Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

Re:Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine... by pjc50 on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @04:57AM (#22933208)

How many fractional-people are willing to kill or injure for that payment, which should (but isn't, because this is America) be bailed out by the government responsible for the quarantine?

This is the statistical morality question that we're very bad at dealing with. Here, move this trolley switch lever. There's a 1/100 chance that doing so kills somebody. No, you can't tell whether it will, or even whether it did afterwards. Here's your cheque.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine... by kd5bjo on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @05:08AM (#22933266)

> which should (but isn't, because this is America) be bailed out by the government responsible for the quarantine

This makes me wonder if there might be some kind of eminent domain case to be made: If the government orders a business closed due to no fault of the owner/management, is that sufficiently similar to seizing the property that they owe some kind of remuneration for the action?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine... by ryandrake on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @01:14PM (#22936956)

What happens in the event of other disasters, like hurricanes where the government can step in to close things? When there is an evacuation, is the government suddenly on the hook to remunerate? Running a business comes with risks, and one of those risks is having to shut down for some amount of time, for any reason. Should businesses that are not robust to this be bailed out?

[ Parent | on HN ]