prh8

They're not losing the bottom third of employees, no company ever wants this.

That's not the conversations they are banning though. Many of the conversations are actually about the company itself and its culture. This is not people "wasting time" and sowing discord via typical political topics.

Apple has a few personalized playlists that get updated weekly, I really enjoy them. Seems like in general, Spotify fans think Spotify is superior, AM fans think it's superior. I've tried to use Spotify recently for a couple's subscription and I find the UX worse, but maybe it's just different more than anything.

At a minimum I'd hope for a copy plus fixing the issues.

But I like seeing it tailored a little more towards the target audience.

His point was the regulation of planes, not the planes themselves. Which is effectively what forms the "safety of today's planes" that you are looking for.

Same here but I might try again

The two main things are privacy and freedom. For various political discussions this year, it seems many on here believe in absolute privacy even when it's not reasonable: ie. privacy in your own home is good but that doesn't include being able to commit murder and be protected. Freedom of speech is good, but I don't think it extends to political figures being able to incite violence.

And honestly, my comment was somewhat hyperbolic, in response to a lot of the discussion that occurred last night on this topic of Amazon vs Parler. Many people were equating the violence of Wednesday with "somebody not liking us," trying to suggest that this single extreme situation is an indicator of Amazon/big tech freely making political decisions (much like this linked article) for run of the mill things.

I appreciate your polite question and your critical-thinking takes in your comment history.

Pretty sure if you attempt insurrection in China, it's going to end much worse for you than it did here.

For all the "making the world a better place," it seems so many in tech would rather it be the downfall of society, just to make a stand on the absolute extremes of some hypothetical principles.

Well the entirety of the US that doesn't ignore science or peddle conspiracy theories has easily decided yes. Not sure why you are even asking. 5 people dead. Continued threats for more. What more do you need?

Apple requires moderation tools for public user generated content for all apps. If Parler is refusing to do anything, this falls well within Apple's standard rules.

To be on a tech site and say US == Amazon is basically trolling.

The summer violence is not equitable to what's being planned on Parler. This is not run of the mill shit going on.

That question is only applicable if you equate this extreme current situation with something incredibly bland and normal.

That was literally the purpose of Parler, to be a safe haven for those people.

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion when Parler has been specifically used to plan more violence this week, after many of the people involved have been booted from Twitter.

Pretty much anyone with any intelligence can determine this, in particular, is harmful to society. This situation isn't just "someone bad saying nice things" and to suggest that is completely disingenuous.

The problems so far are not related to the particular vaccines, but rather the lack of planning and money for said management. 10m doses have been distributed but only 2m given so far. States are really struggling due to lack of federal assistance in $$ and planning.

Yes

I originally left out the word "he," which made my question less clear. But if a president encouraged murder, do you think that should be left alone? What if he tweeted he would pardon anyone, even further encouraging it?

If a sitting POTUS tweeted that it would be legal to go murder people of minority groups, should Twitter let that sit there unencumbered?

Ideals are great until they are not beneficial.

What if he tweeted encouraging people to go murder [insert any of the groups he has repeatedly attacked] ? Would the absolutism of allowing that outweigh the obvious problems it would bring on?

I'm not confusing the two, I am fully aware of the methods the rich use generate their wealth while not contributing any of it back via taxes or any form typically.

Bezos wealth has doubled during the pandemic. As we discuss the pandemic pushing people into poverty, do you genuinely think it's asinine to judge the current system but not him?

Doesn't appear like it

Sadly, looking at other comments here and history it doesn't appear to be a joke

Considering that the current system is built on theft by the richest in the form of worker mistreatment, doesn't it all balance out?

Amazon is a perfect example of this, you want to protect Bezos against the workers in shitty conditions that are surveilled and actively antagonized?

This would be funny if it wasn't entirely plausible around here

Anyone who has used Tinder for 5 minutes knows there's very little to estimate for most users

Absolutely, but that screening is reasonable. The same screening at run of the mill companies isn't.

The rarity of this scenario is not remotely close to once every 3 years, and not everyone is interviewing to work on something so obscenely performance dependent.

Probably >99% of developers will never encounter something like this in their career.