy they are by winning, so people will try to compete next time again. But they never get a price. Because, no one will hear they didn’t get any. Or at least, this used to be so, now with social media it’s harder to hide these shady tactics.

        Not just radio stations by the way, This was recently.

        • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 days ago

          This is the best answer ive seen thus far. Ive just being saying all sources reporting he isn’t being paid are sourcing their info from a game of telephone origination from articles speculating he might not be paid. This is much better written though thanks!

        • boomzilla@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Got no doubts about what you stated (also a huge wtf to that basketball charity fuckup) but I’m still convinced the snitch will get her money just as Lugi will be convicted for terrorism, although the commenter above, in his epic joury-comment wrote that the double-conviction wasn’t allowed under the state law. If it isn’t FBI or the police who pays her then it will be the some other CEOs. Maybe on a charity event.

          • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            No one cares whether the snitch will get their money. All eyes will be on the court case. And she it comes to money, everything will be done to deny a payout. It’s how big corps and the government work. Whenever there’s a desk approving a payout, there will be a desk above it questioning it and putting it on hold, finding ways to drown it in paperwork. Spending money means someone will be held responsible for losing funds, which means someone will have a bad rep concerning their career so no one wants to work towards a payout. Capitalism thrives around reducing spendings and increasing profits. That’s a major flaw of capitalism. Investing in the future, the general public or the greater good are not part of the equation.

          • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            “yeah, thank you for the golden tip, we caught the guy thanks to you. But you snitched, and we do not endorse that (with all the whistle lowers lately) so we’re not going to reward your behavior by paying you to show people it’s better to keep your mouth shut… Or we will shut it for you (again, like with all the whistle blowers). Snitches get stitches!”

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I understand that she can only get the money if he gets convicted. They’ll probably still find some other excuse not to pay her, but still - I argue that’s a pretty big bias that should disqualify her from jurying.

  • Kalysta@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s like asking us to feel bad that Osama Bin Laden was killed. Or that Charles Manson died. Why are they trying to generate sympathy for a serial killer? Deciding on who does and doesn’t get health care makes you just as much a murderer as Mangione. So why should I care?

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        140
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        It was clarified that talking about Jury Nullification in the context of future crime is a no-no because it’s a no-no in the country lw is based. But in the context of already committed crime it’s fine.

        So “Go ahead and commit the crime and we’ll do jury nullification!” Is bad, but “Crime was committed, but we sympathize with the motive/person/whatever so let’s do jury nullification !” Is OK

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          78
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          The whole thing sounded to me like a smokescreen for, “We fucked up, and we shouldn’t have banned talking about it in the first place. We talked about it and banning it was a bad decision that we briefly doubled down on.”

          Credit to them for reversing themselves, I guess. That said, coming up with contrived explanations for why you never made a mistake in the first place, because you’re always right, is one of the telltale signs of being full of shit. You can just tell people the main explanation. They’ll actually respect you more, not less, if you don’t engineer your reasonings to maintain this Wizard of Oz veneer.

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            33
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            The whole thing sounded to me like a smokescreen for, “We fucked up, and we shouldn’t have banned talking about it in the first place. We talked about it and banning it was a bad decision that we briefly doubled down on.”

            I mean… Yeah.

              • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                If discussing commiting a future crime on your hardware it can be seized as evidence I imagine. If people discuss an already committed crime I suppose they know the discussion isnt evidence as the person believed to be the angel is already in custody.

          • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            38
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            4 days ago

            Lemmy world should have lost all credibility after they hard commited to the bias bot against the majorities wishes, but even on the fediverse people just don’t want to move instances. Im starting to think centralization is far from the only issue with social medias today, probably still the biggest, but by a lot smaller margins than I used to think.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              31
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              I think they did, to be honest. I’ve abandoned most of the LW communities and I think I’m not the only one. There’s enough inertia in the system that I’m sure they will still be a big instance, but the reputational impacts of things like that are often permanent.

              To me, the big thing about the bias bot wasn’t the enforcing of the bias bot, it was the lying. If they had come out and said, “The bot is useful for moderation, we’re keeping it even if people don’t like it,” I don’t think it would have been any kind of big deal. What causes people to have this really unhappy reaction is telling them, “People love the bot! The minority who doesn’t like it is just mounting a pressure campaign” or “You just don’t understand the issues involved like we do” or “We’re fighting misinformation!” or “The admins are making me keep the bot” “No we’re not, the moderators want to keep the bot” or deflecting into this conversation about the cost of accessing the MBFC API or whatever other totally weird irrelevant issue.

              The !news@lemmy.world moderators were the ones who asked their users, got the answer that people didn’t like the bot, and took it away. It doesn’t have to be complicated. That’s why I’m still subscribed to !news@lemmy.world when I’ve abandoned the other LW news communities, and I’ve noticed that my Lemmy browsing experience has been remarkably free of weird bad-moderation bullshit ever since. There are no friendly conversations between jordanlund and UniversalMonk. I haven’t had articles I’ve posted get removed for totally frivolous reasons. There are no bots that every user hates and every moderator insists has to be there. It’s just news! Good stuff.

              • AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                Tinfoil hat time, I think MBFC bot was the smokescreen for a GroundNews sponsor/ad.

                The bot started up at the same time GN started a massive ad campaign sponsoring a lot of YouTubers (~7 months ago). MBFC was the bias checker and GN was the hot new “good” source included in every single post. I bet Rooki or someone was getting checks.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              4 days ago

              Lemmy world should have lost all credibility after they hard commited to the bias bot against the majorities wishes

              Hard agree!

              but even on the fediverse people just don’t want to move instances

              Soft disagree. I took a long time to do it, but I moved from .world because of the whole “being the r/politics of Lemmy” thing.

