6 ms·

It's hard to prove a negative, you know.

by Loughla 25d ago

EA-3167 25d ago
Seems like a good argument for tempering claims around negatives then, if people want to be taken seriously.
- digitaltrees 24d ago
  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 is the rule of three https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing) and rule of seven. https://bostoninstituteofanalytics.org/blog/the-rule-of-seven-in-marketing-why-customers-need-repeated-exposure/ https://bostoninstituteofanalytics.org/blog/the-rule-of-seve...
  - EA-3167 24d ago
    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" and they were inevitably wrong, so I'll stick to the scientific method over "You must not know how to write" as an argument.
    - digitaltrees 23d ago
      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 unvarnished complexity” is an exception that should require explanation
      - EA-3167 23d ago
        You have to understand that the GP context here is this bottom line: "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.

It's hard to prove a negative, you know.

by Loughla 25d ago

It's hard to prove a negative, you know.

EA-3167 25d ago

Seems like a good argument for tempering claims around negatives then, if people want to be taken seriously.

digitaltrees 24d ago
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 is the rule of three https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing) and rule of seven. https://bostoninstituteofanalytics.org/blog/the-rule-of-seven-in-marketing-why-customers-need-repeated-exposure/ https://bostoninstituteofanalytics.org/blog/the-rule-of-seve...
- EA-3167 24d ago
  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" and they were inevitably wrong, so I'll stick to the scientific method over "You must not know how to write" as an argument.
  - digitaltrees 23d ago
    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 unvarnished complexity” is an exception that should require explanation
    - EA-3167 23d ago
      You have to understand that the GP context here is this bottom line: "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.