Hacker News Reader

Comment by _fat_santa | Hacker News Reader

I remember reading the story about Lauren Southern a few days ago, they banned her parents because they didn't like Lauren's politics (shes a very polarizing figure). I totally get bans when a guest damages property or breaks rules, but the whole reason this got kicked up in the news because that ban was just so overtly political.

View on HN

They didn't ban her parents because they didn't like their daughter's politics, they likely had reason to believe Lauren attempted to circumvent her own ban by using her parents as a go-between or even through impersonating one or both of her parents (things like IPs, phone device IDs, etc can be used as signals although we all have to admit they aren't a smoking gun just hints). But due to legal risk are unable to disclose means or methods for how they did so or to comment publicly on the decision. So of course there's no way to prove this, but it would be typical of the types of systems that large tech companies' trust and safety systems use everyday. Ultimately with some situations like this they are making a judgment call and weighing brand risk if they get it wrong and retain a bad actor especially if said actor remains on the platform and does something even worse in the future VS the sort of injustice of removing a good actor due to being too careful/overly cautious. Guess which usually wins.

Source: work in Trust and Safety (not at Airbnb).

> But due to legal risk are unable to disclose means or methods for how they did so or to comment publicly on the decision. So of course there's no way to prove this, but it would be typical of the types of systems that large tech companies' trust and safety systems use everyday.

And the kinds of systems that produce Kafkaesque articles on HN every other day, where a transparent appeals process needs to be forced onto those companies by the government, or they need to be broken up by antitrust legislation.

Yeah I think a lot of us who work in tech TNS honestly welcome regulation.

That's gratuitous and done for spite only. I really don't want to do business with a company that seeks revenge because of internal political activism. It's gross. Within their legal rights as it stands today, but gross nonetheless.

IIRC they banned Southern not for her politics but for being closely associated to people who had unacceptable politics, and then banned her parents for being closely associated with Southern.

See, PageRank isn't dead - it's just used on people now

“Very polarizing” is one way to put it, considering she’s been banned from entering the UK.

Brits arrest people for silently praying (so... standing) near an abortion clinic or teaching their dog to do a nazi salute. Not exactly paragons of sound judgement.

Brits are certainly not paragons of sound judgment, but arresting people who are making a public show of harassing women is one case where they are making a perfectly good judgment.

Which case are you referencing?

Only the US has any pretensions to universal free speech. Most places recognize that it has limits and rules.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035

Quite an achievement being bad enough to get interviewed by the anti-terrorist police. Although I imagine if you told US border control that your intent in entering the country was to start fights and promote violence they wouldn't let you in either.

"Your politics hurt my feelings so you and anyone you know is banned from using my service."

How is this reasonable to anybody? Left wingers get mad when a baker pulls this on a gay couple but apparently it's ok as long as it's against someone they don't like?

Well, the specific reasons matter. Surely Airbnb should ban some people because of their political views (eg members of ISIS), the question is just what the line is.

I would argue that ISIS shouldn't be banned for their political views, but rather for their participation in a criminal organization. Punishing people for their political views pushes them towards extremism

Fair enough.

What about Michael Knowles? He just went up on stage and called for "transgenderism" to be "eradicated" from public life [1]. Apparently, he shadow-quoted a Himmler speech while doing so [2].

For the safety of the Airbnb community and in particular the trans people in it, Airbnb should clearly ban him and his close associates. No?

[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/16320571985...

[2] https://mobile.twitter.com/GalenMetzger1/status/163218769102...

"If ISIS had a streaming service you would be calling your agents," -Ricky Gervais

How soon until you can choose host and guest flavours? What would be the scales then too? Sexual orientation, religion, politics, race, age, gender?

Thankfully, we are moral agents with the capacity to decide whether particular forms of discrimination are good or bad.

10/10 satire.

Why should they ban some people because of their political views? Why should they ban ISIS members? I can see banning people because those people damaged houses (out had the places damaged during their rental) but not for political views. Whatever happened to "I may not like what you have you say, but I will fight for your right to say it?"

LOL, well, at least your view is self-consistent.

BTW what happened to the quote frequently misattributed to Voltaire is that the Nazis happened.

That goes both ways. Many right wing states are currently trying to ban drag shows.

Do you mean they're trying to ban children from drag shows? Those are very different things. For comparison, consider that the US hasn't banned pornography but has banned children from pornography.

No, Tennessee has banned drag performances, period, with wording that makes it very easy to claim that any trans person in a public place violates it. (Easy enough that it seems likely to me that that's the intent.)

Are you talking about this? https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillN...

Because it seems pretty explicit that it doesn't apply in places where only adults are allowed. And how could a specification of people "who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" apply to any trans person in a public place?

> it doesn't apply in places where only adults are allowed

Like...in public.

Or in many other places where someone in drag might be.

Or in most places that a trans person might be.

Drag performances are not inherently sexual, and are not inherently intended only for adults. The idea that they must be sexual in nature is part of the propaganda being spread by conservatives to try to invoke the "think of the children" effect.

There are a number of places that have "drag reading times" at libraries that are very popular, just as a quick example.

The problem is that it's so broad that it can easily be abused. Many drag performances are not sexual (e.g. drag queen story time). Even those who are sexual are generally no more so than your average pop concert. They are a far cry from something like pornography or strip clubs.

More pertinently, Tennessee is in the middle of restricting transition care for adults: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/anti-trans-...

It's the difference between refusing service because of an inherent aspect of someone (like their sexual orientation) and refusing service because someone is choosing to actively broadcast their highly inflammatory opinions.

You know the baker didn’t refuse service and was happy to sell them an already made cake, he just didn’t want to make a cake with a gay couple on it, right? Are you really saying the multiple lawsuits weren't ridiculous?

The cake shop never refused service to anyone because of an inherent aspect of anyone (how would they know?).

They'd happily bake a birthday/retirement/graduation cake for a gay person.

They refused to use their own artistic talents to inscribe a message that they disagreed with. They refused to participate in the words, not the people.

Kind of like you might refuse to make a MAGA cake.

In California, political affiliation is nominally a protected category. But not federally. So I think we as a society have decided some things are okay and some aren't and there's no real reason for much of it except rationalization. We've decided that sexual orientation is different from political affiliation and that's it.

For instance, how is it reasonable that, in many places, nipple pasties are legal but exposing a nipple is not? It just is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com