661–670 of 683 posts
It would also be very interesting if the law firms that were litigating MSG started putting 'different' faces on their employee websites... a little bit of misinformation could cause lots of issues.
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. What's your opinion about Facebook or Twitter blocking people? I'm pretty sure they block people using computer technologies, and that these technologies let them do it at scale.
Another good example is Google Account suspensions. These seem to be for unspecified reasons with no appeal. Given the damage losing your google account does, I think its fair to expect more from that.
Generally speaking I'd like to see tech provides be some kind of common carrier - where they have an obligation to provide equal service. However one exception that I would make is automatic discovery (ie algorithmic feeds, recommendations etc). On the balance of common good I don't think users have a right to their posts being shown to users that don't follow them or whatever. (frankly I think algorithmic feeds are the root problem of social media).
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 I actually don't see that as the key element at all - Doing something that is already legal, faster, doesn't make it illegal does it?
No, that would be a dystopia.
Technological change means the consequence of a law changes. And so perhaps a different set of laws achieves our societal values better in light of a change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protection from what? The lawsuit has nothing to do with the MSG venue, but rather with a restaurant somewhere else that MSG owns; and this lawyer isn't working on that case anyway.
What is an easier policy to enact? A subset of people that they can’t exactly determine for a subset of their venues, or a blanket policy covering all employees of the small firm at all their venues?
Or just, like, not doing this at all. This is James Dolan, the owner of Madison Square Garden, being petty as usual and banning people from the venue who annoy him. e.g. Spike Lee for saying bad things about him, Woody Allen for the wrong reasons (he refused film ads for Dolan), &c
I am under no obligation to contort myself to assume good faith on his part in the face of a pattern of behavior that indicates otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right: it's the policy that's bad. However, facial recognition is what makes enforcing that policy possible, and society and the law haven't changed quickly enough to deal with the repercussions. For instance, say 18 year old "Joe" gets caught stealing soda from a fast food place. The manager kicks him out and bans him from the store. Fast forward a decade, when Joe walks back into the store with his wife and…
What’s weird to me is MSG had to get pictures of all this law firms attorney’s and enter them into their facial recognition database. It seems wasteful and really petty. They probably pulled from they law firms website. Another reason to keep wearing masks…
So if someone sues a subsidiary of the group they are banned in the entire group? That must be really tickling the layers when it's time to ask for damages in civil cases: "well, we're asking to hold the entire group in solidarity for damages, since they conduct business in solidarity, whatever subsidiary we are actually naming in the suite".
But yeah, this is James Dolan, he's banned people for refusing to take jobs before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then one day you fart on an airplane and are no longer able to fly due to being a "troublemaker" that people wouldn't want to sit next to. A community of people aren't built around absolutism. They are built around give and take. You can't have your best day, every day.
I didn't say anything about farting. I don't want to board an airplane with someone who has a history of assaulting people. If airlines could build an accurate list, I would have no problem with them sharing the list and effectively banning those people from flying. The "accurate" part I admit is the hard part to get right. As another replier suggested, maybe base it on public arrest records or something. But assumin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is happening already with PatronScan which is being pushed agressively into schools, and bars: https://scribe.nixnet.services/id-at-the-door-meet-the-secur... There have been references to the ban lists going from one venue to another.
Can you imagine getting into an argument with a bartender and being asked to leave - and then you can't go into any other bars either? Yikes! Reminds me of the hidden low-level-banking-employee blacklist that some would end up on for not forcing enough customers into expensive products they didn't need. Or the opiate painkiller registry that doctors use to centrally track folks who come to them for painkillers, and w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i don't quite agree. the law provides that being part of a protected group can not be used as a reason. that's enough. there is no need to prove a thought-crime. there is only need to prove that there is no justifiable reason for the action that lead to the discrimination, eg no justifiable reason to fire someone or to deny service. finding the real reason for the discrimination is not necessary
So, saying "you can't be part of our group because you're not black" would be illegal in the US and the person could sue for damages? Wanna see some examples proving the opposite? That is not how it works at all, what you describe is an example of equal legal rights, I already mentioned these laws are anti-equality. Anti constitutional even, not that many in the US seem to care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bit too Luddite for my taste. Humans were involved at quite literally every step of this process. The human decided that this other group of humans is not allowed on their property. The only thing interesting the computer did is tell security that someone not allowed to be there was there.
Jumping to accusing me of wanting to revert technological progress by violence because I am worried about alienation caused by automatic rule enforcement is a bit much don't you think?