Never really thought about it until I started seeing Google, Twitter, Facebook and other large companies, start banning people for political reasons.
Imagine if you signed into some site using your Facebook account, and then some intern at Facebook moderating posts didn't like some political statement you ban, and suspended your account?
Like the article says, you're not just locked out of Facebook, but any other account that uses Facebook to authenticate.
That give these sites an insane amount of power. You can argue these massive companies have a right to ban whoever they want on their own platforms, for whatever reason they want. But they shouldn't have a right to ban people on other platforms.
Even if a ban/suspension is made in error and can be reversed, that could still cause someone a lot of harm, or be used as a political weapon. That's legitimately scary.
That's the point. People deserve to be paid what they agree to be paid.
The value of money relative to a product or service is subjective. If Bob agrees to mow a lawn for $10, Joe doesn't have the right to object and demand that Bob be paid $20. That's immoral and not how markets should work.
So minimum wage shouldn’t be a thing? The problem with this thinking is that some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make. And without minimum wage, for example, companies would do a race to the bottom and people worse off would have to accept it.
And Joe absolutely does have the right to object to it. If I see someone paying someone a $1 to mow a lawn, I can say they deserve more.
I'm all for minimum wage, but also this is a problem:
> some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make
Some people can't choose because they're in a desperate situation. And some people are in a desperate situation because they made many wrong choices. It's not easy to distinguish between the two. And it's certainly non-binary, but rather a spectrum. I think there can be a large difference between the two extremes of the spectrum.
In a true market the pay for a worker with no special skills will trend towards 0. Uber drivers cannot decide what to charge, Uber does. How much an Uber driver makes is entirely up to Uber, and Uber is losing money on every ride so in the long run they have to either increase the price or pay the driver less. My (large) employer pays for my health insurance in the US which has to be added to what we charge. Uber has to pay nothing for any benefits and can cut the wages to just barely enough to not die. From an economic standpoint Uber should go out of business but it does not since it is getting almost free labor and just raises money to make a profit. I see no way this is a market that makes any sense.
It would make sense if Uber limited the hours employees could work. Make all of these stories about happy part time workers 100% the case. Or if some drivers work full time then pay for their benefits, let Uber lose more money per ride because that doesn't seem to matter.
What a nonsense and biased article. Biden just raised and spent $1 billion on the 2020 campaign, but you won't see The Guardian claiming Biden "bought the election".
Yet if ridesharing companies spend money to advertise their position that, if the new ride-sharing rules were upheld, they would be forced to leave California, depriving thousands of people of work, that's somehow "buying a law"?
It was a referendum. People voted. The facts were on the side of Uber and Lyft, and they were able to persuade the public to see that.
The law was being pushed knowing full well that it would have killed Uber and Lyft. It was strongly supported by the unions who see Uber and Lyft as an existential threat. The unions can't compete with them, so they tried using the politicians they've bought to effectively outlaw them. Fortunately, it didn't work.
Uber and Lyft provide a service millions of people voluntarily use, with drivers who voluntarily chose to work. That's how our society should work. Government shouldn't be interfering with voluntary transactions.
You have to stop reading propaganda. If we had a vote around the world, russia and china together would win over the "west" by a long shot. It wasn't russia and china brutalizing the world for 500 years. It isn't russia and china destabilizing much of the world today.
We have to stop believing that the "west" is the world. It's going to bite us in the end one day. The only thing people around the world like is wealth. As china and russia get wealthier, even that won't matter as much.
It's insane to vote for someone who does things you support?
To someone with full blown TDS, sure, a Snowden pardon probably won't sway your opinion at all. But think of someone who leans libertarian and maybe doesn't love Trump but also doesn't hate him, and remembers how the Obama admin forced Snowden to flee and revoked his passport, forcing him to stay in Russia. Seeing a pardon from Trump could move them into being a mild supporter.
A lot of people have one or two big issues that their political allegiance revolves around. It can be abortion rights, gun rights, taxes, the national debt, anything. If someone's core issue is fighting the surveillance state, a Snowden pardon would be a massive change in the landscape.
I wonder though, since Trump signed the extension to warrentless wiretapping, would your vote send a message that a pardon for Snowden is sufficient without institutional change?
Trump seemed to only care that section 702 allowed Carter Page to be wiretapped when the other side of the conversation was out of the country.
Not just Google buy any company's cloud-connected product.
I have a Roomba i7, and it works well, but it's 100% reliant on a web connection to control and to train it's automapping feature.
If iRobot gets bored with the model and decides to discontinue it and the cloud host, am I going to be stuck with an expensive paperweight, even it's mechanically still in great condition?
You're grossly exaggerating. Trump's also used Twitter to float potential policy changes that either weren't implemented or were considerably changed before implementation.
Trump used Twitter to threaten thinly veiled war with North Korea in response to North Korean missile tests, and yet a few months later he was shaking hands with Kim Jong Un.
In some ways, Trump's use of Twitter to A/B test would lessen the impact should a hacker gain access to the account, since most people would probably just dismiss it as "Trump being Trump".
Anyone treating Twitter as a gospel truth is an idiot.
Twitter was originally intended as a way to post personal statuses. Short messages that are self-contained enough to require little elaboration.
Only when people started using Twitter to have long-form political and philosophical conversations of controversial topics, things that inherently require more than 120 characters to properly communicate, did it devolve into a mis-communication tool.
So Twitter is an echochamber within an echochamber.
Were Biden's or Obama's accounts to be hacked, the only effect it would have would likely be with only the extreme fringe of the party. Most Democrats, and virtually all Republicans, would never see it.
Never really thought about it until I started seeing Google, Twitter, Facebook and other large companies, start banning people for political reasons.
Imagine if you signed into some site using your Facebook account, and then some intern at Facebook moderating posts didn't like some political statement you ban, and suspended your account?
Like the article says, you're not just locked out of Facebook, but any other account that uses Facebook to authenticate.
That give these sites an insane amount of power. You can argue these massive companies have a right to ban whoever they want on their own platforms, for whatever reason they want. But they shouldn't have a right to ban people on other platforms.
Even if a ban/suspension is made in error and can be reversed, that could still cause someone a lot of harm, or be used as a political weapon. That's legitimately scary.