A New York state trial court judge applies cognitive biology: The hunting humans analogy

The 14 minute video posted below presents the most cognitive biology and social behavior-attuned legal reasoning I am aware of in response to the poison that social media routinely promotes and spreads for profit. The legal argument is presented in the legal framework of products liability law (defective products liability). That is one of the few legal avenues available to try to attack toxic social media. 

This may be the first time a products liability attack has been tried. But the underlying rationale is science-based. The trial court speaks of minds and radicalization. Those are things not usually discussed in commerce and politics for damned good reasons in the eyes of the rich, powerful or ideologically radicalized. Social media hate speech and lies is the product that is defective when it radicalizes and weaponized minds and that leads poisoned minds to kill or injure others.

Key things to pay attention to in this video: 

• Legal reasoning: Hate and radicalizing speech are a product on social media platforms. That product is promoted to increase profit. The profit motive allows one to connect the product with defective products liability law, thereby avoiding a free speech defense by social media owners. The radicalizing content here is argued to be beyond protected free speech.

• Section 230 of the Communications Act has two key provisions. One is a shield that protects social media companies from liability for the content on the platform that social media users post. The other provision, and this one is widely ignored by social media and the MSM, social media is shielded by a Good Samaritan clause that shields it from liability for removing content that social media platform controllers deem to be objectionable. In other words, social media controllers are not obligated to take down hate or radicalizing speech (or any other kind of speech), but if they do they are protected from liability.

Will this hold up on appeal? It just might!!

The social media companies in this lawsuit tried but failed to get this case moved to federal court. That might be the basis on which this decision hold up on appeal. If  the case is based on state law, the USSC might not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal. The video says that this case is trapped in New York state courts and it cannot be appealed to the USSC due to federalism and jurisdiction limits.

Perplexity comments on this key point: The US Supreme Court generally does not have jurisdiction to review a state court decision that rests on an adequate, independent state ground, even if the state court incorrectly decided a federal question. This limitation is due to federalism principles and the jurisdictional requirements of Article III of the US Constitution, which mandate an actual "case or controversy" for federal courts to intervene. Therefore, when a state court's judgment is based on a nonfederal ground that is sufficient to support the decision, the US Supreme Court will not review it.

But, if this can be appealed to the USSC. My estimate is that there is about a 96% chance the decision will be reversed on appeal by at least a 5-4 majority. If nothing else, the six TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party)-dominated USSC will not tolerate legal reasoning that threatens social conscience-free capitalism. Those judges are plutocrats. Plutocrats hate all business regulations and any whiff of social conscience that gets in the way of profit.  I am unsure of how the three Dem judges on the USSC would decide if this case ever gets into the USSC for a decision.

In my opinion, the trial court judge here got it exactly right. But plutocratic, brass knuckles capitalist TTKP USSC judges will try hard to concoct a way take the case and protect huge social media corporations. If the radical USSC authoritarians can’t weasel their way into asserting jurisdiction, this state court decision could be a really huge thing. It could wind up saving lives, and maybe even our democracy and civil liberties.

My thanks to Larry Motuz for bringing this video to my attention.

House TTKP members shield Kushner; Christian criminality

Mediaite reports that House TTKP (Trump Tyranny & Kleptocracy Party) members blithely rejected a motion to investigate Jared Kushner business dealings with a murdering Saudi Prince:

Six months after exiting the White House, Kushner’s private equity firm Affinity Partners received a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund over the objections of the fund’s advisers. They were overruled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who had developed a close relationship with Kushner.

The Oversight Committee convened on Wednesday for another hearing on Hunter Biden and his business dealings that Republicans say illicitly benefitted his father President Joe Biden. Despite investigating the matter for more than a year, the committee has turned up no proof.

During the hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Kushner had done “good work” as White House adviser when he helped forge the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the states of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

“Of course, the Democrats don’t wanna admit that,” Jordan said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) followed by making a motion to subpoena Kushner.

