[ExI] UK now jailing people for unapproved online posts

[efc at disroot.org]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> I find this command-and-control exception interesting, as we can
> extend it to a "probabilistic command-and-control." Assume you have
> one million twitter followers, and let us also assume for the sake of
> argument that one in a million people are unstable enough that they
> would act violently given some opportunity or encouragement.
> 
> Then, knowing this, would it become  command-and-control of a violent
> act for you, having one million followers, and knowing that one of
> them is likely to be unstable enough to act violently, to release the
> personal address of someone while disparaging that same person to all
> one million of your followers?
> 
> How high does the probability have to be before an act of speech
> becomes an act of violence?
> 
> (Note: I am a strong advocate of free speech but I consider this case
> interesting. Clearly every act of speech has some probability of
> instigating action, and one cannot be blamed for the existence of
> small minority of unstable people, but putting the two together, with
> a large enough audience, appears to enable a loophole that could allow
> one to act like a mafia boss)
> 
> Jason 
>

Hello Jason,

If we start to talk probability, isn't there a risk of a kind of
abductio ad absurdum? I mean, if you extend that concept, it can be a
glance, a look, an unkind word, or perhaps two people who, without being
aware of each other, nudged a third into action.

I think it would become close to impossible to draw a line for guilt
with this methodology in the real world.

Actions have the benefit of being ver tangible. Motivations, and
inspirations are not, which makes things very difficult to judge fairly.

Best regards,
Daniel