The Paradox of Blackmail

[@dumbledorelives93]

Nobody is gonna talk about Kane blackmailing his entire audience?

[@samuelmelton8353]

I can't. For reasons. (Please send help, Kane has trnshi-

[@ahuk]

😮

[@ahuk]

💀

[@wilsonborkowski2984]

Man I remember think it was rather odd he deleted the discord. All makes sense now.

[@blackeyefly]

@@wilsonborkowski2984 Wait, when and why did he delete his discord? I was there for a while, and only noticed now that I'm no longer in it.

[@italogiardina8183]

Thanks!

[@prfwrx2497]

The fundamental issue with blackmail is that legalized blackmail would monetizes and thus incentivize conflicts of interests and breach of trust. A journalist who commits blackmail is betraying their duty as a journalist. A PI that turns double and conceals the facts he is hired to uncover also betraying his duty as a PI. That's the point IMO. It's not that incompetence is criminal, wilful feigned incompetence for the sake of monetary gain is criminalized to prevent arbitrage of that access to information to the detriment of general society (and most importantly, the corrosive effect on our existing systems of trust-based relationships in commercial and non-commercial settings).

[@KaneBaker420]

Why should breaching trust be illegal? If you commit adultery or cheat on an exam, you breach trust, but these actions aren't (usually) criminal.

[@drdca8263]

@@KaneBaker420As a society, do we want such breaches of trust to be incentivized, or would we rather they not be?

[@KaneBaker420]

@@drdca8263 Is making something legal to incentivize that thing? Drinking water is legal, but it's unclear whether the law incentivizes drinking water.

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

​@@drdca8263sorry, incriminating laws should not be used as incentives.

[@MrAdamo]

It’s not illegal to be outside, it’s not illegal to do the helicopter. Yet the combination of these two acts is illegal. How curious

[@writerightmathnation9481]

I don’t understand, perhaps because I don’t know what is meant by the phrase “do the helicopter”.

[@AFastidiousCuber]

​@@writerightmathnation9481 Just replace "do the helicopter" with "be naked"

[@Andrew_Spellman]

I think location might be a component of an act. For example, It's legal to swing my first through the air, but it would be illegal if I was standing somewhere where someone was in the path of my fist. The composition of these two acts should be illegal.

[@MrAdamo]

@@AFastidiousCuber I was gonna do that at first but I wanted more shock value. I’ll keep workshopping this one

[@writerightmathnation9481]

@@AFastidiousCuber Why? What do the two have to do with one another?

[@TheGlenn8]

I love subjects like this. Questioning why we have certain laws and norms. Defending and attacking it. Would love more videos like this. The more controversial the better.

[@tomholroyd7519]

When I was in college I put a box on the wall in my dorm with a sign saying "INSERT 25 CENTS" and people put coins in it (well, only once)

[@tomdron]

I’d be curious what the original justification for blackmail laws were when they were first introduced around the world.

[@tudornaconecinii3609]

There are sometimes videos you post where I adjust my priors down, but this is actually one of the few that legitimately, decisively changed my mind. Which is to say, I used to think that blackmail *should* be legal, and I wasn't cognizant of the "blackmailees are especially positioned to be disadvantaged in licit taking of loans" argument, and now that I've heard it, it's very persuasive to me. Thanks.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

In ordinary English, at least that I've experienced, if a planned action is unconditional, description of it is not a threat. Conditionality is central to the meaning of the word.

[@writerightmathnation9481]

This is a very interesting logical and philosophical conundrum. It makes me want to ask a lawyer whether the following scenarios are legal or not: 1. I’m photographed in a compromising act WITH my knowledge. The photographer puts all these photos into a package and offers the package for sale with a salacious ad but no information about the details, to the highest bidder in an auction (e.g. on eBay). Someone I know purchases them for most of their life savings and I report the incident to the authorities as blackmail. Do I have legally compelling case? 2. I’m photographed in a compromising act WITHOUT my knowledge. The photographer puts all these photos into a package and offers the package for sale with a salacious ad but no information about the details, to the highest bidder in an auction (e.g. on eBay). I purchase them for most of my life savings and report the incident to the authorities as blackmail. Do I have legally compelling case? 3. I’m photographed in a compromising act WITH my knowledge. The photographer puts all these photos into a package and offers the package for sale with a salacious ad but no information about the details, to the highest bidder in an auction (e.g. on eBay). I purchase them for most of my life savings and report the incident to the authorities as blackmail. Do I have a legally compelling case? I suspect that the answer is “no” in all cases, but all of them are very similar to scenarios in which the answer, I think, would be “yes”; specifically, in each case, if the photographer informed me that the incriminating items would be available for auction to the highest bidder, it seems more likely that I could successfully pursue criminal charges. Any lawyers want to weigh in?

[@dominiks5068]

great video. I remember vividly when I first learned that blackmail is illegal... I literally couldn't believe it. still doesn't make any sense to me.

[@samuelmelton8353]

As for having a legally sanctioned contract for blackmail - either the blackmailee thinks it's worth paying the fee, or they don't. If they don't want to reveal their activities, they can pay the fee. If the fee is too much and they don't want to pay, then they don't have to.

[@drdca8263]

32:38 : “threatening to commit a crime is more serious that committing the crime” : this reminds me of a question I had about responding to sexual harassment with violence (like, with fists, not like more dangerous weapons), vs threatening to respond to the sexual harassment with violence if the person committing the harassment doesn’t stop. Now, my intuition is that if someone is being physically sexually harassed, it should be legal for them to respond with a threat that if their assailant doesn’t stop, that they will respond with a punch or similar. But, the impression I’ve been given is that this would, at least effectively/in-practice, be more illegal than actually responding with violence? This seems counterintuitive to me.

[@gh0s1wav]

Blackmailing someone who has done something truly illegal like murder would definitely make you an accessory to murder due to you withholding evidence.

[@josebolivar4364]

Interesting paradox and developments.

[@InkLore-p3h]

The morality of blackmail is better compared to the morality of a white hat hacker vs black hat hacker: both are seeking to discover vulnerabilities in a system that could cause massive harm, but one does it under a contractual agreement to fully disclose the issue and ensure that it is fixed. A black hat hacker has no such contract. Furthermore, the problems discovered are shared with the one who has the issue, not with the broader public. This would be like the “blackmailer” threatening the politician with the desired goal of getting him to stop cheating, not simply to get the money. Social protests have similar higher order goals (reform) that distinguish them from blackmail.

[@moonielivee4836]

So if the status quo like it or no

[@jeevacation]

Is this your way of telling us you were blackmailed into deleting your discord server?

[@low3242]

He did that? Very based.

[@ahuk]

@@jeevacation much better tbh ngl nonsense excuse for a server

[@nickolasthefrog]

It’s a law that discourages a financial incentive to target the powerful. There is no paradox if you believe protection of the powerful is the point of law and the state. The paradox only arises when you claim/believe (rather than merely prefer/aspire/profess) that the powerful primarily serve the people/commonwealth, rather than serving their position.

[@Hahahahaaahaahaa]

Why should X be illegal when all its components are legal isn't that interesting a question - there are tons of examples, particularly for crimes that do not involve physical harm - but Blackmail is a fun one to break down this way, nice job! I'll note, Richard Epstein is perhaps not the best source for philosophy - legal or otherwise. He genuinely can't consider that laws are to protect people (and has essentially stated we should get rid of all laws that don't protect property and let people contract out everything else). Peter Westen has a great piece on the paradox. 28:10 - this argument is EXACTLY the logic behind strengthening labor and housing laws. You don't have to be communist to see that e.g. a laborer, whose only capital is themselves, is not bargaining when threatened by higher hours, lower wages, more dangerous work etc. "Hard bargains" in this case SHOULD be illegal, and in many states are in some way. Minimum wage, to an extent, is essentially an acknowledgement that many labor issues involve things akin to blackmail (putting aside the collaboration of businesses writ large to weaken an actual free market). Fun other fact, adultery IS a crime in 17 US states still. I don't think I've ever heard of it being enforced in my lifetime, but it comes up occasionally e.g. when Trump is allowed to use the 5th amendment to not testify about his adultery 100x or whatever during his civil trials. It use to be more, and the link between blackmail and illegal activity in general does have a history. To that extent "blackmail promotes the doing and concealing of illegal activity" is on point.

