201–204 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about the whole discipline of rhetoric that has thousands of years of history. Or the fact that law schools specifically teach jury communication strategies that focus on the psychology of persuasion.
This is just you repeating "I don't need to prove anything, it's obvious" over and over again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like you’re just demanding proof for something that’s obvious on its face. Only someone that has never taken a writing, communication, debate or similar class would demand evidence for the proposition that effective communication to a general audience has to target a 3rd or 4th grade reading level and catch phrases with alliteration that fits within human short term memory is essential to ensure comprehension.…
There's a difference between understanding rules for effective arguments and writing, and believing that those rules are shortcuts to swaying a jury without needing a case. It's certainly PART of communication, but this isn't a Hollywood script so glib speech alone isn't going to get you very far in this sort of case. I'd also caution you to remember that for thousands of years people argued from "What was obvious" a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between understanding rules for effective arguments and writing, and believing that those rules are shortcuts to swaying a jury without needing a case. It's certainly PART of communication, but this isn't a Hollywood script so glib speech alone isn't going to get you very far in this sort of case. I'd also caution you to remember that for thousands of years people argued from "What was obvious" a…
But that’s not what I argued. Someone else argued that there was so no need to simply complex concepts for a jury without explaining why that would be an exception to all the established best practices of writing and communication. Then everyone is asking me to justify and offer citations. The burden isn’t on me. It’s generally established that effective communication is that which is comprehensible. Saying “just say…
"The DOJ's clever hook won them the case."
and your contribution: "Blatant complex behavior, no matter how illegal, won’t convince a judge or jury without clear rhetoric."
We have examples of both being wrong, because judges and juries are not all the same and experts exist. There's also a way to take time to explain complex ideas in simpler terms, that's what most of a case like this ends up being. The "Clear rhetoric" part of these things is only a relatively brief portion delivered during opening and closing, the rest involves presenting and interrogating evidence.
As the also says his is a case in which the jury only plays an advisory role and the judge will make a final ruling. The judge in this case is Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers who has extensive experience in complex cases involving big tech, so she's going to be far less impressed with clever wording than solid legal work.
In the opening sentence: > according to a lawyer who is prosecuting the world’s largest social media company. The headline makes it sound like something internal at Meta got revealed. The catchy four-H phrase is the clever hook the lawyer came up with to try to hold the jury’s mind through the case. If you’re unfamiliar with how these trials work, the lawyers are trying to create a compelling narrative to support the…
There is, of course, more to a story than a headline
The quote is from an opening statemment not a presentation of evidence
Perhaps something was "revealed" in discovery and this will be "revealed" to the court in the upcoming weeks
s/got/is going to be/
The trial will last 5-7 weeks
https://metasinternalresearch.org/ | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49375439
https://web.archive.org/web/20260114162941if_/https://metasi...