Next-level deplatforming. From a non-profit. That essential controls the internet. Yay.
And it’s pretty rich coming from ICANN after they eliminated .org price caps (coincidentally) before their associates tried to usurp the registry for private equity interests.
It’s almost funny to see these multi billion dollar grifters disparaging someone for theft (copyright infringement).
1. Opened a new tab.
2. Pressed the n key.
3. Pressed enter.
Continuously fixing ICANN’s decisions keeps alternatives from catching on.
(I know ICANN is not currently being sponsored by the US government anymore, but they were given their monopoly that way)
Or, y'know, just set up a copy of the DNS system using the existing software and standards for the existing Internet, but using different root servers.
DNS is well documented and open source for the most part, so it's not as if ICANN's control of the root servers means they can't be bypassed.
Deplatforming?
Comically, this is what the riaa did with making claims against Sunde based on US laws and applying them to Sweden.
I think ICANN is a US corporation, but if they are impacting a Swedish company I’m sure there’s some local law that can be used.
It used to have a connection to the US department of commerce but that ended years ago.
But he didn't. The box on the form said "Have you been convicted for fraud?". He hasn't, so he didn't check the box.
Maybe the ICANN-we-dont-want-to-police-the-internet-but-then-we-do-it-anyway-people need more boxes on their forms.
If they were still a threat to society after 5 years or whatever, then they shouldn’t’ve been sentenced to just 5 years. And with innocent people being convicted, the bar to get it fixed is very high because (in some states), you have to not only prove you’re innocence, but that the prosecution messed up (such as withholding evidence). And don’t forget about prosecutorial immunity!
And if it is fixed, how do you answer that question? Yes, you were convicted, but it’s not on your record because you proved your innocence. Yes? No? Answer yes, and you’re denied. Answer no, and when they find out about it, you’re fired, and can only hope your bosses will fight for you and win.
It’s sad really.
I’m not saying you can’t keep a close eye on them. I’m sure a manager would be doing that. What I’m saying is: in America, society has decided that you’re worthless if you go to prison. We try so hard to keep people from reintegrating into the real world, it’s no wonder our recidivism rate is so high.
Presumably if they were let out of prison it's been decided that they are not longer a risk or have paid their debt to society.
So no, convicted murderers should not be prevented from being a cashier, nor any other job they qualify for. At any rate, the best way to steer someone back into crime is to take away their ability to have a job. How else are they supposed to survive?
application denied, due to criminal contacts- as in they investigated my familial references and found an extended family member with unsavoury past.
summary- no hire due to the conduct of a person other than yourself
>“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”
Note the use of "was" here.
> I got some sort of semi-excuse regarding their claim that I lied on my application. They also said that they agreed it wasn’t fraud or similar really. So both of the points they made regarding the denial were not really the reason,” Sunde clarifies.
This sounds different from "concealing criminal history".
Technically you're not a criminal until convicted, only suspected. Likewise, you're not a criminal if you've served your time. The US culture of "ex cons" is shameful.
Is the URL bar lying to me? Am I actually on Bootlicker News, where hackers are not to be trusted, overly-powerful and unaccountable institutions get "understand[ing] and respect", and rulebreaking is grounds for excommunication?
You don't see the problem because you are the problem.
So no Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc?
However, I do think they should come out with a clear, public statement of why those chose not to work with him.
On a tangent... I am really uncomfortable with the fact that your comment was downvoted (enough to be noticeable). I get that people may disagree with the opinion you are expressing with it, but I was under the impression that downvotes on HN are supposed to be for comments that are off topic / do not move the conversation forward / inappropriate / etc. Your comment very clearly does not fall afoul of those rules; it's an opinion to be discussed.