It should be required.

Ah, I shouldn’t have skimmed your post. Thanks again, I’ll give it a listen.

Ooh, free Edgar Allen Poe book? Are you trying to be my new best friend?

I read a book called Lucifer’s Hammer by Larry Niven many years ago about a comet hitting the Earth. There was a scene in the book, after the impact, where a rich guy manages to finally reach a place up in the mountains where he has supplies stashed, only to find that his employees have claimed it for themselves and won’t let him in because he’s basically useless in the new world of survival.

If you were working for Huffman or Musk or any of the rest of them, and a there was a huge society ending disaster, would you let them in when they showed up or would you just shoot them down with their own guns? I know what I would do. I can’t imagine anyone letting them in.

Meanwhile, Reddit’s chief legal officer, Ben Lee, wrote that the company intends to “ensure that the researchers are held accountable for their misdeeds.”

“How dare they perform such dangerous and unethical experiments on our users without paying us an appropriate access fee?” He probably went on to say.

Ah, that helps. I was wondering if that was the case.

Thanks. I’ll have to try that.

So, when your account is banned on Reddit, does that remove all your posts? Because that would be cool. I left Reddit back in mid 2023 and came to Lemmy. I tried to delete all my old posts there, but they wouldn’t let me. I tried editing them and they reverted back to their original form. When I deleted them, they appeared to be deleted while I was logged in, but if I logged into another account the posts were still there. If getting a ban will get them deleted finally, then that would be well worth paying that cesspool a visit for a while.

To determine whether or not an accused individual is guilty there are two primary options in the USA. A trial before a judge who makes the decision, or a trial by a “jury of your peers” where the whole jury must agree that the individual is guilty. A jury of one’s peers means that the people selected to hear the case are selected from the general populace and have no substantial connection to the accused. For example, you wouldn’t put the person’s mother on the jury. The jurors are not required to be lawyers or experts in any field. Just average people.

If you just wanted some people to take the facts of the case and the facts of the law and determine whether or not the accused was guilty, then you would want experts and lawyers on the jury. That’s how trials used to be hundreds of years ago. A judge, often appointed by a king, would pass sentence over the peons brought before him. Since our legal system has average everyday people as jurors, clearly they are supposed to do more than that.

This is where jury nullification comes in. The jurors not only judge based on the facts of the case, but also on whether or not the law in question is just. If an individual is accused of a crime, and is clearly in violation of the law, the juror can still find them not guilty if the law in question is unjust. In essence, the jurors nullify the law by refusing to convict. For example, during the prohibition era, it was not unheard of for juries to return not guilty verdicts for people accused of selling or transporting alcohol. The jurors thought the laws was were wrong so they refused to convict. A much more tragic example was in the deep south where jurors would sometime refuse to convict people of lynching black people.

Lurked for a long time then made my account in March of 2013. Had around 180,000 comment Karma. Deleted all my old comments (and some of them even seem to have stayed deleted) and haven’t been back in weeks.

If you pop into r/compact you can pick up a script for the Firefox tampermonkey add-on that will make old.reddit look like the old .compact interface. Very handy when reddit was still worth using.