Jury of peers is for criminal prosecution, not job performance assessment, which is closer to civil cases, in which preponderance of the evidence is the standard.
There’s a judge and sometimes jury in civil cases. There’s still evidence rules. My comment stands with preponderance of evidence standard.
I feel like if all this was handed to a judge or jury it wouldn’t meet the standard for civil verdicts either.
It’s only when I see this stuff presented in the tumbler verse world of most uptweets is true or whatever that it seems to stick.
It’s certainly currently effective, but I don’t know how sustainable it is because it seems like a poor way to produce quality things.
Perhaps there will be a critical mass of people who just adhere to a rational ideal and break the boycotts to the extent where we can have a parallel world that ignores such style of medium-post fueled discussion.
