<quote>Here’s what this case boils down to: Officers had a hunch that a drug transaction was going down. They saw nothing obviously suspicious, but got tired of waiting, watching and wiretapping. They then jumped the gun by executing a warrantless search. Until today, this was not enough to support probable cause, but going forward it will be. This is a green light for the police to search anyone’s property based on what officers subjectively believe—or claim to believe—about someone’s everyday conduct. That puts all of us at risk. Accordingly, I dissent, and I’m off to Costco to buy some food. </quote>
Brink Lindsey; The End of the Working Class; In The American Interest; 2017-08-30; previously filled
“Outside a well-educated and comfortable elite comprising 20-25 percent of Americans, we see unmistakable signs of social collapse… ”
tl;dr → No. Betteridge’s Law. It is a Modest Proposal.
and → Whereas free speech is dangerous, re-evaluation of the “unfettered” concept is indicated. Options toward remediation are evaluated.
Is the First Amendment Obsolete?
Core Assumptions of the Political First Amendment
Attentional Scarcity and the Economics of Filter Bubbles
The Waning of Direct Censorship
Reverse Censorship, Flooding, and Propaganda Robots
What Might Be Done
Accepting a Limited First Amendment
First Amendment Possibilities
State Action — Accomplice Liability
State Action — Platforms
Statutory or Law Enforcement Protection of Speech Environments and the Press
<quote>It is obvious that changes in communications technologies will present new challenges for the First Amendment. For nearly twenty years now, scholars have been debating how the rise of the popular Internet might unsettle what the First Amendment takes for granted. Yet the future retains its capacity to surprise, for the emerging threats to our political speech environment are different from what many predicted. Few forecast that speech itself would become a weapon of censorship. In fact, some might say that celebrants of open and unfettered channels of Internet expression (myself included) are being hoisted on their own petard, as those very same channels are today used as ammunition against disfavored speakers. As such, the emerging methods of speech control present a particularly difficult set of challenges for those who share the commitment to free speech articulated so powerfully in the founding—and increasingly obsolete—generation of First Amendment jurisprudence.</quote>
There are 134 references. In the typset version (pdf), the references are sprinkled throughout in the legal style. The web version places them at the end <ahem>where they don’t get in the way of the argument, and where they belong</ahem>.
The Algorithm Made Me Doit, and Other Bad Excuses; Rebecca J. Krystosek; In That Certain Blog of the Minnesota Law Review; 2017-05-17.
Rebecca J. Krystosek is Member of Staff, Volume 101, [MLR].
Teaser: Upholding Traditional Liability Principles For Algorithm-Caused Harm
tl;dr → a popularization piece; 1568 words of content; 1154 words of citations; citations from The Atlantic, Motherboard, Slate, Vice, Wired, L.A. Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times [and more!].
Let go of linear causality,
There is no linear causality. [sounds very Buddhist]
The sense-making is only warranted as a retrospective technique.
Whereas predictive patterns do not predict success,
smaller predictions, smaller actions, in an iterative mode are indicated.
Something about Einstein’s definition of insanity being falseified.
To wit: [insanity is defined as] the repetition of inputs against a “system,” with the expectation of differential outcomes.
Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA),
of Boyd, not cited.
Double Loop Learning
of Argyris, not cited.
Iterative [Design], Spiral [Design]
Interaction – a complex system has a large number of diverse components (agents) involved in rich interaction
Autonomy – agents are largely autonomous but subject to certain laws, rules or norms; there is no central control but agent behaviour is not random
Emergence – global behaviour of a complex system “emerges” from the interaction of agents and is therefore unpredictable
Far from equilibrium – complex systems are “far from equilibrium” since frequent disruptive events do not allow the system to return to equilibrium
Nonlinearity – nonlinearity occasionally causes an insignificant input to be amplified into an extreme event
Self-organisation – complex systems are capable of self-organisation in response to disruptive events
Co-evolution – complex systems irreversibly coevolve with their environments
per Adrian Colyer, summarizing George Rzevski.
Kent Beck, boffo.
brand method: eXtreme Programming,
first-in-Europe credit: certified ScrumMaster Practitioner and Trainer.
<verified-claims>certified by whom?</verified-claims>
Joseph Pelrine, ex-assistant, Kent Beck
George Rzevski, theorist.
Horst W. J. Rittel, theorist.
Melvin M. Webber, theorist.
Rittel & Webber, Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Working Papers from the Urban & Regional Development [Noun?], University of California-Berkeley (yes, they hyphenated it back then), In Policy Sciences, Volume 4, 1973, pages 155-169. Originally performed at the Panel on Policy Sciences, at the meeting of the American Association for the Adveancement of Science, in Boston, circa 1969-12 [i.e. four years later, it was memorialized in print by Elsevier].
Also, see Wicked Problem in Jimi Wales’ Wiki.