[@Rhadgar]

I don’t find the “hard bargaining” argument against the claim that blackmail is wrong because it is coercive to be wholly convincing. What’s described here as “hard bargaining” could very easily be called “price gouging” which is often illegal (depending on jurisdiction) and clearly wrong. If we can outlaw price gouging in an attempt to prevent just such behavior, there’s no reason not to treat blackmail similarly.

[@KaneBaker420]

What's wrong with price gouging? Even if price-gougers raise prices, then people can choose to purchase or not to purchase goods. This is better than having no option at all. This is the same with blackmail.

[@rodrigolabarre]

I haven't finished the video yet but I want to write down my two arguments before I forget them lmao 1) is that it wouldn't be fair that one side is concealing their cards and the other has to play with their deck in the open And 2) if the content of the blackmail is of public interest, then the public wouldn't want the blackmailee? to be able to hide it while if it's not of public interest, then it's only being created to coerce someone and that's the world you would see more of. Creating new coercive methods that have no upsides. Besides that the person doing the blackmail has nothing to lose so they can ask as much as the blackmailee can pay.

[@Catofminerva]

Crazy how this is released just when i got blackmailed out of £2000 last week

[@doqille]

Ok, what did you find out about Boris? Tell us!

[@joe6839]

why is this so funny hahahaha

[@jonahworledge111]

Here's a theory, blackmail is illegal because those in power don't want to be blackmailed.

[@Kentrosauruses]

He kinda addresses this in the video. The people in power would actually benefit from it being legal, because it would give them a recourse to conceal information that would otherwise be revealed. Criminalizing blackmail gives the blackmailer no incentive to ask what the blackmailee prefers. I’m sure many powerful people would prefer to pay someone off to hide information than have it revealed.

[@gh0s1wav]

Well at this point we need to start looking at the history of blackmail law.

[@drdca8263]

@@KentrosaurusesThat makes sense for a single round, but, how does it influence the incentives around acquiring the information the release of which would be harmful to the person the information is about? Like, yes, if the person possessing the compromised photos is a given, the person depicted would rather that the photo-holder’s options be [“threaten to release photos unless paid much money”, “sell photos to journalist for a little money”, “don’t release photos and get no money”] rather than just the last 2 options. But, if blackmail is legal, then there is more incentive to obtain compromising photos of people, because one gets more money on average from getting such a photo than one otherwise would. (I’m not claiming that this is actually why it is illegal. I don’t know. I also don’t know whether this change in incentives substantially changes how often people would get their hands on compromising photos.)

[@Kentrosauruses]

@@drdca8263 I think that’s a good point, but there is currently an incentive for journalists to find scandalous information about famous people. Tabloids and gossip blogs run on this stuff. Some outlets and political campaigns will pay pretty good money for scandals about politicians. I don’t know if adding blackmail really adds all that much moneymaking incentive.

[@viinisaari]

@@Kentrosauruses This is only true for a single case. If you legalize blackmail, it would probably become more profitable to do, and thus become a bigger problem for powerful people.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

One problem with threat is that it's unjustified coercion. The nature of the threatened response, including its legality, has no bearing on the justification or severity of the coercion. There is no reason to suppose that threatening to do something unlawful is more serious than threatening to do something that's otherwise lawful (or less so). Likewise for all the other problems with threat, as far as I can see.

[@samuelmelton8353]

Patreon blackmail unclear, donated money to buy mosquito nets.

[@Kentrosauruses]

Do nepotism next

[@philosophicalmixedmedia]

There is a slippery slope element to black/white dichotomies of social goods and harms. The medium (mail) is the message (interpretation). So interpretation of marketing a cigarette brand a few decades ago was permitted but not now in most nation states. So the slippery slope might be in a scarcity world all marketing is a social harm by token of 'if you don't get this stuff you're going to suffer an organic pain or social harm as in you will be a boring person and subject to being ostracised by an in-group. So a white harm may be over consumption to a degree that it could correlate to civilisational collapse due to the great funnel hypothesis.

