Hacker News Reader

Comment by SR2Z | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I'm being surveilled and profiled by these companies. Let their CEOs feel maximum heat.

Having a dedicated team to track protests and avoid them to protect your own life is "maximum heat."

Or, they stop doing things that enrage millions of people and the protests go away. They don’t need protection from their actions at everyone’s privacy expense, they need to face the people and adjust their actions until that’s something they’re willing to do.

Many people have to make unpopular decisions because society needs them to. Would you say the same thing about, say, a politician raising gas taxes?

What about a ridehailing app that displaces a taxi cartel with a long track record of being awful for consumers?

A world where people are not free to do unpopular things without being torn to shreds by angry mobs seems deeply impoverished to me.

"The people" at one point supported slavery, racism, etc., etc. Is AI like any of those? Probably not, but the same principles apply. The law is a much better option than mob rule, and tracking protests is hardly a violation of anyone's rights.

Yes, if you want power you should also face the downside of misusing it (which these people are). I would love to see these protests brought to the offices and homes of the CEOs.

If your take is "terrorizing people for making unpopular decisions is good" then you are not a serious person. Protesting is fine, harassment is not, and protesting outside someone's home is most certainly harassment.

I am confident that you would find a protest outside your home about you to be terrifying. Any sane person would. It's not acceptable and is not protected by the first amendment.

I don't do things that would make people protest outside my house. These people did, and while you may not think I'm a "serious person", you're going to find that society is going in this direction due to the flagrant abuse coming from those in power. Do you not know about the French revolution?

If you do things which impact a large number of people, you will inevitably piss some of them off.

> Do you not know about the French revolution?

The main losers in the French revolution were regular people, and the country ended up under a totalitarian dictator who conquered large swathes of Europe and invented the concept of total war. I'm not sure you should be holding it up as an example of protests (which were astonishingly violent in this case) leading to good and reasonable outcomes.

If you do things that impact a large number of people, you should definitely feel the consequence of your actions. No one is forced into these positions, in fact they work very hard to acquire power over others. That should come with very real downsides.

Regardless of whether you think the French revolution was good or not, it was the inevitable outcome of a very similar situation we find ourselves in.

There are a ton of problems with this take. What if you crack down on a cult with 1000 members that's taken over a small town? In your book it's a-ok for them to start harassing their enemies? Because that is a logical consequence of the opinion you're espousing here, it's what actually happens, and nobody arguing in good faith thinks that's OK either.

> Regardless of whether you think the French revolution was good or not, it was the inevitable outcome of a very similar situation we find ourselves in.

A major cause of the French revolution was food insecurity caused by bad weather. Since you're such an expert surely you know that because "let them eat cake" was one of the major quotes from the period.

People literally starving is not even remotely "similar" to what's happening now.

> such a casual attitude towards violence.

How is protest violence?

I’m all for protesting, but surely you can agree that there is heightened risk if a person is in close proximity to people who oppose them strongly enough to act.

The whole purpose of a protest is to cause behavioral change; their hustling them out the back door is a success.

Do protests ever lead to violence? Are you being obtuse or do you believe this is actually safe?

All sorts of things can lead to violence, including a failure to protest. With enough weasel words, anything can sound reasonable, to people who don't pay attention to that stuff. So?

Intentionally obtuse, got it.

Does driving a car ever lead to violence? Are you being obtuse or do you believe this is actually safe?

Driving a car is not an emotional act 99.9% of the time. Driving a car while you are emotional is in fact dangerous and often leads to violence.

Pretests aren't dispassionate. That's why they have to be protected, that's also why it's deranged to suggest what you are suggesting. The main difference between the setup of a protest and a lynch mob is that the subject of a peaceful protest isn't usually present.

> How are your rights being violated?

Surveillance capitalism.

> I'm sure you have a solid and thought-out answer that justifies such a casual attitude towards violence.

The ones with a casual attitude towards violence are those executives. Facebook leadership showed an incredibly casual attitude towards the genocide in Myanmar in which their platform played a huge role. Their purchases of doomsday bunkers further help show their attitude towards violence.

There is a world of difference between building a doomsday bunker (which is definitely not limited to the ultra wealthy) and suggesting that someone should walk through a riled up crowd that hates their guts.

If you are unwilling to accept that statement, have a good day, because I'm gonna stop here for my own sanity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com