• h3rm17@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    The burden of proof works the exact opposite way. You make a claim, then you need to support verifiable and damnable evidence. Not the other way around.

    • net00@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This isn’t a court trial tbh, and what has come forth from Madison’s side (testimonies, recording, consistency) is more than enough for me to put the ball entirely on LMG’s side.

      No reason to keep giving businesses the benefit of the doubt when in many cases they have every advantage over the situation.

      • h3rm17@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone!

      • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This isn’t a court trial tbh

        So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.

        what has come forth from Madison’s side

        Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn’t evidence. It’s just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone.

        At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from.

        • Default_Defect@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.

          I’m under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn’t harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc.

          That’s the difference.