splaytreemap

This comment has no relevance to anything. I never said law-abiding is a requirement for life.

But I can all but guarantee you will not be able to find more than one or two examples of police killing a law-abiding citizen and receiving no punishment. It doesn't happen.

And for those that aren't familiar with Caltrain, that train blasts its horn two or three times before each stop and the horn is so loud that you can hear it from a mile away. Living as close to the train as that house is would be miserable.

You're essentially saying "don't use data to inform your decisions." This is trolling at best. No idea how this is the top comment here.

Every website on the open web is a walled garden. Attacking Facebook for doing something every other website does is an attack on the open web.

Your argument is tantamount to saying the US isn't a free country because you have to take your shoes off when you visit your friend's house. And then saying your friend should be required to pay you for taking your shoes off.

They could very easily opt out of getting scraped by Google. They choose not to though because it is beneficial to them to have Google help people find their content.

Also note, Australia has specifically said removing article snippets from search results is not enough for Google to avoid payment. This legislation is not about protecting websites from content theft. It's solely about the Australian government forcing Google and Facebook to pay the propagandists that helped them get elected.

Metallica almost certainly still got paid, so I doubt they care much. Blizzard is probably furious.

"Money is made up therefore it serves no purpose" is just a bafflingly implication. Care to provide any detail at all about how your moneyless society is going to work?

Google Play Store is a monopoly. Developers literally can't leave unless they want their android installs to decline by 99%.

That post is three hours old with 1000+ points but is somehow ranked below multiple older posts with fewer points. It's currently ranked #27 putting it at the bottom of the homepage. It seems somebody is manipulating HN's ranking in effort to push it off the front page.

Let's see if the DOJ goes after them for predatory pricing first. Twitter may have bought themselves enough favor with the Biden administration that he'll let it slide.

Yup, the argument that they must be evil because they're named after a crystal ball from Lord of the Rings is one of the least convincing things I've ever heard. I have no idea why this is so consistently parroted on this forum.

It's the exact opposite of parasitic. Search engines scrape your site so that they can help users find your site.

If you don't want Google scraping your content, add a noindex directive or robots.txt to your site and Google won't scrape it or link to it.

How exactly do you think Australia is going to enforce this mandate if Google has no presence in Australia. Are they going to have the military invade California?

The mainstream media won't pick this up because they like Twitter. If Facebook had done this, WaPo and CNN would be all over it.

I'm starting to think that the degeneration of society into a 1984-style dystopia may now be unavoidable. We need to take power back from big tech and we need to do it now.

Entirely depends on what the goals of the union are. If you want to improve your position in search rankings, a union is not going to help you. If you're a youtube creator who wants a larger cut of advertising revenue, a youtube creators union may make sense.

I find it unlikely that there's any issue that cuts across all of Google's customers (advertisers, publishers, cloud users, gsuite users, etc), so a Google Customers Union probably does not make sense.

Twitter censoring content is only a problem because they have a near monopoly in their domain and present themselves as a platform for everybody. There's no national discussion about HN moderation because it's a much smaller website with relatively few users.

Just in general, if Twitter really believes their platform has the power to induce violence and alter elections, then why are we allowing a small number of unelected Twitter execs complete control to determine how that power is used?

Jack Dorsey's vote shouldn't be worth orders of magnitude more than yours and mine just because he's the CEO of a communications platform.

Pouring gasoline on the fire is kind of the point. Take away people's option to peacefully voice their opinion and violence is the only remaining option. The hope is that these people will commit more violence so that the government can use the violence as an excuse to criminalize their existence.

Not surprising. The election of a Democrat government has emboldened them to start censoring their political enemies with less fear of government reprisal.

This should hopefully spur more competition in the micro-blogging space as conservatives are now forced to create their own alternative. Previous alternatives didn't see much usage since the biggest names like Trump were still on Twitter.

Because it serves as a jumping off point for people of a certain political persuasion to agitate for political change.

Pretty much every politician ever has used manipulative language to try to make themselves sound better than they are. It's why abortion activists call themselves pro-life/pro-choice. To take their words at face value is incredibly naive. For example, the line about "economic justice" almost certainly means the authors believe the company should be used as a propaganda vehicle for socialism/communism. And the line about a "welcoming environment" is an outright lie as shown by these same employees' bullying and harassment of numerous wrong-thinking employees (James Damore and Miles Taylor come to mind as a few examples).

So then why would California force them into that very situation?

It's very much deniable.

This now forces restaurants to sign an agreement and start paying a commission. Previously, they got a free delivery service at no cost to them. Now they either have to pay or lose business. This is bad for the majority of restaurants.

Some companies (Southwest Airlines for example) will refuse service to you if you're wearing a non-standard mask. Wearing the disposable blue surgical masks is the best bet if you don't want to be randomly denied access to somewhere you're going.

The fact that there are only two significant payment processors, and they act in lockstep to deny service to minority groups is a way bigger monopoly threat than Facebook owning both Instagram and WhatsApp. How Visa and MasterCard have escaped anti-trust scrutiny is beyond me.

The media doesn't care right now because it's only Trump's orders getting baselessly delayed. After four years of Biden getting every single one of his executive orders blocked because the Republicans challenged it in the friendliest lower court they could find, I imagine there will finally be some bipartisan support for fixing this problem.

If Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al are not allowed to operate in China, I see no reason why we should allow chinese social media companies to operate here. It would give Chinese companies a huge competitive advantage if they were the only ones allowed to operate in both markets. It's roughly equivalent to China enacting a 100% tariff on American goods, and the US continuing to buy Chinese goods with no tariff at all.

Yup. You can even hear her complaining about the cops pointing guns at her children while she's outside the house and can't possibly know what the police are pointing guns at. I'd bet she was planning this smear campaign from the moment police showed up at her house.

Having guns drawn while making sure there's no threat in the house is perfectly normal. I'd do the exact same if I was executing a search warrant.

Not really. If your girlfriend told you she was planning on breaking up with you after her birthday, would you stay with her until she did it or would you end it immediately?

I think the fact that she had a huge salary is why she feels comfortable doing this. The average person needs their job to pay the bills so they don't want to rock the boat. She's already set for life so she doesn't care who she offends because getting fired is not a big deal for her.