Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#231

Post by thu2111 » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

hsitz wrote: post #229

thu2111 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely something being misconduct or not is independent of someone's intentions? All kinds of people do bad things with good intentions.

Yes, we've got to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. In general, we don't morally censure a person who does bad things with good intentions. For example, in criminal law there is usually a requirement of ill-intent, called "mens rea"[1], which means the actor is aware that what they're doing is wrong. If a person does something wrong but is not aware that what they did is wrong, the general reaction i…

Mens rea is subtly different, I think. It is intended to allow a defense that you really didn't want to break the law and did so unintentionally. It isn't quite about the self-perceived goodness of your intentions. That is, stating "I knew I was breaking the law but my actions were good and I didn't realise people would think I'd done something bad, therefore I don't have mens rea" won't work. Knowledge that it was illegal was sufficient. And mens rea is also not a defense that allows legal ignorance.

It's also worth noting that quite a lot of broad crimes are strict liability these days, especially in America. For example money laundering is a strict liability crime, along with more obvious ones like speeding.

Misconduct though is not normally a criminal law term anyway. More like a code of conduct for an organisation.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#232

Post by hsitz » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 8:42 PM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #231

hsitz wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we've got to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. In general, we don't morally censure a person who does bad things with good intentions. For example, in criminal law there is usually a requirement of ill-intent, called "mens rea"[1], which means the actor is aware that what they're doing is wrong. If a person does something wrong but is not aware that what they did is wrong, the general reaction i…

Mens rea is subtly different, I think. It is intended to allow a defense that you really didn't want to break the law and did so unintentionally. It isn't quite about the self-perceived goodness of your intentions. That is, stating "I knew I was breaking the law but my actions were good and I didn't realise people would think I'd done something bad, therefore I don't have mens rea" won't work. Knowledge that it was i…

Not really. I'm a lawyer so I have a decent grasp of this stuff. Mens rea is closely tied to intent, not really to whether it had anything to do with intending to break a law (ignorance of the law is generally not a defense). Think of the difference between someone who commits premeditated murder, someone who commits manslaughter through gross negligence (e.g., a drunk driver), and someone who by complete accident is responsible for another's death (someone runs out in front of your car). In each case a person's actions directly cause another person's death, however we attach different levels of culpability to each. We're getting a little bit far afield from original issue, here, though. Anyway . . .

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#233

Post by 1cvmask » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 11:02 PM UTC

passivate wrote: post #155

1cvmask wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist has a history of lies and falsehoods by omission when it comes to foreign policy and international coverage. Anywhere from their Bolivia, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela, Syria, Chile (the editor openly boasted of delivering the coup) and so much more. They are often a bit more nuanced compared to coup and regime change lovers like Fox, Washington Post, and the NY. Times.

Can you explain more about the 'history of lies and falsehoods by omission'? I am not familiar with the specific articles about the countries you listed. Can you give a few examples? Ideally if we could compare/contrast articles with other outlets you think are more credible that would probably help!

Here is a recent one on Bolivia. They mangled the textbook definition of a coup. Faux news would be proud:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/16/was-there-a-cou...

The funny thing is that you can be openly pro coup without resorting to lies. John Bolton and his crudeness will be missed. Although a Yale law graduate he refused to use sophistry of The Economist etc. for violent regime changes and attempts.

John Bolton on a Fox TV interview talking the advantages of a coup in Venezuela and how to take over Venezuelan oil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_yHo9efvO8

“We’re looking at the oil assets,” Bolton said. “That’s the single most important income stream to the government of Venezuela. We’re looking at what to do to that.”

“We’re in conversation with major American companies now,” he continued. “I think we’re trying to get to the same end result here.”

“It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela,” Bolton admitted.

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/01/29/us-coup-venezuela-oil-cor...