gotothedoctor

10 ms·

1.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
To be clear: I support free speech and oppose censorship by government. I don't know how or why one would want to enforce these principles on businesses--let alone how it would not run contrary to the most basic principles of private p
2.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Kindly, I don't think that is the important question because that's not how legal duty works. Basically, there are always legal duties, some of which are codified & some of which are common law. I'm not arguing there is
3.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
No, I'm not arguing for "safe spaces" here at all. Nor am I suggesting students shouldn't "have to hear viewpoints they disagree with." I am arguing that, along with legal duties, Universities have an interest
4.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I was trying to leave law aside:) But, yes, Universities also have legal duties to their students. However, these vary significantly based on too many different factors to speak usefully in generalities (eg based on city & state, public
5.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Successful graduates become alumni who make donations. To be clear, no one is suggesting that Universities should be "policing every dispute." I am stating that Universities can and do seek to create the most effective learning en
6.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Are you really confused? Leaving the law & federal funding requirements aside, Universities seek to have successful graduates & thus it is in their best interest to provide an environment that equips their students to learn. Being
7.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Thanks for saying this. Threads like this baffle me, make me sad and wonder if its time to just stop visiting this site. If you don’t mind being bullied, harassed, or threatened, that’s great, but it harms people. Whether you think it sho
8.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
As soon as a senior executive becomes aware of any kind of illegal activity, malfeasance or behavior for which the company could be held liable, it becomes their responsibility. When Fowler reported her harassment & HR's failures d
9.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
How people feel is irrelevant; but based on federal law, the US Constitution, whatever local laws there may be & decades of judicial precedent, what you describe would expose any US employer to an enormous amount of liability. Its not n
10.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
What gives you the impression that these specific people are bright? Or were never forced to conform? This is not how socially inept high school nerds behave; its how VC funded frat bros (who include their fraternity on their linkedin prof
11.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
If you work in the US, you are describing what lawyers will call a 'hostile workplace' when your employers are, based on your description alone, successfully sued for discrimination. This is not perfectly normal in any professiona
12.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Sure, Sam Altman is impressive, but seems like you are underplaying Brown's actual experience--and I am not sure why it'd comparable anyway? As the son of a beloved governor, Brown not only grew up in state politics, but also dev
13.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Wow. I’m so confused by this. Sure, it makes sense that Altman would seek advice from Willie L. Brown Jr.—but why would Altman allow Brown to announce this in his newspaper column? And, even more bizarre-- why would Brown suggest that Altma
14.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
No VC would invest in this. Beyond it not being monetizable, this is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but nonetheless, such apps do actually already exist! These apps are pointless because, legally speaking, sex is actually not contract
15.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Binding information requests are court orders, which can, as you note, be appealed in court. I am unaware of any instance where a company has lost an appeal in court & refused to turn over information to the court in an instance where c
16.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Yes, that's what I'm saying? Hmmm. I'll try but maybe we are misunderstanding each other, because this doesn't seem debatable? There are rules that define what kind of defenses, mitigating circumstances, evidence can be
17.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I just meant I wouldn't respond to a comment about how actually corporations totally have state of minds and intentions. Sure, one could write laws where they did (just like you could write a law that says anything), but that is not pr
18.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I understand what you are asking & why you think there is an easy answer that I'm not giving you, but unfortunately, there isn't one. There's no easy explanation that wouldn't require learning or understanding crimin
19.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
You seem to be kind of conflating ethics & civil disobedience? And expanding civil disobedience to include, for example, refusing to work assigned to you? The government does not require companies to comply with a scheme. Companies ar
20.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Yes, Uber was using Greyball in cities where it was not operating legally, Portland amongst them. Uber publicly admitted they built it, that they were still using it, tried to defend its use (for driver safety), and then, a week later, rev
21.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
This looks like a simple & potentially enlightening question, but, its more complicated than it appears & examples may only be more confusing:) Companies (tech & other) are sued literally all the time under RICO (which is now ov
22.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I don't know what you mean by legal definitions of evasion and obstruction. Legal definitions literally vary by jurisdiction, so how one jurisdiction defines a crime is legally different from others...because they pass different laws.
23.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I did not say that ideology does not matter. I asked why it should be relevant to the definition of a crime or whether or not it ought to be punished. (my words could've been tighter here: ideology, like civil disobedience, may be rel
24.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
a business is a business and a person is a person. there are no "not quite a person entities" (those are businesses) and there are no technicalities here that transform an economic exchange into a personal one. AKA: no, Ross is no
25.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I am not sure why you think that companies do or should engage in civil disobedience. When companies want to change laws, they lobby the government, in part because telling one's employees to break the law is criminal conspiracy and ve
26.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
No, civil disobedience is not permitted as a defense for humans in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. However, depending on the crime/charge, jurisdiction & relevant laws, it may be permitted to mitigate punishment for humans--b
27.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
No court has the power to grant Uber or any company the ability to operate nationally, let alone with immunity. There are many overlapping laws, in cities, states & counties. Uber is subject to all the relevant laws in any area it ope
28.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but, plea bargains do not involve providing unrelated user data to the feds or cooperating in future unrelated matters..
29.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
It is actually just that straightforward. In the jurisdictions where Uber has already admitted to using Greyball to avoid local authorities (eg Portland), they did so to evade laws that were directed specifically at their operation. It is t
30.
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
Aka "I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man." No, it changes literally nothing. Criminal enterprises tend to be lean on corporate structure and paperwork for a variety of reasons. There is also no such thing as a pur

More ›