posted in Technology
Teen Boys Are Using Meta Glasses to Terrorize Girls at High Schools and Middle Schools
futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/teen-boys-meta-glasses-harass-bully-girls-schoolposted in Technology
Teen Boys Are Using Meta Glasses to Terrorize Girls at High Schools and Middle Schools
futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/teen-boys-meta-glasses-harass-bully-girls-schoolCan someone explain why this isn’t actually a solution to an old problem? We used to have issues with various forms of harassment that were not addressed because they relied on unreliable testimony. Now we actually have people creating hard evidence of their actions.
The behaviors described in this article are banned in every school I or my children have ever attended. How difficult would it be for the parents of any of these victims to hire a lawyer to absolutely wipe the floor with these people? Don’t these videos basically put the perpetrators heads on silver platters?
You assume that action will actually be taken on the perpetrators here.
Sort of.
I am making an assumption that there are some people who are likely highly motivated to take action. Parents often care about bullying of their own children, even when the rest of the school doesn’t. We wouldn’t need all parents to care, just a few of them.
I’m not assuming that lawyers are generally willing to work for free but I do assume that they like money and are willing to take cases on contingency, if they think the case is strong enough.
I’m also going on my understanding that video evidence tends to be fairly strong and that this translates into a higher probability of a favorable judgement with less work on the lawyer’s part.
So it’s less that I’m making an assumption than that I’m asking where the gap in the above reasoning chain lies.