- cross-posted to:
- tech@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- tech@kbin.social
Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine::Google accused DOJ of aiming to force people to use “inferior” search products.
You must log in or register to comment.
So we have two options:
-
A 52 year old federal judge is somehow tech illiterate in a way that would imply they have absolutely no idea about the fundamentals of modern technology.
-
A federal judge is asking a large number of extremely basic questions to get their answers on official records so that the cases parameters are clearly defined. He is taking extra care because there’s not a lot of direct precedent on these issues.
I’m heavily leaning towards number 2 here. The internet likes to pretend everyone over the age of 40 has no idea how a computer works. The year is 2023. A middle-aged person today was fairly young when computers started to be incorporated into all aspects of society and is well versed in computer literacy. In some ways they are actually much more tech literate than the younger generations. It’s almost certain that he knows the difference between Firefox and Google.
I’m a 53 year old IT person, and I’m leaning towards 1. The level of technology incompetence in the general public is astounding. My wife only knows “Have you tried turning it off and back on again?” And that pretty much makes her a member of the help desk at her job.
The law is nuanced out the ass. I sit through depositions every day, and terms of art are a plague, and you can say something, but it can be interpreted differently because in such and such a field it’s a term of art, etc. That’s my hope.
I am fully on board with we need more judges, we need younger judges. But I don’t think that’s because they’re incapable of learning. In fact, I think there’s be value to someone going in blind, being given all the facts, and making their determination that way. It just sucks that something we value so highly can be determined based on the presentation of counsel.
My wife only knows “Have you tried turning it off and back on again?” And that pretty much makes her a member of the help desk at her job.
Next step: “Is it even powered?”
To be Dennis Ritchie was born in 40-ies. He would be 80 y.o. if he didn’t die in 2013. And he is most literate person on this planet.
-
|unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine
It is neither. It is a foundation that maintains a browser. It is like asking if Microsoft is a browser or a search engine.
Allow me to introduce ‘I have problem with The Google’.
E: wording.
So true
How can anyone make a judgement about something they know nothing about? We are so doomed.
They do so all the time - do you think judges are experts in every thing? The judge needs to understand the law. It’s up to the counsel to ensure they have experts to explain the details.
Judges should specialize in certain areas for this exact reason. They should absolutely understand the material as well as the law.
They don’t need to be an expert. They need to be people that have basic knowledge of how the world around them works, and the ability to learn new things as that world changes. I mean that’s the basic requirement at any job I have ever had, why are they exempt?
I’m assuming they asked what it was? Or for clarification? If so, then they learned.
Wasnt there that judge who went and learned programming in order tp preside over a software patents case?
As if this has doomed humanity before.
Judging without knowing has been practically sport for most of humanity’s history.
Just because it’s done that way doesn’t mean we can’t fix the issue.
Oh for sure. I was just pinpointing the fatalistic reaction.
It’s not “fatalistic”, it’s “fine” this way.
A judge doesn’t have to know what mozilla is before a trial starts. Council can tell them what it is, how/whether it matters to the case, etc.
It’s the lawyers that have the duty to inform the judge. You can’t rely on every judge knowing everything about all topics. And they don’t really need to…
I know what you’re saying, and I understand it. But again, I’m not talking about how I perceive it, but how the other commenter described it (“we’re doomed!”) And like you, I thought it was an overreaction.
Ahh, gotcha.
Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine::Google accused DOJ of aiming to force people to use “inferior” search products.
Google search is an inferior search product.
I’m not gonna lie, and I hate to admit it, but I actually really like Bing’s ChatGPT integration. For basic searches, it does all the legwork and gets you a summarized answer with sources for more info. It even works great on really obscure topics…
The people making decisions often don’t know shit about what they’re deciding. I used to wonder why huge companies with a shitload of cash make horrible decisions for their products. Hint: It’s not because they hire bad engineers.
So I got to wonder, when that judge goes home at night, does his family, and especially his kids, let him know what everyone is saying about him in relation to this article?
And then I wonder how that affects him going into court the next day, when he has to ask more ‘dumb’ questions, does he actually ask or not.
I feel like most average people (regardless of age) don’t even know alternatives to internet browsers exist, so why would I expect a judge to know? They’re obviously not experts in every field, it’s up to the attorneys to inform them and persuade them one way or another.
Are people here unable to see that the layman might not know what Firefox is off-hand?
Are people here unable to see that the layman might not know what Firefox is off-hand?
I don’t think it’s that. I think most people want a judge who’s knowledgeable enough on the subject that he/she’s actually judging.
Bringing in experts to educate him during the court case is not right, he’s supposed to be able to judge if the experts are actually experts and know what they’re talking about, by the time the actual case is happening.
I don’t care, i use Duck.
So, you’re saying people should go get Ducked?
I mean, i use Duckduckgo dude lmao
I really think it’s a matter of context; how one was raised, what kind of people one interacts with, interest, etc.
I’m older and i know so much more than most of my age group. I learned a long, long time ago to not be afraid to try things out, my pc is not going to explode; to investigate when i’m stuck with some computer stuff; and i have adult kids who teach me things that i don’t know enough about or share their views. Some of the communities i subscribed to are about tech, FOSS, android etc. I’m always really open to boost my knowledge.
Yeah, that’s great and all. But this judge shouldn’t be ruling over this case if he doesn’t know the basics of today’s technology.
Why do they call it Firefox only once in the title but Mozilla in the article? And why do they refer to “Meta” as “Mehta”?
It’s just one of the pipes in the interweb plumbing system duh. (That’s actually a slightly better metaphor than I was going for come to think of it.)
Maybe the browser is more like a faucet and the search engine is like… the city water utility? Obviously that analogy has flaws too.
You could say your tv is like a browser and the “guide” is like a search engine. That analogy is a bit better.