              You won’t find a more wretched hive of scum and Neoliberalism than the .world admins and mods anywhere outside of the aforementioned subreddit and the DNC itself.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            The world admins have a long history of this kind of shit.

            A great example was when they updated the TOS to remove specific call outs for (if memory serves) transphobic hate being against TOS and instead replacing it with very generic text. The response being that they didn’t need that text because the generic call outs covered it.

            Nobody with two brain cells was fooled and everyone knew it was about getting ahead of angry chuds who might be mean to the admins. But enough people were mysteriously banned for horrible shit (with their whole post histories being wiped) and everyone else who cared left for different instances.

            I’m not going to fault admins for not wanting to get calls from the FBI. I will fault them for abandoning our friends because they don’t want angry emails. But, either way, the constant need to build up weird narratives and assume everyone else is really THAT stupid is just tiresome.

            • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              or when they banned piracy at db0, citing legal threats that didn’t happen, which was before defederating exploding heads, a nazi instance

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Nobody with two brain cells was fooled

              That’s the thing. For some reason, people will come up with this logic that’s designed to fool a 4-year-old, and then just assume that all the adults who are reading it will be totally taken in by it. I don’t know why. Maybe they don’t want to throw some individual who ran out in front with a bad decision under the bus. Or, maybe it’s just painful to say out loud, “I think we were wrong now that we’ve had a chance to look at it more.”

              I’m not going to fault admins for not wanting to get calls from the FBI.

              Yeah, but that’s why you need legal advice. They’re sort of pretending that they’re qualified to make determinations about what is and isn’t a legal problem, which isn’t always a good idea to do all on your own once you’ve grown beyond a certain size. Pretending that you’re making these decisions from a position of knowledge and authority just compounds the problem.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                The reality is that legality doesn’t matter a lot unless you have enough lawyers on staff to fight various government agencies. That is WHY most creators and communities use established services like youtube or reddit because it offloads that hassle to a company that actually has the lawyers to figure out what is and isn’t a risk.

                Whereas a lemmy instance is a few people who have no idea what they are doing.

                The best metaphor I have heard to explain this is: A group of weirdos start singing prayers while you are boarding a plane. The flight attendant tells you that you need to sing along or you will be kicked off the plane. You say that is nonsense. They say they are going to have you escorted off the plane if you continue to be disruptive.

                You KNOW you are within your legal rights to not do that bullshit. But you don’t have a lawyer with you. Best case scenario? You get off the plane, you get an apology handy from a CSR, and you get to get on a different plane in 12 hours. But now you have missed your connecting flight and 1-2 days of your trip. So you are wasting personal days or pissing off your boss and missing an important client meeting and blah blah blah. And… the browner you are, the less likely you are to see that CSR after the cops escort you off a plane.

                So… you just sing along because it is easier. Even if you know it is bullshit, you know it is “close enough” that your life will become a living hell.


                Which is why I have no issue with a site policy of “We don’t want that smoke. Please don’t make jokes about the guy who killed a piece of shit CEO until we know we won’t get investigated by law enforcement”. But I DO have issues with making up weird narratives to justify it.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          What country is lemmy.world based in? Because having a law about talking about jury nullification in the context of a future crime sound so incredibly stupid and specific that I need to know the precedent that led to it.

        • azuth@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          No, it was not clarified, they vaguely mentioned they were not based in “free speech” US but it’s pretty clear that it was their own policy since they changed it (they do say they were asking mods to ban all mentions of jury nullification).

          If their opinion was actually based on law, they would not change their policy. They would probably also have added it to their TOS before hand.

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            I’m not sure what kind of professional legal input they can afford. It’s big by fedi standards but the Patreon raises about 10k/year. Not exactly lawyer money.

            I suspect that it’s a lot of guess work and maybe some help with drafting and filing here and there. I’ve never asked.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        Lw mods aren’t nearly as awful as Reddit ones - most removed comments are either personal attacks or open calls for violence. Even calls for civil disobedience are usually allowed unless they’re clearly direct threats.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I got a comment removed because they said insinuating Isralies shouldn’t be allowed somewhere was racism. It was fine to do that with Russians during their active war, but Isreal is special and its racist when you hold them accountable the way we hold Russia accountable. And thats when I was specifically refering to the Israeli football hooligans who literally trashed the country they were guests in. So I dont buy that they aren’t as bad. They just don’t control the whole fediverse.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              I don’t think it’s Ruud, I think it’s a little clique of the Lemmy people who stepped forward to take it on day-to-day. Ruud doesn’t seem active on Lemmy.

    • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 days ago

      Just don’t mention jury nullification in front of a judge or prosecutor. They hate that.

        • AEsheron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

          Never mention it. They will often ask questions about how you think a juror should or can act. If you answer them in a way that shows you might know about nullification, you are out. If you then later admit you know about it, they will point to those questions and know you lied about them. Safest answer is to just never, ever use the term, ideally you should go through the motions in deliberation of putting the the rules together, like you are just realizing it’s a possibility then and there.

          • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 days ago

            Yeah, I’m saying that we should mention it as non jurors. Its our responsibility to tell them. Here on Lemmy and every way we can. Let jurors know that they have the ability to do justice, even if the law is wrong

            • kreskin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yep. Some parts of the law have evolved so far afield from their original context that they conflict with other legal basics. You never know when a conversation like this one might be personally applicable. No one expects or plans to die, or to be called on for jury duty. Its a surprise.