Disclaimers exist for legal reasons, not for moral ones or a personal opinion.
I think we all agree that hacking scammers is a net positive for society.
I think we all agree that hacking scammers is a net positive for society.
I find it hard to believe if some scammer is hacked and the evidence shows the hacker learned everything from solely this video then this disclaimer won’t mean anything legally.
I think disclaimers are just a bit of noise that people put in out of an abundance of caution.
At least some disclaimers aren't just noise—they add context that would otherwise be missing to help the reader navigate the subtext. The "this is not my work" portion of that disclaimer is highly relevant and useful information for interpreting the blog. The afformentioned IANAL disclaimer helps readers to understand whether your opinion has any stronger basis in law than their own.
I also strongly suspect that some disclaimers would have legal value in the event of someone misusing information being dispensed, but IANAL.
Even were I a lawyer, it should carry the same weight. Some random, kind internet stranger sharing ideas.
I think it distracts from the conversation as I wasn’t giving legal advice but just thinking about how useful and relevant disclaimers are.
The comment is more about too much bullshit language used in our lives, so I think minimizing (or at least intending and attempting to) bullshit in my own comments is something I can control.
Safe to assume everyone else is not a lawyer.
And, to the topic at hand: if lawyers consistently do that, that again speaks to the legal value of at least some disclaimers.
Like the previous commenter points out, actual lawyers are quite clear that their statements in this kind of non-professional capacity hold no more weight than any other random Joe. There is no situation of authority. IANAL/IAAL may have once been a funny meme – albeit one quite tired at this point – but doesn't add anything, and may be a detractor if one falls prey to the logically fallacy it potentially introduces.
As before, it used to be a funny meme – albeit one that has become tired – but there is no significance to it. Who the person is tells absolutely nothing about the rest of the comment.
This is not at all what "I'm not your lawyer" means—that's a disclaimer to say that they're not taking legal liability for their advice to you because you're not paying them. They're still far more qualified than I am to talk about law in the abstract and dismissing that as "appeal to authority" is a false appeal to egalitarianism.
While they have the capacity to be more qualified to talk about the law, that does not imply that they will choose to exercise those qualifications. Lawyers can be trolls just like everyone else.
The work must stand on its own. If it is of high quality, then it is of high quality. It does not matter who wrote it. If an infinite number of monkeys wrote it, it is still of equal value.
The person is irrelevant.
Most of the time this won't matter. People and courts generally know advice isn't to be trusted, if this goes to court it will probably be laughed out before they even see your disclaimer. However since there is trusted advice on the internet and courts/the law hasn't figured out where there is always risk and a disclaimer helps protect you against the court deciding you were playing an expert.
Of course I'm not a lawyer, I'm only guessing as to what will happen. I'm reasonably sure no lawyer will comment on this for reasons above.
In other words, a scam towards the reader?
We have all received email from a legitimate place where a scammer uses your email to spam and then legitimate company thinks your email sent it.