Why should everyone care about founders of a different country that's not even working particularly well at this time.
> while substantive decisions about guilt or liability are made by randomly selected juries
A system gamed as easily as any other one.
> Meanwhile other countries trust random people at companies
They don't trust them to do the right thing, which is why there is a law telling them what to do. The alternative is to ban privately-owned social networks (either all of them or at least those that don't follow the laws).
> Why should everyone care about founders of a different country
Because the U.S. was the first country in the world created, with great study and deliberation, by high-IQ political philosophers. Because the country was already a successful democracy for 189 years before all the EU17 countries became democracies even on paper. Because the U.S. was having orderly transitions of power since it was as poor as Bangladesh is today.
> A system gamed as easily as any other one.
Decisions of randomly selected jurors are much harder to “game” than decisions of corporate censors or election board bureaucrats.
> They don't trust them to do the right thing, which is why there is a law telling them what to do.
Every dysfunctional third world has beautiful “laws telling people what to do.” We have those in Bangladesh. As often as not, such laws just become vehicles for manipulating elections because what the law says to do or who is following the laws or not is highly debatable. Such laws effectively turn the prosecutors and the court system into the locus of corruption, because they have the power to decide “who is following the law.” (It’s like Iran’s system with more steps. Iran actually has fair, functioning elections. It’s just that the Guardian Council, an expert body of highly educated scholars, gets to screen who is allowed to run for office.)
Please try to understand the difference between procedural/power allocation laws and laws that incorporate substantive standards. Instead of having laws that say “what to do”—which is always open to interpretation—you should have laws that focus on “who decides” and “how do they decide.” You need to either make the decision mechanical so everyone can see whether the rule is being followed or not, or you need to put the decision in the hands of a body that can’t credibly be accused of having their own agenda.
> Decisions of randomly selected jurors are much harder to “game” than decisions of corporate censors or election board bureaucrats.
Sure, which is why the laws in the US are not approved by randomly selected lawmakers. In that way it's irrelevant what some random jury decides, when the executive branch, the lawmakers and top judges are owned by the ruling class.
> We have those in Bangladesh. As often as not, such laws just become vehicles for manipulating elections
Sorry about that, but that's not a rule that applies everywhere, far from that. And of course the elections in the US are already heavily manipulated even without that.
> In that way it's irrelevant what some random jury decides, when the executive branch, the lawmakers and top judges are owned by the ruling class.
That’s the problem with having the executive branch, lawmakers and judges oversee the mechanics of the voting and elections. You’re making my point for me.
It's about the particular mechanisms how this is done. I don't live in the US and while we have many issues in our country, the elections were never in question. And I can assure you our country was not created by "high-IQ political philosophers".
Meanwhile in the US, if a majority party does not like the voting districts, they just redraw them, and if they don't like the voters, they disenfranchise them. Truly great high-IQ work.
Why should everyone care about founders of a different country that's not even working particularly well at this time.
> while substantive decisions about guilt or liability are made by randomly selected juries
A system gamed as easily as any other one.
> Meanwhile other countries trust random people at companies
They don't trust them to do the right thing, which is why there is a law telling them what to do. The alternative is to ban privately-owned social networks (either all of them or at least those that don't follow the laws).