[@CP3CP3CP3]

Anyone know what app and mic he uses for his videos? Thank you!

[@MmKayUltra1]

This was pretty interesting. I feel like maybe your materialist analysis of what might drive people to petty property crime might be well suited to the rest of your arguments. For example, maybe a victim of blackmail is really the person who was never asked if they would like to know the information, instead of the person who was asked of the information should be concealed

[@jenniferpatton5108]

"Hard bargaining" can become profiteering which can be a crime even in capitalism, and"hard bargaining certainly would be a crime in socialism.

[@PiFiFo]

The discord bit made me chuckle.

[@jonasjensen9305]

I don't find the argument against blackmail by comparison to drunk driving convincing. In the case of drunk driving, there's a harm-of significant of risk of causing accident-that does not occur on its own when simply driving or drinking separately.

[@Megaritz]

I find the meta-blackmail case COMPLETELY unpersuasive. The whole puzzle appears to be based on the supposedly intuitive moral principle that "A proposal that threatens an unlawful act is more serious than a proposal that threatens a lawful act"-- which I see no reason to believe. I don't think any argument has even been given for it. (Maybe the paper has more arguments on this, but I don't think the video does. I'm only going off the video.) Sure, threatening an unlawful (or otherwise worse) act is *usually* worse than threatening a lawful (or otherwise less bad) act-- but I don't see why this should be anything like a moral axiom that holds true in ALL possible cases, rather than just something that's usually true under ordinary circumstances. And the whole argument seems to rely on the notion that this is ALWAYS true, with no exceptions whatsoever. There aren't many moral principles that seem likely to hold in all cases, and this doesn't look like a promising candidate to be one that does. The meta-blackmail case has an unusual structure regarding the status of the threats involved, given that it involves a threat to make a threat. So it's not remotely surprising that here we'd have a weird circumstance where threatening to do an impermissible action could be morally equivalent to, or no worse than, threatening to do a permissible action.

[@iantheroman1016]

Yooo Kane B mate your discord server link is expired, I wanna get back in to fight back against all the Hegel slander going on there

[@blankname1209]

Not very far in, but I reject the framing that having more options always increases your freedom. If you work at a gas station, having the code to the money safe increases your options but also makes you a target for robbery. I think blackmail is arguably similar to this for a few reasons. Take the case you gave in the beginning. It may be that the money you give up makes you worse off than if you’d let the information come out. It may be that you pay up and then the information is released anyways. And even if you refuse to pay, you’ll now be wracked with the sense that you could have prevented it. Moreover, I think that the legality of blackmail would give people an incentive to do harmful things that don’t necessarily involve other parties. Imagine your wife’s boss tells you that, unless you pay him, he’s going to fire your wife. It’s not illegal to fire someone generally, and it’s also not illegal to ask for money, so we have a case of blackmail and not extortion. This situation would likely not have arisen in a world where blackmail is illegal though, because the boss would have no incentive to fire your wife unless there was some greater benefit to be gained, and blackmail creates that greater benefit.

[@blankname1209]

15:49 to that first objection to Epstein, I think this is going to be a question of whether or not legal means are the best way of discouraging acts. I’m not convinced that we shouldn’t regulate advertising, but I do think there’s a relevant difference in the legal scope and precision of blackmail vs advertising. Advertising regulations may have worse downstream free speech effects, they might encourage more illicit practices from companies, and determining which advertisements are too aspirational is mostly a subjective question. So just because two things have similar effects does not mean both should be illegal, if legal mechanisms are a poor way of addressing the cause of these practices.

[@blankname1209]

16:37 that second objection feels really strange to me, because the issue isn’t just that Blackmail Inc becomes accessors to wrongful deceit, but also they have an incentive to threaten to out people who legitimately deceive. I would rather be gay in a society without blackmail because even if blackmail inc might help me suppress info, it will always come with a price that, if not paid, will get my information released. In a society without blackmail most people will have no incentive to look into my private life that thoroughly

[@blankname1209]

28:47 I kinda disagree that driving a hard bargain isn’t also coercive and dominating. If you’re an anti-capitalist of some variety it’s actually very easy to bite this bullet.

