Yelp Says It Will Mark Pages of Businesses Accused of Racist Conduct(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Yelp Says It Will Mark Pages of Businesses Accused of Racist Conduct
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/business/yelp-racism.html
33 comments
How much will they charge businesses to get it removed from their pages ?
Yeah, there is no way this will be abused. #believeallaccusers
Hard to tell if this is (well intentioned, but misguided) OR (They know how easy it will be to abuse, and really want money).
I'm gonna tag all Businesses as racist, I must be right cos I'm PoC. I'll probably hook it up with Yelps own POI API and write a script to tag Everything.
Throw in some other random dog-whistles while we're at it.
Throw in some other random dog-whistles while we're at it.
Can you mark yelp the company as racist on yelp cause they've definitely been accuse of racism. I don't know a specific time but my intuition of how the world works tells me this is true.
[deleted]
This feels like McCarthyism 2.0 and will be abused. I can see someone accusing a business then disagree with of racism even if their disagreement concerns unrelated matters (a lone incident of bad service, an unrelated political position from the owners, a refusal to grant a refund, whatever).
Wouldn't McCarthyism 2.0 be, for example, the ongoing efforts to stigmatize Communism and Socialism in the States? The administration recently banned visas for anyone affiliated with a Communist Party.
Socialism, meanwhile, is very much a dirty word in American politics. Biden and Warren, for instance, went to great lengths to distance themselves from 'Socialism'.
Yes, labeling a business as racist could be misused and is potentially very problematic, but it hardly rises to the level of McCarthyism.
Socialism, meanwhile, is very much a dirty word in American politics. Biden and Warren, for instance, went to great lengths to distance themselves from 'Socialism'.
Yes, labeling a business as racist could be misused and is potentially very problematic, but it hardly rises to the level of McCarthyism.
Modern cancel culture is McCarthyism, but widespread and at scale. There are numerous parallels - accusations without evidence, damaging impact without due process, changing definitions/goal posts, hyperbolic accusations, political repression, and the destruction of many careers. Labeling people with pejoratives is exactly the weapon used to silence opponents. Most typically I’ve seen it used against those that don’t align with progressive viewpoints, although that’s not always the case.
We’ve already seen the damage that cancel culture can do, and so Yelp giving random people a way to damage an individual or business without a principled process (like that of the courts) seems like a really messy and bad idea that’ll make cancel culture worse.
As for your notes on Communism - to me banning visas of those associated with such policies/parties seems reasonable. Marxism/collectivism is responsible for tens of millions of deaths in the 20th century and we have numerous data points showing that these ideas not only don’t work, but that their implementation requires brutal governance that is in conflict with our most basic principles, like free speech. So yes I do not welcome anyone affiliated with such parties into my country just as I would not welcome terrorists.
We’ve already seen the damage that cancel culture can do, and so Yelp giving random people a way to damage an individual or business without a principled process (like that of the courts) seems like a really messy and bad idea that’ll make cancel culture worse.
As for your notes on Communism - to me banning visas of those associated with such policies/parties seems reasonable. Marxism/collectivism is responsible for tens of millions of deaths in the 20th century and we have numerous data points showing that these ideas not only don’t work, but that their implementation requires brutal governance that is in conflict with our most basic principles, like free speech. So yes I do not welcome anyone affiliated with such parties into my country just as I would not welcome terrorists.
Ah, I see. Those are pretty radical stances. You just compared Marxists to terrorists, which is pretty far out there.
Are folks like David Harvey, Cornell West, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc., unwelcome in your hypothetical country?
Sounds like you are equally interested in "cancelling" ideologies, you just have a different set you'd disallow.
Are folks like David Harvey, Cornell West, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc., unwelcome in your hypothetical country?
Sounds like you are equally interested in "cancelling" ideologies, you just have a different set you'd disallow.
> You just compared Marxists to terrorists, which is pretty far out there.
There is ample evidence for this comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
Numerous socialist and communist states require absolute adherence because they hold their ideology in absolute terms. A lot of them are one party states for that reason. I still don't mind people discussing these ideas or supporting them from a free speech perspective, as long as they're not calling for oppression of other views/people/groups, or inciting violence, or engaging in other criminal acts.
But do we need to give them paths to immigrate here? No - we provide those paths when there is benefit to our nation. Why would we provide such a path to those who support an ideology that so consistently results in bad outcomes (both economically and mortally)?
> Sounds like you are equally interested in "cancelling" ideologies, you just have a different set you'd disallow.
Not granting visas to members of communist parties is not the same as "cancelling" them, since they aren't being publicly shamed, or having their job taken away from them, or having their status quo disrupted in any way. But they're unlikely to add value to our society because their ideology fundamentally conflicts with our basic values. As the USCIS stated in their policy guidance:
> Membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party is inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, which includes pledging to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
There is ample evidence for this comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
Numerous socialist and communist states require absolute adherence because they hold their ideology in absolute terms. A lot of them are one party states for that reason. I still don't mind people discussing these ideas or supporting them from a free speech perspective, as long as they're not calling for oppression of other views/people/groups, or inciting violence, or engaging in other criminal acts.
But do we need to give them paths to immigrate here? No - we provide those paths when there is benefit to our nation. Why would we provide such a path to those who support an ideology that so consistently results in bad outcomes (both economically and mortally)?
> Sounds like you are equally interested in "cancelling" ideologies, you just have a different set you'd disallow.
