Real name policies and ruling the world • Hacker News Board

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#151

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Jun 19, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

lwhalen wrote: post #44

Is there some reason I'm not aware of that makes "leaving Facebook" not the reasonable, default, option? If they REALLY are "naive, dangerous, and evil", just... don't use their service. Hit them where it hurts and take your eyeballs elsewhere.

As a counterpoint, this:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/sex-offenders-ca...

Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another about it on any subject that might come to mind... By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what, for many, are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.

That's from the decision itself.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#152

Post by dang » Tue, Jun 20, 2017, 5:52 AM UTC

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #145

lwhalen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is not a monopoly. I'd rather make the argument that Microsoft, today in 2017, is a monopoly (protip: they arent) than try to argue that Facebook is one.

Congrats, you are the official king of cluelessness! Seriously, actually educate yourself about those concepts. Your totally naive binary understanding of what makes a monopoly a monopoly is embarrassing at best.

Personal attacks are not allowed on HN and will get your account banned. You broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread. Please don't do that again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#153

Post by freeflight » Tue, Jun 20, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #128

freeflight wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you agree that a web service is not a private residence? For all purpose and effect, it equals a private residence. After all the web service is run by somebody on servers that somebody either owns or pays for. If I don't want you on my web service I have every right in the world not to let you in/use it because you have no right to demand usage of my private property (servers). >A coffe shop, a supermarket, a bo…

> While I'm not 100% sure about the legal situation in the US, I'm pretty sure regular householder's rights apply. Not sure about that. Some places (like malls or train stations, possibly others) are considered public places to some extent.

But isn't the mall privately owned? At least the shops inside would be. Do different rules apply to them compared to private homes? Afaik the sovereignty of one's own home is held in very high regard in the US, why doesn't the same apply to a private business?

Train stations, as part of the public infrastructure, are probably held to a different standard. Locking somebody out from those would present quite a constraint to that individual, so that's probably for the better.