Submitted 1 year ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to globalnews@lemmy.zip
Archived version: archive.ph/73oYB
Archived version: web.archive.org/…/judge-in-us-v-google-trial-didn…
I’m not asking the people in the courtroom to be subject matter experts.
But I would like it if the judge, the one person who has the most power in that courtroom, to be able understand a wee bit more about technology than a 5th grader.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I would argue not knowing exactly what firefox is is a trait of the average gen Z. They are surprisingly tech illiterate. If it isn’t pre installed on their iPhone or a feature of short form content, they won’t know what it is.
Tue least they could to is bring in an advisor to explain things
Finally, an actual use for consultants.
Arguably less than a 5th grader. I’d argue that the average 5th grader knows that Firefox is not a search engine.
Only fix is stop boomers from taking executive/decision making roles in anything related to technology.
That’s gotta be a fun trial… 🤦♂️
Nice to know that we have an expert on the job
All’s they know is that it comes from a series of tubes, not a dump truck.
NO!
Member when microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly? Only took a decade and several judges who didn’t know what a browser was. And then nothing changed. Good times.
let’s be honest, it’s probably the same judges.
Thus is why we have expert witnesses and the like. Judges are not all knowing, they are experts in law.
If you don’t know the difference between a search engine and a browser at this point and time you should not be in any position of power. You’re clearly out of touch with society and it’s intricacies.
So long as they know by the end of the trial, before making the judgement, I see no reason to call foul.
I’d bet that 80% of people on the street wouldn’t know either. Most will use whatever comes on their device.
Good example of a click bait title.
How so?
Do you expect judges in murder trails to be experts in blood splatter analysis?
Kichae@kbin.social 1 year ago
So long as they know the difference come the end of it, it's fine. Judges are only experts on the law. Everything else is research and what's presented as evidence, testimony, and argument in court.
It's going to be someone's responsibility to teach the judge, and if the state attourney doesn't do it, that's really on them.