[@blankname1209]

29:18 I also don’t find the “enforceable contract” objection very compelling, because presumably finding someone liable for breach of contract isn’t going to mean much when the information you wanted suppressed is now released. Like you might recover your money, but doing so will inherently involve disclosing what the contract was meant to conceal (or else how can you confirm that they handled that information improperly?).

[@KaneBaker420]

Why should it be illegal to give people an incentive to do harmful things? It's sometimes legal to advertise cigarettes. This incentivizes something harmful.

[@sevensins3584]

So what if i walk up to a complete stranger and say " give me 50 dollars or else i will eat this can of beans!" Maybe this person really dont want to see me chug a can of beans. Maybe they are worried about me choking. Maybe they think beans are gross. It doesnt sound illegal but if they really dont want me to eat it then would it not be blackmail? 🤔

[@drdca8263]

I don’t think it is blackmail in the sense of the word discussed in this video?

[@tomholroyd7519]

@PBoyle would love a special on blackmail

[@tomholroyd7519]

There is usually the underlying assumption that you're being blackmailed because you committed a crime. If that crime is heinous enough, would the blackmail be forgiven because you revealed it, or would it be even more heinous than the original crime? Raise your hands if you liked the opening of Mr. Robot

[@krunkle5136]

Although there are legal things that can happen to someone that might drive them to crime, it still doesn't make those things right. But of course these things like rent increase, job loss, denial of housing have complex causes that might even have something to do with the individual, as much as they should improve themselves, there should ideally be more people in society who recognize the social responsibility of owning a business etc than just seeing it as a mechanical thing that generates profit as its only reason for existence. This isn't true. A business, housing etc relies on a stable society to exist, and in adding long term value and stability (instead of maximizing profits), it can go on existing in a harmony most people at the end of the day want.

[@denersdef4163]

Sheeeeeeesh, i guess legal acts are not closed under addition 😢

[@tomholroyd7519]

the 2nd paradox!

[@Sammasambuddha]

What about my neighbor's mail?

[@InventiveHarvest]

Yeah, I don't really see a paradox here. Blackmail should be legal as the economics of this theory are solid. Legal blackmail seems to be a market solution to achieve the efficient amount of secrecy. It looks like a solid application of the coarse theorem.

[@pookz3067]

It’s not so simple. A quick search on google or any academic journal searches your employer has access to would give you lots homework as to whether cosean analysis falls on the side of legalize or regulating blackmail. I do not see how anyone who isn’t primarily ideologically motivated (which you clearly are) can dismiss that coase almost certainly doesn’t apply to this market (though we can probably carve out exceptions to specific types of blackmail).

[@swank8508]

cant the victim be society? revealing photos of the politician helps society, and not doing so harms society

[@dominiks5068]

this kind of reasoning seems to lead to totalitarianism very fast - why not have a legal duty to report revealing photos to the public then?

[@samuelmelton8353]

I guess the assumption is, ideally, a detriment to society would be covered by law - if having a personal affair was seen as being in the public interest, then it would already be something not allowed or something a politician would have to disclose by law. Neither are the case, so we might infer that politician's affairs are not harming society or that the law is insufficient but would be changed if it better reflected society's wishes. It might hinder democratic choice if people vote for them on their character - but again, if hypocrisy or secret sordid acts were sufficiently harmful we could simply elect a government that would pass legislation concerning these things.

[@Nooy_]

Well, then were back to the components of the sum. Is finding out a politician has done something dislikable but not illegal and not spreading the information illegal?

