this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
478 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

59187 readers
2246 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Could a human have judged it better? Maybe not. I think a better question to ask is, "Should anyone be sent back into a violent domestic situation with no additional protection, no matter the calculated risk?" And as someone who has been on the receiving end of that conversation and later narrowly escaped a total-family-annihilation situation, I would say no...no one should be told that, even though they were in a terrifying, life-threatening situation, they will not be provided protection, and no further steps will be taken to keep them from being injured again, or from being killed next time. But even without algorithms, that happens constantly...the only thing the algorithm accomplishes is that the investigator / social worker / etc doesn't have to have any kind of personal connection with the victim, so they don't have to feel some kind of way for giving an innocent person a death sentence because they were just doing what the computer told them to.

Final thought: When you pair this practice with the ongoing conversation around the legality of women seeking divorce without their husband's consent, you have a terrifying and consistently deadly situation.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Final thought: When you pair this practice with the ongoing conversation around the legality of women seeking divorce without their husband's consent, you have a terrifying and consistently deadly situation.

Louder for anyone in the back in the US thinking it doesn't sound so bad when Republicans like Josh Hawley and JD Vance call for an end to no-fault divorces.

That's right, one of our VP candidates wants to disallow people from divorcing their abusive partners without jumping through hoops that will take months if not years, and leaves them susceptible to their abusive partner, now even angrier than before that the victim would dare try to leave.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Reading stuff like this makes me sick. All is not well with the world.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the only thing the algorithm accomplishes is that the investigator / social worker / etc doesn’t have to have any kind of personal connection with the victim

This even works for people pulling the trigger. Following orders, sed lex dura lex, et cetera ad infinitum.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Yep! For all the psych nerds, it's pretty much a direct lift of the Milgram Shock Experiment