Not granting visas to members of communist parties is not the same as "cancelling" them, since they aren't being publicly shamed, or having their job taken away from them, or having their status quo disrupted in any way. But they're unlikely to add value to our society because their ideology fundamentally conflicts with our basic values. As the USCIS stated in their policy guidance:
> Membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party is inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, which includes pledging to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
> There is ample evidence for this comparison:
Among the problems with your evidence is that it all concerns Leninist and their ideological descendants. While capitalists tend to accept the Leninist propaganda that Leninism is Marxism, non-Leninist Marxists have, from very early in the existence of Leninism, viewed it as a departure, and even characterized it as “state capitalism”.
So, even to the extent that it represents a general problem with Leninism, and also generalizes to a broader category, whether the right broader category is “Marxist” or “capitalist” or something else is a matter itself of ideological dispute that would require additional evidence to answer in any objective fashion, if that is even possible.
Among the problems with your evidence is that it all concerns Leninist and their ideological descendants. While capitalists tend to accept the Leninist propaganda that Leninism is Marxism, non-Leninist Marxists have, from very early in the existence of Leninism, viewed it as a departure, and even characterized it as “state capitalism”.
So, even to the extent that it represents a general problem with Leninism, and also generalizes to a broader category, whether the right broader category is “Marxist” or “capitalist” or something else is a matter itself of ideological dispute that would require additional evidence to answer in any objective fashion, if that is even possible.
You've clearly selected your data to match your existing understanding of the world.
You've selected one carefully curated statistic and used it to justify a sweeping generalization you already held about "Marxists".
You also are "lying by omission". Yes, autocratic governments that call themselves communist have killed a great many people in famines and political killings.
But so have many democratic governments and non communist autocratic governments. (To say nothing of the hundreds of millions of deaths at the hands of Capitalism.)
Look, we can disagree politically. But please at least do so honestly and in good faith.
You've selected one carefully curated statistic and used it to justify a sweeping generalization you already held about "Marxists".
You also are "lying by omission". Yes, autocratic governments that call themselves communist have killed a great many people in famines and political killings.
But so have many democratic governments and non communist autocratic governments. (To say nothing of the hundreds of millions of deaths at the hands of Capitalism.)
Look, we can disagree politically. But please at least do so honestly and in good faith.
So much for innocent until proven guilty
It's their free speech, and Yelp isn't a court of law. If there is an article reporting a business as engaged in racist practices, it is their right to link to such an article on the website Yelp owns.
Yelp says it will mark businesses as racist randomly then charge them to remove the marks.
I’d be curious to see an example - there aren’t any in the article.
Let's mark Yelp as Fascist because they think they have to be the Jude/DOJ in a Country with Free Speech.
OR stop using that blackmail company.
OR stop using that blackmail company.
Ain't it cool? Protection rackets are learning how to do PR and posing themselves as nice guys doing the right thing.
Yelp business model is basically taking the "influencers" game to scale mixed with the mafia "protection" service.
Remember when we were promised the "knowledge of the crowds"? Yelp, Putin and Facebook were smarter and gave us digitally manipulated lynch mobs instead. It seems far easier and more profitable to harness and manipulate ignorance than knowledge.
Yelp business model is basically taking the "influencers" game to scale mixed with the mafia "protection" service.
Remember when we were promised the "knowledge of the crowds"? Yelp, Putin and Facebook were smarter and gave us digitally manipulated lynch mobs instead. It seems far easier and more profitable to harness and manipulate ignorance than knowledge.
It could also be a distraction or appeasement from internal issues:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544825
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24544825
Does anyone remember Social Autopsy? Yelp just found it's Business model.
Why would this not be the subject of a defamation suit?
Are review sites normally the target of such suits or is it the poster of the review?
These would be linking to credible news outlets, so seems like the owner should take it up with them. My guess is it is hard to win a defamation suit against the lawyers for someone like the NYT.
These would be linking to credible news outlets, so seems like the owner should take it up with them. My guess is it is hard to win a defamation suit against the lawyers for someone like the NYT.
Ah, so like Wikipedia they will launder their ideology through "credible news outlets".
"Don't blame us! A source with no proof and an axe to grind, told unverifiable gossip to an unaccountable journalist, who just happens to agree with us politically. But we're credible, so you're a racist now."
This is actually a good thing. Though the mainstream media has very little remaining credibility, Yelp will help eradicate the remaining shreds by further exposing the myth that media has built around itself; namely that they are unbiased, trustworthy purveyors of truth.
"Don't blame us! A source with no proof and an axe to grind, told unverifiable gossip to an unaccountable journalist, who just happens to agree with us politically. But we're credible, so you're a racist now."
This is actually a good thing. Though the mainstream media has very little remaining credibility, Yelp will help eradicate the remaining shreds by further exposing the myth that media has built around itself; namely that they are unbiased, trustworthy purveyors of truth.
Well, you are free to make consumer choices as you like. I appreciate Yelp surfacing relevant news articles about a business, but if you don't trust the news - you are free to continue patronizing.
I don't get why other choices by consumers upsets you so much?
I don't get why other choices by consumers upsets you so much?
I'm not upset, I like watching corrupt people and organizations expose themselves and each other.
What could go wrong?
A noble effort, for sure, but to properly adjudicate this could consume boundless resources.
On the other hand, paying Yelp money to take down such notices from a business's page could be a robust revenue stream. Didn't something like this happen before?
On the other hand, paying Yelp money to take down such notices from a business's page could be a robust revenue stream. Didn't something like this happen before?
Good intention or not, it reeks of ochlocracy and ignorance, and throw in potential quasi-extortion-for-revenue tactics.
If you read the article, the "credible media outlet" would be adjudicating. If it is defamatory, they can take it up with the outlet.