Comment by JoshTriplett | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshTriplett | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It makes sense that the legal system and individuals' freedom of association would have different thresholds for deciding to act.

Suppose we say that the legal system needs to have 95% probability of guilt to render a guilty verdict, and its associated consequences such as imprisonment and/or restitution. A high threshold makes sense for such systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you have a person for whom you have 80% probability of their guilt. That, then, is not enough to render a guilty verdict; 20% is clearly "reasonable doubt".

80% probability of guilt, however, is absolutely enough for reasonable people to say "I don't want this person associated with my organization", or "I don't want this person presenting at my conference".

This, among many other reasons, is a very good reason for organizations to have their own standards which are independent of those of the legal system.

That's absolutely true of criminal cases.

But civil cases have a far, far lower bar. 4/5 is acceptable, especially considering that sentencing can incorporate uncertainty.

Plenty of cases succeed in civil court where they would fail in criminal court.

Absolutely true (civil cases are "preponderance of the evidence"), but the same principle still applies, just with lower numbers. 51% likely might be enough for a verdict against someone in a civil case and a legally enforceable monetary judgement. But if you have someone 30% likely to have done something (where the baseline should be close to 0%), that's still enough that reasonable risk-averse organizations may reasonably choose to not associate with them.

A court that can render legally enforceable judgements against someone should absolutely have a higher bar of certainty than an organization that is simply excluding someone from participation in that organization.

The problem is that 30% is not a good estimate in the first place, because the organization doesn't have the same skills/resources/judgements to make an accurate assessment.

It might well have substantial uncertainty, in either direction. Suppose it's 30% plus or minus 20%, a huge amount of uncertainty. That's still absolutely a reasonable threshold someone could use as the basis for a decision.

The exact numbers here are examples, not the determining factor here, nor do most organizations express them quantitatively.

The important point is that organizations can and do have a different threshold for action. You could absolutely argue about whether an organization has the right threshold, but I don't think there's a case for a deontological requirement that every organization's threshold for taking any action at all must be the same as the threshold for conviction in a court. (Leaving aside that that would utterly invalidate freedom of association.)

The problem with that is that if the accused is only 30% likely to have done something, then there may be an equal or greater likelihood that the accuser is maliciously lying (allowing for some likelihood of genuine misunderstanding).

Not necessarily. Unless the presence of the accusation already was used to get that 30% number, you also need to take into account the a priori probability of someone maliciously lying (or better yet, the particular accuser to be lying in this case) and apply Bayes's theorem.

I should have expected Simpson's Paradox here. Nevertheless, I think the possibility of witch-hunting is high.

no it's not. it subverts the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty. with so many associations becoming mandatory (eg: i can't do my job without a google account) we can no longer allow any organization to reject people based on their own judgement. at least for the larger ones that don't have trivial alternatives.

Innocent until proven guilty is primarily a legal principle in the United States and doesn’t really apply to the court of public opinion. And in fact for many of the good reasons presented by the person to whom you’re responding, really shouldn’t apply to the court of public opinion or the principle of freedom of association.

doesn’t really apply to the court of public opinion

i strongly disagree with that. allowing public opinion to judge people without proof leads to mob rule. any rumor can destroy someones life. as a society we must not allow that to happen.

innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being. if there are suspicions it is ok to take precautions, and obviously those who are victims should be able to seek and get support even if they can't prove what happened. but any actions against the accused must not be irreversible until a verdict has been reached.

part of the reason this is necessary is because as a society we are not doing well with forgiveness especially in cases where someone has been wrongfully accused. to many times their life has been destroyed anyways.

> innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being.

that is ludicrous.

people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people without clearing any evidentiary bar.

that is part of entirely healthy human behavior.

individuals maybe, but large organizations that people depend on no. and even as individuals we need to be careful to not allow prejudice to control our actions. some people take "being black" as a red flag.

the fact that some people treat 'being black' as a red flag, doesn't negate the utility of treating 'probably a narcissist' as a red flag.

it does negate people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people because you are not free to have whatever red flags you want. if you see red flags you should evaluate them and make sure they are not just prejudice.

you're actually free to be racist in your personal life. nobody will imprison you.

at home, sure, but not in public.

remember that joke about a someone in an airplane sitting next to a black person, complaining loudly that they want to sit somewhere else. the stewardess comes over and says: "my apologies, it is of course unacceptable that you should have to sit next to such an obnoxious person". and then invites the black person into first class to everyones applause.

you can actually be racist in public as well.

get out of a swimming pool if a black person shows up and nobody can or will force you back into it.

you can leave, but if you complain you should probably be kicked out.

i don't know why we are having such a stupid argument. it should be clear that racism is unacceptable and that it doesn't give you any right to show disrespect.

I said "people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people" and you continue to twist what was a statement about free association into statements (that you want to argue about) regarding active discrimination. If you'd stop doing that, the argument would end pretty quickly.

that's because i have always only been concerned about active discrimination. and your statement is too generic to exclude that. let me repeat what i said:

innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being

as individuals we need to be careful to not allow prejudice to control our actions

if you see red flags you should evaluate them and make sure they are not just prejudice

you seem to be claiming that the right to free association should allow people to remain to be racist. no, it shouldn't.

i not twisting anything, especially not since this thread started with your criticism of my first statement, and this whole argument looks like you seemingly trying to use the right of free association to excuse people being racist.

what if a person was asking for help? but they couldn't because you turned away? can you see how an action that according to you is just your expression of free association turns into active discrimination?

Like I've said elsewhere. Everything is simple till it happens to you

"The court of public opinion" used to be called "witch burning".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com