[@lukandrate9866]

A person is alive yet each atom that makes up that person isn't. Seems like we aren't alive 🤔

[@inoculatedcity]

hi Kane you were in my dream last night

[@inoculatedcity]

OMG just got to your ad, I also was worried this morning that you would randomly delete the channel like you did the discord wtf

[@skaihooks72]

Hi Dr. Baker! About the two problems posed against the relations-of-domination argument: For 1: I don't think distinguishing blackmail from hard-bargaining in this regard is an issue. Hard-bargaining over crucial resources like water, food, territories to acquire crucial resources, etc. has been observed to create relations of domination in many societies. Moreover, in anthropology and social science, a major hypotheses for the creation of social hierarchies is the ability for individuals and groups to leverage material bargaining power over other individuals and groups. So I think that this urge to draw a distinction between blackmail and hard-bargaining is odd because Blackmail can be understood as special case of hard-bargaining, rather than something different from it. Accepting this is only a 'problem' insofar as it encourages us to rethink other economic relations. But to me it seems that many of the issues with our economic system are a result of this ability to establish relations of domination via material bargaining power. So I am all for trying to establish alternatives. For 2: Here, the example given assumes that a relation-of-domination entails a break-of-contract. However, this needn't be the case. Realistically, if blackmail contracts are legalized, the blackmailers would opt for some type of recurring payment structure, and write their contracts with this in mind. Furthermore, contracts can stipulate payment increases over time. Thus, a relation of domination is maintained because there exists an indefinite unconditional threat to release compromising information for money. If this is legal it may encourage more blackmail and lead to far more relations of domination in society, which is worse than criminalizing it. If blackmail is legalized only for one-time-payment contracts, then it is this relation of domination that is being criminalized, not the blackmail itself, so the argument stands. Criminalizing blackmail outright may be practically easier than regulating a weird limited blackmail market while also dealing with the unregulated blackmail blackmarket.

[@pookz3067]

Does there need to be a consistent reason why blackmail is illegal? Isn’t it just a negotiation of population preferences that falls however it falls? Is there an ethical goal that laws should have in mind jn your eyes? I always viewed them as a sort of ad hoc game theoretic negotiation between cooperative and non cooperative behavior. And however people negotiate for themselves is “correct,” even if we think it decreases their economic gain of if they later think they made a mistake. Let’s say A and B are in some abstract consequentialist or economic sense equivalent, but for cultural/historical reasons A is illegal while B is not. Because I grew up in such a society, I view A and B differently and want to keep A illegal and B not. I do not see any issue with this kind of inconsistency, nor do I see an issue with people who prefer consistency and try to convince those people to be more consistent.

[@HeyWelcomeToMyWorld]

🔵

[@vallewabbel9690]

Kane, you better keep releasing videos or I will press the unsubscribe button.

[@ahuk]

אכן ידידי.🙂👍

[@SARX-ng1uv]

כן. 😈

[@ahuk]

@SARX-ng1uv אחע💀

[@ahuk]

ישראלונים בקהל?😭🙏

[@SARX-ng1uv]

@@ahuk ישראלואידים אחוק

[@ahuk]

@SARX-ng1uv חחח אנימת

[@horsymandias-ur]

Richard Epstein huh

[@1767hfdh]

I promise you it will be the last thing you do :D

[@1767hfdh]

but if you keep making your helpful videos you might be rewarded in the future :)

[@BumbleTheBard]

In some cases blackmail might be wrong because a person may be considered to have a right to privacy. If someone gained access to your medical records and asked for money not to disclose them, that is wrong because it is an unreasonable misuse of private information. The man cheating on his wife is a more tricky example because it depends on who you sympathise with. In some cultures, keeping a mistress is considered acceptable. In some situations, the man might have an arrangement with his wife about who he sleeps with.

[@jonasjensen9305]

Obviously, the case of threatening to release medical files is one of extortion, not blackmail, since that is illegal.

[@Nooy_]

But then blackmail isnt the crime, its the acquiring of the information

[@drdca8263]

@@Nooy_What if they have a good reason for having the information? Like, what if it’s your doctor threatening to release some embarrassing medical records?

[@misterkefir]

NO. Next question.

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

seems like a lame "paradox". Classic composition fallacy...

[@Redtornado6]

Yes blackmail should be legalized. You should not criminalize non agressive acts

[@necrotafeio]

libertarian morals are so weird bro

[@FabBadDog]

Thanks!