“Mr. Chairman, I have a motion,” he told Chair James Comer (R-KY). “I have a motion. I would move… that the committee issue a subpoena to Jared Kushner to compel testimony related to the $2 billion collected from Saudi Arabia after his service within the White House.”

After the motion was seconded, Jordan moved to table – or kill – the motion.

“Move to table the motion,” he said.

Once again, we see TTKP hypocrisy in defense of indefensible corruption. The moral rot is deep and out in the open.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Citing research that is behind a paywall, the Friendly Atheist reports about worldwide Christian criminality that recent research turned up:

Researchers say Christian leaders will 

embezzle an estimated $86 billion in 2024

In 2024, Christian leaders around the world will embezzle an estimated $86 billion from their followers.

That “ecclesiastical crime” will jump to approximately $390 billion by 2050, according to researchers Dr. Gina Zurlo, Dr. Todd Johnson, and Peter Crossing at the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, part of the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

The numbers are tucked away in a larger report about global Christianity published in the January issue of the International Bulletin of Mission Research.

The Christian ministry watchdog group Trinity Foundation summarized the problem this way:

Ecclesiastical crimes take on many forms such as skimming from an offering plate, restricted donation fraud (diverting mission donations to a personal expense account), and international cash smuggling.

Televangelists have transferred funds across international borders on private jets and failed to report these transactions resulting in “bulk cash smuggling.”

We know these sorts of shenanigans occur because, frequently, Christian leaders are arrested for financial crimes. It’s incredibly hard, however, to pinpoint exactly how much crime occurs under the veil of Christianity. That can be blamed on everything from the fact that churches don’t have to file financial reports with the IRS, to the fact that they often blame crime on everything but religion, to the fact that they may not want to go public about [fleecing the flock]. In many ways, it’s like tracking sales in a black market; the very nature of how they operate—out of public sight—makes it hard to quantify.  

[In an earlier 2015 paper, the researchers] calculated, if Christians around the world gave $850.9 billion to charity and $773.5 billion to Christian causes specifically, that would suggest about $50 billion and $46 billion, respectively, “lost to fraud and embezzlement.”  

In the newer 2024 paper, with updated numbers, the researchers say that Christians all over the world will give about $1.3 trillion to Christian causes… which would result in about $86 billion lost to ecclesiastical crime.

By 2050, they estimate, the $5.2 trillion given to Christian causes could lead to $390 billion lost to fraud.

I have pointed out repeatedly that core goals of the corrupt American Christian nationalism wealth and power movement includes (ii) get taxpayers to pay for all religious operations, and (ii) replace all (100%) secular public schools with religious schools, also paid for by taxpayers. This research on theft by Christians is in synch with the larger Christian nationalist goal of raiding the US treasury to pay for Christian operations and social indoctrination via schools. 

Like Austin Texas…

...I’m an out-of-place blueberry in a bowl of Ohio tomato soup… and I know it. 😁

Here’s my question: Why do they (my politically “deep red” Ohio district) make us, well me, vote at a church when there is supposed to be separation of church and state?   

Yes, I grant you, there is a workaround.  I could do mail-in voting to solve the (my) “separation” problem, if I find it that egregious.

But that’s not what I’m getting at here.  I’m honing in on the Constitution’s “separation of church and state” angle/clause.  Indeed, I’m talking about the unabashed opposite; the “adjoining” of the church (religion) and the state (government). Constitutionally speaking, the “merging of the two” doesn’t seem on the up-and-up to me, but…. 🤷‍♀️.

Some more interesting questions:

• Do you know if churches bid on the right to be a voting precinct/location?  How does that work exactly?  Are some of them in cahoots with/have special connections to the Board of Elections or whomever decides on the designated polling places? Could it be a case of, “Friends don't let friends drive drunk go churchless?” 😉

• What if the voter is a Christian and their designated voting site in a Mosque or Synagogue?  Would there be any need for the Christian to be “riled up” over that?  How about a Muslim or a Jew voting in some Christian-denomination church?  No one should be offended in any way?  It’s just one of the “bad brakes” in life (win some, lose some)?  Or, is the discomfort one may feel (of having to go into a facility that is against their own belief/non-belief principles) just being overly sensitive/overreacting?  Not being woke enough?

