Again, you *still* aren't saying anything specific about whether
   Assange should be treated equally under the law, or not.
   You have suggested we find some "free criminal mediation" system that
   somehow serves as an alternative to the court system, but explained
   nothing about how it would be different than the *free court system*
   (ie, that provides you with an attorney at no cost) that already
   exists.  This has nothing to do with whether Assange should be tried.
   You have suggested that "new officials' activities were all publicly
   logged" without explaining what that means, or acknowledging the
   tremendous amount of publicly logged information already available
   about our politicians and why that is inadequate (or even what specific
   changes you would make).  This has nothing to do with whether Assange
   should be tried.
   You have said "Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information
   dispersal were to not happen?" which doesn't actually explain what that
   is, why it's a problem, or what you would change to make it better.
   And so far as I can tell, this also has nothing to do with whether
   Assange can be tried.
   To the degree you have been clear about anything, it seems you feel
   Assange should not be tried in any global jurisdiction for any of his
   many indictments.  But you haven't explained by what process you are
   advocating we override the normal course of the legal process.  I know
   you don't like it when I put words in your mouth, but are you
   essentially saying "If there is enough social media outrage, normal
   legal process should be suspended"?
   Again, I'm genuinely trying to understand what specific policy changes
   you are advocating.  And the specifics do matter.  It's easy to say
   "Assange should go free" -- I'm asking you to specify which specific
   part of the legal process you want changed that would result in Assange
   (and others who meet whatever conditions you think he does) to avoid
   even showing up in court at all?
   -david

   On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:19 PM Karl <[1]gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:

   On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:08 PM David Barrett <[2]dbarrett@expensify.com>
   wrote:

   Again, you have sent another email that avoids to state any kind of
   specific opinion.  You are frustrated that I am putting words in your
   mouth, but it can't help but do so because you aren't saying anything.
   You haven't agreed that our justice system should carry out warrants,
   but you also haven't indicated when it should not.
   You haven't agreed that justice should happen in courts, but you also
   haven't said it shouldn't be.
   You haven't really said anything at all that can be pinned down to a
   specific defined position.
   Maybe just to sanity check, why are you in this conversation? Are you
   trying to refine

   I feel upset and disconnected (feeling are reasons, remember: they
   directly drive our actions via our understanding of things).  I want to
   know I can be friends with you without compromising on what I care
   about.  I want to know we can agree.  It's so hard, and I know we can
   do it.

   and articulate a specific opinion? Because that's my goal, I want to
   understand actual policies that we can implement and follow, in order
   to make this world a better place.

   I didn't know that.
   Wouldn't it be great if mediation were a formal alternative to criminal
   trials, and were provided free by our government to resolve any other
   conflicts?  Wouldn't it be great if using it were normalised?
   Wouldn't it be great if new officials' activities were all publicly
   logged, for any citizen to watch their behavior?  Then we could resolve
   so so many debates about what is really going on.
   Implementing that would also need a way to protect them from minority
   harm.
   Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information dispersal were to
   not happen?  Then people would have much more fair exposure to what
   happens, to guide their opinions.

   If your goal is exclusively to complain about other people doing bad
   jobs without giving them any specific advice on how to do it better,
   that's not very interesting or useful.

   Who is doing a bad job?
   Everything you do, you are doing the best you possibly can.  Any living
   creature can't help but do this.
   We often learn we need to follow rules and obey regulations.  But
   what's important is doing what is best for everyone, what is most
   right, in every scenario.
   This doesn't mean every individual gets to set what the law is.  It
   means that people need to act in ways they can when it is crucial to do
   so, and talk to each other about what is real, what they know, and what
   the actually best course of action is.
   Today we have many situations we aren't familiar with treating with
   laws, for example abuses that involve AI.  But we can figure all of
   these out.  There are always innumerable ways; we just don't always
   think of them on our own.

   David

   On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:03 PM Karl <[3]gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:

   Anyway if you can honestly help someone in need like Assange, please do
   so.  Otherwise please focus on fixing the world.

References

   1. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com
   2. mailto:dbarrett@expensify.com
   3. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com