site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29322 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As a related follow-up to my recent post on a judge sanctioning Trump and his attorney for almost $1 million, another judge (Obama appointee FWIW) has also levied a $1 million sanction on Facebook and their attorney, the powerhouse law firm Gibson Dunn.

Here's the link to the 53-page opinion. The core issue is a discovery dispute, something trivially common with civil litigation. Some people sued Facebook for privacy violations following the revelations that Facebook may have been less than honest about what user information they share with 3rd party app developers (related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal). The plaintiffs were legally entitled to discovery, which is the vehicle that allows them to ask Facebook to disclose records that may be used against them in litigation. As an example, consider something minor like a trip and fall case in a grocery store involving cantaloupe displays. Once they get past the initial stages by demonstrating they probably have a valid claim, the person suing the store can investigate the issue by demanding that the store turn over all relevant evidence, including emails, memos, text messages, calendar invites titled "we need to address the cantaloupe display problem" and so on. Unless the information is protected by some sort of legal privilege (e.g. the manager of the store emailing the company's attorney for legal advice) then the store is required to hand over the rope that may be used to hang them. Some of the stuff uncovered can be extremely damaging and for that reason alone you can imagine why there might be some reluctance on the part of the store. Too bad, so sad.

That's basically what happened in this case, spanning across more than three years: a fuckton of stonewalling from Gibson Dunn and Facebook employees who were deposed for questioning. For example, the plaintiffs found evidence that although Facebook claimed they closed an access loophole for information about users' friends, they actually kept the gates open (referred to as "whitelisting") for some 3rd party apps they considered especially valuable. This example from page 27 is illustrative of the stonewalling:

Several months earlier, the plaintiffs had deposed Chang. When asked whether she was “making a recommendation [in the email]…for how to deal with integrations that involve strategic value,” Chang responded, “I don’t remember specifically, so I don’t know how to answer that.” Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 106. She didn’t “remember enough to say” that the email was about the loss of access to read stream and friend data permissions. Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 107. Indeed, she could not recall what it meant to use “read stream and friend data” at all. Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 108. When asked if she could offer her “best understanding” of what her email meant, she said she couldn’t “speculate.” Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 108. When asked, “Tell me everything you can remember about your involvement in figuring out which partners should continue to have access to friends permissions,” Chang responded, “So, again, I don’t remember.” Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 119.

Chang’s testimony about her email is representative of her deposition more broadly: Although Facebook’s internal documents suggest that Chang was extensively involved in the whitelisting process, she remembered almost nothing about it. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 170–71. At one point in the deposition, Chang testified that she could not remember what the term whitelisting meant at all. Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 220. She had no memory of the deprecation of friend permissions. Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 96. She did not remember that Facebook had ever allowed apps to access friends’ information. Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 70. Although she was being deposed in a case involving the Cambridge Analytica scandal and said she had met with Facebook’s lawyers for around nine hours to prepare, she claimed she did not know that the scandal was related to Facebook’s practice of sharing friends’ information. Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 17, 292–93.

Chang resisted other questions as well. When asked if the email was “the best evidence of what you were thinking at the time you wrote” it, Chang responded, “I don’t know.” Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 133. When asked if there was anything that could refresh her recollection, Chang responded, “I don’t know what I don’t know, so I can’t make that assumption that I would know.” Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 134. When asked if the email was a “good guide of what you were thinking about the topics discussed,” Chang said that would require her to “speculate.” Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 135. When asked again, Chang said she didn’t know what “good” meant. Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 136. At another point in the deposition, Chang said she didn’t know what the phrase “general understanding” meant. Dkt. No. 1103-24 at 76.

I recommend reading the full opinion† as it has a lot more juicy examples. Facebook already agreed to settle this case for $725 million, so a $1 million penalty is basically a rounding error at this point. Still, it is very unusual for a judge not just to openly lambast but also personally sanction a big law firm like Gibson Dunn. There's an impression among big law firms that they're too important to scold and part of what justifies their eye-watering bill is that you're summoning an esper to the lawfight that will browbeat and flatten your opponent through sheer presence. It's difficult to walk away from the judge's opinion in this case with any ideation that either Facebook or their lawyers were acting in good faith, so the penalties seem more than appropriate here. Sanctions against attorneys are extremely rare, generally they only happen if you fuck with a client's money, so I'm hopeful this is an omen towards more frequent attorney spankings. I have nothing to worry about myself because it's not like leopards would eat my face.

† I know I'm a lawyer but I personally find that the vast majority of legal opinions I encounter are written with the aim of making them readable and accessible by the general public. Am I off-base?

I know I'm a lawyer but I personally find that the vast majority of legal opinions I encounter are written with the aim of making them readable and accessible by the general public. Am I off-base?

I think you're off-base. I am not a lawyer, though I am a reasonably intelligent person and fairly well-read *pats self on back*. Reading legal opinions is serious work for me. I can do it, but they are hard to follow and it's not something I generally choose to do. Now imagine a member of the general public who maybe doesn't choose to read challenging books, or who simply isn't that smart. They probably don't have a chance in hell of getting through that legal opinion or understanding it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats