[Ray20]

According to this rule, approximately 100% of officials must be thrown out of their jobs right this second. I think you are mostly correct about irresponsibility, incompetence, and excuses, but I don't see why there should be legal consequences for people who did not take on any obligations. Especially in the situation, when people who take on, like all officials, have no responsibility

[toofy]

it’s still a bit muddy why he was arrested, but it seems like it’s due to his constant dismissal of any responsibility.

i’m not sure of the specifics of what you mean by 100% of officials must be thrown out” but if im understanding what you’re implying, i disagree, most land owners, elected officials, capable owners of organizations take meaningful or genuine good faith efforts to address open corruption in their spaces . and if they don’t, then yes, why wouldn’t we hold them responsible?

it seems like you’re indicating there should be no consequences for people who don’t take on obligations…

> i don’t see why there should be legal consequences for people who did not take on any obligations.

of course they take on obligations, it’s partially why we pay executives so much because they’re taking on obligations. this isn’t some pauper struggling to pay rent on his studio apartment—he was arrested after traveling from one country to another in his private jet.

again, i haven’t spent much energy on the implications from effect iteration of this but we have pretty solid evidence of what happens when we allow these wannabe kings to claim they should have nothing but positive personal benefits while externalizing any negatives onto the rest of us.

“you should pay me obscene amounts and treat me like a king while i take no responsibility whatsoever” is absurd. and we’re seeing the cascading effects of this absurdity in real time.

[Ray20]

>most land owners, elected officials, capable owners of organizations take meaningful or genuine good faith efforts to address open corruption in their spaces

And I am saying that zero percent of them do that. And somebody saying that Durov "take meaningful or genuine good faith efforts to address open corruption in their spaces". My point is that there is no way to verify the degree of "good faith genuinity", so we cant use that parameter in aspect of legal actions.

[ben_w]

> My point is that there is no way to verify the degree of "good faith genuinity", so we cant use that parameter in aspect of legal actions.

That's literally a thing that happens during trial, at least for certain crimes and legal systems.

Can't speak to this specific case because (1) IANAL, and (2) my grasp of the French language is so bad that I can't even reliably say the French for "I don't speak French".

https://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/criminal-defences/lack-i...

[toofy]

> there is no way to verify the degree of "good faith genuinity", so we cant use that parameter in aspect of legal actions.

of course there is…

one of the reasons people justifiably bring up spam in these “my free speech” cases is because it shows definitively that the “free speech absolutists” don’t actually care about free speech—if they truly believed all speech is as valuable as all other speech then spam would have the same weight of priority as non-spam speech for them, yet they have no problem silencing spam.

off the top of my head, we would consider their guard rails against spam and have they implemented those same guard rails against the things they’re being charged for? if not, then obviously they’re not making real attempts.

of course there are multiple ways to determine whether they’ve made meaningful attempts. i think this is all moot though, if my understanding is correct, he’s resisted doing anything at all which is why he’s been charged.

as i said in a different post though, it’s still muddy on the specifics, we’ll know more later—we’re just wildly guessing at this point.

[parineum]

> if they truly believed all speech is as valuable as all other speech

That's a strawman. They believe all speech should be held legally equal, not that's it's value is equal.

It's that any speech has the potential to be extremely valuable to the person not responsible for regulating it.