Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ajamesm's comments login

No, that doesn't constitute implicit moral approval. We all understand that platforms and providers can't police each individual user. That's a concern about logistics, not moral consistency.

That said -- there are products that Shopify does (and would) kick a user for selling. Shopify isn't neutral, in fact, they're saying Breitbart is acceptable.


Do you not see the inherent difference between prohibiting the sale of whole classes of goods and services, and prohibiting certain types of political speech by your users?


> Do you not see the inherent difference...

No. Things that get banned almost always have significant political content.

Homosexual content (not necc. porn) comes to mind as a perfect example of "whole classes of goods and services" that are also very much political speech. "obscene speech" (see The Howl trial) is another famous example of an attempt to re-brand "political speech" as an apolitical "whole class of goods and services".

Taking some class of controversial goods and services and branding it as "not political" is just begging the question. It's saying "this thing is so obviously bad that discussion of its acceptability is beyond the scope of our current politics." IMO saying something is "beyond politics" is the ultimate political judgement.


> No. Things that get banned almost always have significant political content.

If you look at list of banned goods and services, most of them are not politically related, but are related to liability, abuse potential and (probably) payment processor restrictions.

I'm not saying that banning whole classes of goods doesn't have an impact on free speech.

Yet there is still a fundamental difference between having a list of prohibited goods / services and removing a member selling allowed goods and services because you don't like their politics.

The first one is banning the sale of pornographic products on your platform, the second is banning the sale of (otherwise permissible) t-shirts by pornography companies on your platform.


They frame it as "imposition of morality" though the issue is broader than that, i.e. Breitbart's tendency to incitement and spreading disinformation.

Crying "free speech" over issues of incitement or violence is the bread-and-butter of the alt-right, and I'm deeply curious as to why Shopify decided to employ that tactic.

> In a way, my position is an appeal to preserve some of the gray in the world. All solutions necessarily have to come from the middle ground.

This is bankrupt, morally and intellectually.


As someone who owns a couple rental units, the prospect of being a rent-seeking gentrifier or a slumlord


Lmao, if you paid $10 you got ripped off.


yeah, real shame that the unmitigated sexual harassment got in the way of their complete avoidance of regulations


The regulations by and large were simply there to protect incumbents that wanted to keep out competition which offered higher customer value (by offering lower cost, more responsive, less greenhouse gas) service.

Unlike AirBnB which does break NY City and NY State laws, Uber has been following regulations that are imposed by the NYC Taxi & Limousine commission (e.g., screening drivers, etc.).


I see this "incumbents" narrative touted a lot, but it just ain't so. Non-medallion livery companies (black cabs) have been in NYC for a looooong time.


But because of stupid laws protecting Yellow Cab monopoly, it is against the law to street hail them, having to call instead. Also, not a reliable single brand, also they don't take credit cards, unlike Yellow Cabs.


And street-hailing is so important that you're willing to defend a service that doesn't use it?


iPhone hailing to me and many others at least, is effectively street hailing. Not certain what your beef is with Uber. Service and costs have dramatically improved since they and Uber/Via/Gett/Juno came, even in Manhattan.


It's against the law to street hail an Uber as well. Uber works because hailing one with your phone is legally equivalent to calling a cab company, not sticking out your hand.


> less greenhouse gas

An estimated 160.000 cars driving for Uber in the US, many of which doing so as a full time job will pollute less. Right. Riiiiight.


Uber Pool has 2 or more unrelated passengers using the same car for transit hence less greenhouse gas compared with using separate vehicles. Elementary!


Genuinely lmao at the narrative that the taxi unions all got together and conspired against greener rides


What were those regulations doing for us as consumers, exactly?


You send a message to [the person who can prove ownership of HN username 'perfmode'].

c.f.: https://keybase.io/docs/kbfs

  Soon, you'll be able to throw data into /keybase/private/yourname,pal@twitter,
  even if that Twitter user hasn't joined Keybase yet.
  Your app will encrypt just for you and then awake and
  rekey in the background when that Twitter user joins
  and announces a key.


Companies that grant options could fix this in a heartbeat by extending exercise windows; they choose not to do that. Nothing to do with AMT here.

If AMT repeal would 'fix' stock options, companies will change the terms to 'break' them again because they are handcuffs, not payments.


Nothing says "normal demands of everyday life" like bouncing quarters off of bedsheets


You'd... know if it was him. He'd, uh, have some choice words about Bomb Man.


I was most surprised by this CEO who goes around messaging randoms on LinkedIn to start friendly conversations. Does that happen?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: