> Despite these people clearly being partially responsible for encouraging one of their members to violence, none of them will get in trouble because they never gave direct threats or incitements.
That's legal for very important reasons. People have a right to freedom of speech and the right to assembly. They don't have a right to commit murder. There's a huge leap from complaining about something to committing violence in real life. The latter is rightfully illegal and the former is rightfully legal (in the United States).
The idea isn't to curtail people's freedom to assembly. It's to stop mass shootings. As much as you dislike it, people are free to organize and discuss whatever they want. They just aren't allowed to commit violence.
There are other ways to deal with this than censorship. Why are there not FBI agents in /pol/ on 8chan actively chasing up leads on people who are threatening violence? It seems actually useful that these people are willing to make these kind of plans in the public eye. Force them underground and behind encryption and it will be harder to monitor.
Does anyone know how law enforcement engages with places like 8chan?
Instead of curtailing free speech and pushing for censorship (which will have anti-humanitarian effects soon enough), why not enforce the laws already on the books and investigate people who threaten violence online?
This is the slippery slope that people worry about and why they fight against banning things like 8chan. First it's banning 8chan, then it's /r/The_Donald. What's next?
Mass shooters are a problem that must be dealt with. Pretending that everything to the right of mainstream Democrats is a pipeline to mass shooters that must be silenced is the type of thing that radicalizes people. It's unduly oppressive and it dehumanizes people you may not happen to agree with.
Yes it says boingboing are hypocrites and not the right people to spread this message. At the very least they could have used this as an opportunity to say “you may have noticed we have tons of tracking on this article, here’s why...”.
There’s something to be said about being a trustworthy source.
A lot of time people will move to a new job for a more senior position than their current job. Being a Sr. Engineer at a Series A funded startup can be very different than being a Sr. Engineer at Facebook (not always, but often). I would expect a higher bar at a larger engineering organization.
If someone is effectively testing for these more difficult subject matters then it's quite possible that they themselves and other co-workers are competent in them (as they passed the same test).
This is such a great response and I've had similar experiences. As you become more senior you also get more managerial responsibilities which can eat into your time/energy budget to stay up to date on tech not directly related to your job. You may also get more life responsibilities as you age (family...) that further erode your technical edge.
Good on you for having the introspective skills and awareness to identify the problem and do something about it.
Yes, as a manager you shouldn't become friends with your reports anyway. It happens but it always complicates things. If for no other reason then you have a perception issue with your other reports that you don't have a relationship with. Did your friend get a promotion because they're good or your friend? Did they not get the promotion because they're your friend and you're worried about optics?
This doesn't even touch even more difficult situations like when your friend messes up and needs to be dealt with in a professional but non-personal manner.
> There's a small subset of the population for whom meat consumption is some kind of cultural statement
If we're talking about the global population I'd say it's more than a small subset and it's not a cultural "statement", it's just culture.
People in Mexico aren't going to eat fake lengua or carnitas. Doro wat with fake chicken? Anything grilled or bbq'd. Sashimi, sushi...
People have been eating some of this stuff for hundreds if not thousands of years. I think it's a very Americentric view to suggest that people are going to stop eating their traditional foods in favor of fake meat.
This might be the case to some degree in Western first world countries but even there, I don't see people in the mid-west giving up real steak anytime soon.
Some jobs are viable at $8 /hr but not $15 /hr so the business have to eliminate positions to stay solvent. That means someone who could have taken the lower paying job now has no job at all.
Also, inflation. When everyone is making at least $15 /hr then that $15 means less than it used to. All costs of goods go up to match the new supply of "wealth". Burger flippers make $15 /hr but burgers now cost $10.
In more meta terms: manipulating the market is never easy if it's possible to do successfully at all.
Isn't this a case against minimum wage laws? Obviously people's paychecks need to be paid from somewhere. Not all business models are going to work when you have to pay $15 /hr. So in that case, no job gets created and the person who could have done the work gets no money.
By removing the artificial market controls, people can voluntarily choose to get paid less, and make something (which is better than nothing).
I think people that complain about Uber not providing "basic employment rights and both minimum and living wages" don't really know what it's like to be poor. Talk to an Uber driver sometime, they're grateful for the opportunity to make some cash on their own terms.
I personally would never pay Facebook for anything or pay for any sort of social media. It's just barely worth the time I spend ingesting it and nothing more to me, certainly not any money.
I'm also not super bothered by ads and fully aware that the data I give consumer internet companies will be used as they (or their future acquirers) see fit.
I don't agree with the sentiment that if we could only switch business models from advertising to subscription then all of our data will remain private. Apple's business model is not based on ads and I trust them as little as I trust Google. I know that's not a popular opinion here but I think it's prudent. Once I push information from myself to a company, I have no confidence that that information will be used as advertised.
The problem is that any company that starts with non-advertising goals can and probably will be acquired if they start to take off. The acquirer will most likely be ad based.
The other problem is that social media isn’t novel or interesting in 2018 so I don’t see people rushing to a new platform that replicates the same old functionality.
That's legal for very important reasons. People have a right to freedom of speech and the right to assembly. They don't have a right to commit murder. There's a huge leap from complaining about something to committing violence in real life. The latter is rightfully illegal and the former is rightfully legal (in the United States).