this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
1713 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

71866 readers
5067 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn’t be able to exist for most cases)

A core tenet of the law is the right to trial by a jury of your peers.

Jury trials have a very similar flaw to democracy.

Think of an average person you know, how stupid are they? Now, realize that half the people out there are stupider than that.

An average randomly selected jury is going to be composed of 50% below average intelligence people.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Of the US law yes, but that's not the case everywhere.

I personally don't think juries should do more than give extra input to the judge. The judge should follow the law exactly and tif they don't, the average person should be able to file a complaint about them not doing their job and they should be investigated.

(I also work in a field (accountancy) where you can file complaints to be for very cheap if I don't do my job correctly)

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Curious: how often in your field are people harassed out of work by politically motivated complaints?

Around here, restaurant owners are very vulnerable to that kind of harassment - they can literally be put out of business just by people complaining to the health department, with no real basis to the complaints. Its one thing that keeps restaurant owners out of politics.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Not that often, since it is a very formal matter to sue a registered accountant over here. It costs like 50 euro to complain or something and the accountant can lose his title from it.

https://www.nba.nl/tools-en-ondersteuning/publicaties/2025/jaaroverzicht-klachtencommissie-nba-2024/

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, 50€ will stop the drunk at the pub from filing a complaint on his mobile for a lark, but in the greater scheme it's no barrier at all for people intent on serious harassment.

the accountant can lose his title from it.

That's almost always on the table with complaint investigations against licensed professionals of all kinds.

The bigger trick is: who are the regulators that execute the decision making process, how onerous is it to fight it, etc. A lot of what goes down around here on the "bad side" of all that is that certain actors familiar with the system will develop relationships with the regulatory body and launch complaints sufficient to significantly harass license holders (or any regulated person) just enough to really bother them, but not quite enough to trigger a fight with lawyers in the courts and appeals processes. In a competitive arena like running a restaurant, the harassment can be expensive and time consuming enough to tip the balance between profitable, and shutting down.