• If you are an atheist, which many here claim to be, how do YOU feel about having to vote in a church environment?  Not give it any serious thought?  Or, just hold your nose and do it, no questions asked?  Be an in-and-out burger (in…vote…out ⚡) as fast as you can.  No lollygagging and you’ll emerge unscathed from any unwelcomed influence. Whew!  Dodged that one!!

• If a religious facility hosts a voting location, should that facility be allowed to lay out guilt-riddled, religion-related pamphlets right by the front door, so you can’t possibly miss them (as the church I voted at Tuesday did)?  Or say, hold a bake sale in the lobby all during voting hours, as a (let’s call it) reward/perk for hosting the voting event?  Is it a kind of “to the victor go the spoils” thing, allowing/permitting the church site to take monetary advantage of the situation, in order to “bulk up/pad” the church's coffers)? 😮

**** 

Okay, okay, that was just a bunch of rhetorical grouchbox-ery, and I know that too; my mind working overtime, making a political mountain out of a little pile of religious molehill dirt, and probably more like something I posted for your reading “amusement.”  (It was. 😊)

Life is complicated and full of complicated people and situations. IOW somebody, somewhere, isn’t gonna like the outcome of “whatever the case may be.” That’s never going away.  As a doctor once told me about my TMJ, “Why don’t you just learn to live with it?”  And that’s what I’ve done.  It’s like learning to live with left-handedness in a mostly right-handed world.  Whaterya gonna do?

No, I post this OP mostly as food for (your) thought, and not to stir up trouble.  Answer the questions if you like, no pressure or expectations.  Your prerogative.  Else, just think about them in private.  That’s good enough, as far as I’m concerned.  "Thinking" is a great benefit/blessing/perk/etc. for those of us with full bellies.  Take advantage of our luck-of-the-draw birth situation.

Just some more FWThey'reW concepts to ponder, in our never-ending struggle for that elusive “more perfect union.”

(by PrimalSoup)

Misinformation & birth control: What are the deceivers called?

The poisonous influence of dark free speech on social media is finding its way into seemingly unexpected things. The WaPo writes (not behind paywall) about social media exploiting public ignorance to trick women into making sometimes catastrophic mistakes:

Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion

Search for birth control on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear: Young women blaming their weight gain on the pill. Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility. Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety.

Instead, many social media influencers recommend “natural” alternatives, such as timing sex to menstrual cycles — a less effective birth-control method that doctors warn could result in unwanted pregnancies in a country where abortion is now banned or restricted in nearly half the states.

While doctors say hormonal contraception — which includes birth-control pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) — is safe and effective, they worry the profession’s long-standing lack of transparency about some of the serious but rare side effects has left many patients seeking information from unqualified online communities.

The backlash to birth control comes at a time of rampant misinformation about basic health tenets amid poor digital literacy and a wider political debate over reproductive rights, in which far-right conservatives argue that broad acceptance of birth control has altered traditional gender roles and weakened the family.

Physicians and researchers say little data is available about the scale of this new phenomenon, but anecdotally, more patients are coming in with misconceptions about birth control fueled by influencers and conservative commentators.

“People are putting themselves out there as experts on birth control and speaking to things that the science does not bear out,” said Michael Belmonte, an OB/GYN in D.C. and a family planning expert with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). “I am seeing those direct failures of this misinformation.”

How many people are out there willing to knowingly lie on social media and mislead ignorant people into making tragic mistakes like this, ~5% of the population? What are those people called, disinformers or just liars? What about people who think they know things, but are wrong and unknowingly spread falsehoods that lead others to make tragic mistakes, misinformers or fools? 

