131–140 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need any facial recognition for that, just get their ID to check if they are not banned while selling them tickets.
Seems pretty weird to require IDs for a simple ticket to a show.
As unsurprising as it is absurd if you're familiar with the petulant child that is James Dolan.
Yea I think the bigger issue here is just that Dolan is an oligarch heir piece of shit and we need to rethink how inheritance works. The facial recognition stuff is an issue, but if dolan had to actually work for any of the stuff he's got I think he'd behave very differently.
I am torn actually unsure on what would be morally correct: 1. I, as an individual, am allowed to deny entry to persons I dislike from my private property. 2. I, as an individual, am allowed to deny entry to persons affiliated with a business I dislike from my private property. 3. I, as a business owner (eg: a restaurant), am allowed to deny entry to persons I dislike (eg: a previous patron who was violent) from my b…
Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. If a venue kicked out a lawyer who was actively working on a lawsuit against the venue, nobody would bat an eye.…
Up next: Everyone on HN who posted that they disagree with MSG's use of facial recognition is permabanned from all MSG venues, with no notice or recourse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was the phone requirement that you refused? Did they want to confiscate your phone, lock it in a bag you physically couldn’t open, seal it in an envelope you got to keep but could open in an emergency, just demand you keep it in your pocket…?
Yeah. I've never heard of this and "phoneless/phone encasing" isn't returning much. GP - what?
The company who is doing this is Yondr. They've been doing this for years. They've been doing this with musicians, comedians, courtrooms, and even at schools. I'm amazed that they have been getting away with this for so long.
Yondr has had a lot of astroturfing over the years so it's harder to find the people who have had a bad experience over the years. You'll see non-normally participating people pop up in every comment section that mentions the phone ban: "well i like that everyone isn't on their phone" etc. Also, you'll see near promo news pieces on this. Additionally there has been no public comment with this that I know of, which is super auspicious from the US or Europe. (Just did the research Placebo and Bono have enforced this in Paris.. a bit brave considering the bataclan)
EDIT: Dang, yes I said the a word (ends with turfing), this is not a statement thats happening here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. If a venue kicked out a lawyer who was actively working on a lawsuit against the venue, nobody would bat an eye.…
> Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. So you're okay with the principle of denying individuals entry to a private business, but you're NOT okay with…
Just think of anonymized user data. Individually that info isn't really all that important, but taken at massive scale it can lead to worrying trends. Consider something like the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
>MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved. While it's reasonable to disagree with this policy, it's not really related to social dystopia , so I think it's dramatic to lament this in the vein of "today it's this, tomorrow it will be getting banned due to Tweeting about you…
For discussion, let's take MSG's statement in good faith, and assume the attorney was notified twice.
Are there legitimate reasons to do this other than a "pretext for doing collective punishment on adversaries who would dare sue MSG" as suggested?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. If a venue kicked out a lawyer who was actively working on a lawsuit against the venue, nobody would bat an eye.…
> Your totally ignore the key element here: a new technology is allowing denying entry at a whole new scale. Nobody really has an objection to organization blocking a single individual who is might cause trouble. But blocking an entire class of people is a) newly enabled* and b) much more harmful to society. So you're okay with the principle of denying individuals entry to a private business, but you're NOT okay with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need any facial recognition for that, just get their ID to check if they are not banned while selling them tickets.
Seems pretty weird to require IDs for a simple ticket to a show.
I live in Uruguay and you need to use your ID very often when doing commercial stuff.