846
Chinese Courts Rule Companies Cannot Fire Workers Simply to Replace Them With AI
(www.caixinglobal.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
846 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
84324 readers
6488 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Capital punishment is a barbaric practice that can not be justified by hiding it behind a jury.
Find a better solution to permanently disabling the power of a person who feels no shame or empathy and who has harmed, in most cases thousands to millions of people; then talk.
Unless the state is infallible, never making a mistake in or out of court, AND it is literally impossible to rehabilitate the offender, AND It requires fewer resources to execute a person then to keep them alive, then and only then is it not profanely hideous to sanction state murder.
That is an opinion, sure. Another is that you stop separating 'The StAtE' from 'The People,' because it decent societies there is no effective difference. (Actually in all societies, there is zero difference whatsoever, but we really aren't here to talk about implied consent)
The state doesn't need to be infallible, because people aren't. But we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. If a mayor of a province that has directly harmed hundreds of thousands of people and was found with literally 40 tons of Gold and Cash says they're innocent, they have a pretty large hill to climb. We can be reasonably sure he at least had something to do with the bribes, and we can be reasonably sure a poor student from a poor family turned extremely low level politician did not find a way to hoard 40 tons of gold and cash through legitimate means. On its face just that evidence pushes that beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond that the offender still gets a guaranteed defense in court. The one referenced obvious lost, because of course he couldn't defend those actions or explain away 40 tons of gold and cash, but he had the chance to push some, ANY doubt into the mind of the jury.
This also isn't like the US, evidence can't be thrown out of court and doesn't have to be approved by the court; meaning any exculpatory evidence the defense can find can and does get introduced. If you're innocent and can prove it in any way, congrats. If you find a filing mistake by the People's Prosecution, congrats. If you can prove a flaw in their methodology, congrats. 'The State' doesn't set the narrative, the court only exists as a way to to guide the jury on what the law is. It has no relationship with the prosecution.
And yes, the death penalty is reserved for those that cannot be rehabilitated. A man does not come back from literally decades of taking bribes. A man cannot change that drastically overnight, it is pure naivety to think otherwise (and ignorance of psychology). The Norway style of keeping mass murderers alive forever just to... say that they didn't kill them and feel smug about it does nothing for public safety, and just costs money. All for a smug since of superiority about being kind to people that want to kill you. China was under a dictatorship less than a century ago, they had this whole big revolution about recognizing and not being kind to those people.
You can't build a rule from exceptions.
There are those few circumstances of uniquely certain guilt when you probably could make a very breathy argument in favor of executing people, but that is not something that can be easily codified into law and the legal fiction of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has already been reliably subverted in ... Every country that currently has jury trials.
I love the idea that evil people get their comeuppance. I'm not so much a fan of giving the state or whatever perfectly ideal synergy of state and people exists in the utopic future the ability to murder without consequence.
To me it seems fairly obvious that that's bad and that the entity capable of doing it justly is not within the capacity of current human culture to produce.
You don't have to like it but again I ask what other solution you have to people that have shown themselves beyond a reasonable doubt to be objectively evil. People that would be lynched by the public if their crimes were just reported on.