The Best and Worst of US(SC)…

1. What do you consider to be the most egregious (wrong) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent/living history? 
2. What do you see as its crowning (right) achievement?

Following is a short synopsis of some of the more famous modern-day cases.  But feel free to research other cases for yourself or that are of special interest to you.  There are indeed gobs.

*    *    *

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954):

The Court ruled that state-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.

 

Roe v. Wade (1973):

The Court, in a landmark decision, recognized a woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an abortion under the right to privacy, legalizing abortion across the United States. 

 

United States v. Nixon (1974):

The Court ruled that executive privilege is not absolute and ordered Nixon to release the tapes, contributing to his resignation.

Bush v. Gore (2000):

The Court, in a controversial decision, halted the recount, effectively awarding Florida’s electoral votes to George W. Bush and settling the election in his favor.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008):

The Court, in a landmark decision, affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense the home, interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010):

The Court, overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. 

 

Nat’l Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012):

The Supreme Court upheld by a vote of 5–4 the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Taxing and Spending Clause (taxing power).  Upheld the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022):

The Court overturned 50 years of precedent, overruling Roe v. Wade.

 

(by PrimalSoup)

For those who haven't visited Dishing it Politics

 Ooops. Sorry. Meant Dissident Politics. Dishing it sounds cooler though, doesn't it. But I digress.

Everyone is talking but no one is listening. Arguing online is pointless.

Is that true in most cases? Is it true here? Is it true over there at this guys forum?

My guess. Not true. But we are tough nuts, Germaine and I.

How about other forums?

I never argue with people online, rarely in real life too. I tend to listening other's opinions whilst silently judging them. Modern discourse isn't about changing people's opinions, it's about reinforcing your own.

Arguing with people online is pointless. They have their opinions and you have yours. Neither of you are willing to compromise and change your opinion. That would be a sign of weakness and we you can't let them win. You both put your side of the argument forth, slander one another, and both parties come away feeling superiour about themselves. When two people argue neither one really listens to the other person, they just wait for their turn to speak. You might as well be yelling into a tin can trying to get your voice heard.

Hmmm it's about reinforcing your own. I have to agree, 87.9% of online discourse does seem to be that way. 

Online debates are not about sharing knowledge or enlightening the other person to something they may have been ignorant about. These arguments are basically saying "I'm right. You're stupid." Making this statement would be too blatant so we hide our intentions behind facts, anecdotes and persuasive techniques in an attempt to demonstrate - "I'm right. You're stupid." In fact arguing with someone online trying to change their opinion might have the opposite effect. Instead of convincing them you're right you actually just strengthen their belief. This is known as the Backfire Effect -The more your beliefs are challenged the harder you hold onto them.

Hate to bring Trumpers into this conversation, BUT.............. the more we call them stupid the more it strengthens their beliefs that we liberal Snowflakes are picking on 'em. 

Slander has certainly become the tool of the loser in the political sphere. And with Donald Trump president the whole world has lost the opportunity for civil discourse. Prior to the recent Trump v Clinton election most online debates surround politics seemed to be reasonably educated, discussing policy points and the like. Now however it's degraded into a meme war, doxing and threats of personal attacks are common. Neither side is going to convince the other to change their opinion. Its one giant blackhole of intellect, draining the intelligence of all those who engage in the phony discourse.

Don't know where the author has been, but online discourse was nasty even before Trump. Check out the discourse in the Obama years. Sheesh, disappointing, the author is another who suffers from TDS. 

As for hurling insults, do we allow that here? Or over at the other guy's site? However, you go to a few other Disqus boards and ummm, it's hellfire over there (no names mentioned).

Changing your opinion isn't a sign of weakness. It's the only thing to do when confronted with new evidence.

Amen brother. THAT applies particularly to a certain demographic is my guess. What is yours?  

https://peakd.com/life/@moomoo/everyone-is-talking-but-no-one-is-listening-arguing-online-is-pointless

Everybody's talkin' at me
I don't hear a word they're sayin'
Only the echoes of my mind