71–80 of 189 posts
“I just bought the prostitution module for my ERP, I hope it integrate well with accounting and procurement” I am really curious as to how the developers justify taking this kind of gig.
Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows? Salesforce is a platform (albeit a horrible one I never want to work with again) and provides services to whoever pays. Illegal actions are between the local government and the user. Criminals lie. They could claim to be a humanitarian company while trafficking. The only way for Salesforce to know would be to manually investigate all th…
> Stupid laws are stupid. If person A is legally responsible for person B's actions, they will necessarily start asserting control over person B's life. Well, apparently the alternative is to subject person B to rather substantial ex-post punishment in order to deter them from committing crimes that they cannot pay meaningful restitution for. I think the option of shifting liability onto third parties that could mean…
How can person A prevent a crime caused by person B? They cannot. Situations happen. People commit crimes for the first time every day (shocking even close family members). People like serial killers (and many other forms of covert criminals) may go undetected for decades with those people having perfect records.
Since crime cannot be prevented by a landlord and cannot be completely avoided, what can that landlord do to mitigate their risk? They must discriminate. They look at groups which appear to commit disproportionate crimes (by whatever "metrics" they choose to look at) and then start cutting away. Bad credit, being poor, being the "wrong race", prior convictions -- the list of risks seems endless.
The law (with very good reason) prohibits this kind of profiling, but that causes a catch 22 in the mind of the landlord, so the discrimination simply happens in a less-obvious manner. Meanwhile, these people are shifted into bad neighborhoods and ghettos to become trapped forever and crime continues on regardless.
Since no crime is prevented (at most, its only moved elsewhere), the law is ineffective. That would be bad enough, but it also proceeds to punish the landlord and a long list of underprivileged people. The cure is definitely worse than the problem.
On the one hand, they're probably not going to be seriously held accountable for supporting sex trafficking. Best case, the CEO gets uprooted, or they get a menial fine. Legislation to support bigger consequences would be great. On the other hand, SESTA/FOSTA has had a chilling effect on any sexuality on any platform in the US. There's Facebook events for burlesque shows that are being removed by Facebook because the…
Also, there are other legal avenues, see OJ Simpson's criminal vs civil trials (edit: this trial is a civil one. Not everything that is wrong has to be a crime to be punished, and not every court system has to work by the letter of the law like the US does.
I wonder whom did Salesforce annoy enough to warrant a media smear campaign against them.
I'm sorry but this sounds too much like conspiratorial thinking -- all bloomberg reporting on the lawsuit and other controversies surrounding the company (which are not that controversial by the way). And what you are saying in response is that it's a hit piece.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/22/super_micro_chinese...
Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows? Salesforce is a platform (albeit a horrible one I never want to work with again) and provides services to whoever pays. Illegal actions are between the local government and the user. Criminals lie. They could claim to be a humanitarian company while trafficking. The only way for Salesforce to know would be to manually investigate all th…
> Stupid laws are stupid. If person A is legally responsible for person B's actions, they will necessarily start asserting control over person B's life. Well, apparently the alternative is to subject person B to rather substantial ex-post punishment in order to deter them from committing crimes that they cannot pay meaningful restitution for. I think the option of shifting liability onto third parties that could mean…
it's really not the same at all. drivers are liable for damage and injuries they directly cause in accidents where they are legally at fault. they have to purchase insurance because most people can't afford to replace someone's car or pay their medical bills if they cause an accident. we don't sue car dealerships for selling cars to irresponsible buyers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are complaining about someone donating to a children's hospital and being credited for it?
Not talking about Benioff but yes I can complain. If you are very wealthy you have to contribute back to society, that's not a thing to admire but to require. And if you donate only a small percent of your wealth, say 1%, I don't think you deserve more credit than anybody having a net worth of $10k donating $100, in fact maybe less, even if the absolute amount is way more.
You're complaining about someone who does contribute back to society... seems somewhat misplaced/misguided.
On the one hand, they're probably not going to be seriously held accountable for supporting sex trafficking. Best case, the CEO gets uprooted, or they get a menial fine. Legislation to support bigger consequences would be great. On the other hand, SESTA/FOSTA has had a chilling effect on any sexuality on any platform in the US. There's Facebook events for burlesque shows that are being removed by Facebook because the…
Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows? Salesforce is a platform (albeit a horrible one I never want to work with again) and provides services to whoever pays. Illegal actions are between the local government and the user. Criminals lie. They could claim to be a humanitarian company while trafficking. The only way for Salesforce to know would be to manually investigate all th…
>Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows? If a company provides products/services to someone with the knowledge those products/services will be used for a crime...then yes. For example it’s legal for an arms dealer to sell a gun, but illegal to sell a gun if the seller knows the gun is being purchased with the intent of being used in a crime. Here what you have is Salesforce w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It assumes/alleges salesforce knew that Backpage was in human trafficking and they knew backpage was their customer at the same time, neither of which they prove or even attempt to prove. Gonna wait on the courts for this one, so far its all too much implied and nothing for actual facts.
>It assumes/alleges salesforce knew that Backpage was in human trafficking and they knew backpage was their customer at the same time, neither of which they prove or even attempt to prove. They haven’t “even attempted to prove their claims?” Have you read the plaintiffs Complaint? What do you think they brought the lawsuit for if not to prove their claims?
I stated "waiting for the courts" where they would prove their claims.
Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts
“I just bought the prostitution module for my ERP, I hope it integrate well with accounting and procurement” I am really curious as to how the developers justify taking this kind of gig.
This case is specifically about sex trafficking, which is coercive and distinct from prostitution. If you're asserting that sex-work is inherently unethical, and that developers have an obligation not to lend their services to it, you need to make that case.