> “written and shared” is illegal all over

I think it’s valid to ask if tapping something into Claude is legitimately sharing a threat.

I don’t think it is. I also think the sheriff could have found more-substantial evidence if she was actually planning domestic terrorism.

That said, if the shooting happened and we were looking at this from before? It’s a tough balance without an easy answer.

▲

lores 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the zero-risk approach common nowadays is insanely corrosive to democracy and freedom. If a million people fantasise about shooting the sheriff, and one ever goes on to do it, I don't believe avoiding it warrants creating an apparatus of mass surveillance. After all, if people were really serious about zero murder, the only practical solution would be to lock up everyone. Some (most?) tradeoffs have exponential costs at the limit and we/lawmakers should recognise that.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If a million people fantasise about shooting the sheriff I think it’s fair to pre-identify folks who fantasise about shooting anyone. It’s a small fraction of the population that looks into logistics versus making offhand comments.