Hacker News Reader

Comment by dam_jackalopes | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, that makes sense. On the other hand, the severity of the crime isn't what makes the penalty high in this case. The fine for the crime in this case is $5,000. Given that the penalty was reduced by nearly 90%, the penalty for the crime is something like $570. That doesn't seem outlandish to me.

View on HN

It's $11,737 per current resident of New Mexico by my math. So, 20+ offenses per resident of the state? Of course, many people weren't even Facebook users, so it must be even more offenses per user.

And they reduced it, so we're already admitting that the penalty is based on vibes and not simply an unbiased calculation. So it's just the whims of this particular judge that says the right number is $25,000,000,000.00 and not $250,000,000,000.00. Sounds like that number is no more justified than $25,000,000.00 or $25.

I don't see how math applies here with regards to "per resident". Why would it matter how many residents are? What matters is how much wealth a company has in proportion.

If you fine a billionaire with a two dollars fine, this will have ... what impact exactly?

It matters because it affects the number of counts of violation and the penalty per violation has a maximum.

"we're already admitting that the penalty is based on vibes and not simply an unbiased calculation"

We are? I haven't read the judgement and I'm pretty sure you haven't either. You're making a pretty big assumption here.

"Sounds like that number is no more justified than $25,000,000.00 or $25."

The penalty was written into law. That's what justified it.

The irony is that you're saying the award is based on "vibes" or feelings but, honestly, that's all I've been seeing from critics of the penalty. No one can explain what's wrong with it from a legal perspective. It's just been a lot of "it's a really high number!" and "they're making numbers up!" from people who can't point to anything from the decision itself.

The maximum penalty is written into law. The minimum penalty is like, $1. The judge can arbitrarily choose any number in that range. This is how judicial verdicts work in almost any context (sometimes there are higher minimums, or sentencing guidelines, but judges have a lot of flexibility).

Clearly. The judge lowered the penalty by some 90%. What about that makes the reward in this case "outlandish" or based on "vibes"?

It was right there in the clause before the one you quoted. They reduced it by 90%. That 90% was arbitrary and based on vibes.

In math terms, Concrete × vibes = vibes. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Nonsense. You're stating that you have insight into the motivations of a judge without any evidence that you have any inkling, at all, that you know why a decision was reached. You made a claim, feel free to provide any evidence to back up that claim.

The best part is the clause you tell me to reference is extensively explained in the judgement. That you haven't read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com