Live data from Hacker News

After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

404media.co

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#71

"...Flowers said, "I believe personally that guilty people act defensively. If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem." Oh boy, back to this crap again. If that's true, for you to be acting this defensively sure is sending some signal.

Baked into that is a presumption of justice, which is becoming comically out of touch to the point where that overused phrase could be a meme.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#72
post #70
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion that should be enough to get some investigative journalists and private investigators poking around. Assuming investigative journalists are still a thing.

The problem is that this all hinges on what you think reasonable political positions are, and thanks to political polarization, everything on the other side is suspect. You support drilling for oil? You must be in the pocket of big oil! You support solar power? You must be in the pocket of chinese solar manufacturers. You support development? You must be in the pocket of luxury condo developers! You oppose developmen…

The problem is that this all hinges on what you think reasonable political positions are

Well that's entirely up to the people. Anyone can be removed one way or another. This article is about a locality in Texas. Don't mess with Texans in a small town.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#73
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And besides, these days no ones giving straight cash to bribe, it's always via other means that are harder to trace and maybe not even directly monetary (sending them on a vacation, golfing, donations to charity...). It's weird that people seem to act like lobbying doesn't exist at the city council level.

Or even just being their "friend". A little personal attention is often all that's needed to turn an otherwise aloof person into a champion.

I love how through the course of 3 comments, it went from "straightforwardly illegal" to "morally shady", then to "exactly how governments should work". What's the alternative here? Should people not be allowed to cultivate relationships with their representatives? Is it ethically dubious for you to go with a company with a responsive sales team that's friendly and answers your questions, compared to their competitor that takes 2 weeks to responds and sneers at you?

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#75
Flowers would make a great HN commenter

Classic "all-or-nothing", "black and white" argument style

It's either one extreme or another

If the town wants to ban Flock cameras then surely it also wants to ban all outward-facing cameras, GPS-capable devices, cellular network devices, internet service and electronic record-keeping

There is no option to go back to a few years ago before Flock cameras were installed. Nope, the town must go back to "1880, paper ledgers and cash only"

Totally absurd

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#76
post #45
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other day I half-jokingly said I was going to build a site to expose local council members for taking kickbacks and someone said "that isn't happening" It's literally happening and this story makes it really clear. I wish it was this easy to spot. It's usually Flock donating to some charity a council person is also a board member on

>It's literally happening and this story makes it really clear A council member "crashing out" (ie. proposing some satirical bills) is "really clear" evidence of kickbacks? Seems like a stretch. At the very least I'd want evidence of some transaction having occurred, rather than "wow you strongly support something I can't possibly imagine anyone would support? You must be getting kickbacks!"

In a small town of 900 people, it seems odd a council member would be THAT upset about removing license plate reading camera systems, when it's clear the town doesn't want it. To get flustered enough to start proposing sarcastic bills, it's not a stretch to immediately think that there's at least some political maneuvering behind it, if not blatant kickbacks.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#77
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even just being their "friend". A little personal attention is often all that's needed to turn an otherwise aloof person into a champion.

I love how through the course of 3 comments, it went from "straightforwardly illegal" to "morally shady", then to "exactly how governments should work". What's the alternative here? Should people not be allowed to cultivate relationships with their representatives? Is it ethically dubious for you to go with a company with a responsive sales team that's friendly and answers your questions, compared to their competitor…

> Is it ethically dubious for you to go with a company with a responsive sales team that's friendly and answers your questions, compared to

Does said company operate against the best interests of the constituents?

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#78
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's literally happening and this story makes it really clear A council member "crashing out" (ie. proposing some satirical bills) is "really clear" evidence of kickbacks? Seems like a stretch. At the very least I'd want evidence of some transaction having occurred, rather than "wow you strongly support something I can't possibly imagine anyone would support? You must be getting kickbacks!"

In a small town of 900 people, it seems odd a council member would be THAT upset about removing license plate reading camera systems, when it's clear the town doesn't want it. To get flustered enough to start proposing sarcastic bills, it's not a stretch to immediately think that there's at least some political maneuvering behind it, if not blatant kickbacks.

You never seen someone online or real life choose some trivial issue as a hill to die on? Moreover, what if the situation was reversed, and some politician crashes out over being anti-mass surveillance, even though most of the population supports it? Should we assume he's getting kickbacks from pedophiles and drug cartels?

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#79
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even just being their "friend". A little personal attention is often all that's needed to turn an otherwise aloof person into a champion.

I love how through the course of 3 comments, it went from "straightforwardly illegal" to "morally shady", then to "exactly how governments should work". What's the alternative here? Should people not be allowed to cultivate relationships with their representatives? Is it ethically dubious for you to go with a company with a responsive sales team that's friendly and answers your questions, compared to their competitor…

I'm not sure what you're responding to. I'm just saying that you don't need to bribe people. Obviously while bribery is illegal, calling someone and listening to their problems, assuring them you're on their side, and telling them they are very smart is not illegal.

Re: After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You imply that the population number is the reason we shouldn't care, but then you say explicitly that it's the fact that we don't live there. Both seem nonsensical without further elaboration?

It's easy to understand why false news can distort your understanding of the world. If a journalist convinces you that X happened when actually it did not happen, you'll have a wrong belief which makes it harder to understand what's going on. What's more challenging to understand is the phenomenon called "sensationalism", where accurate news distorts your understanding of the world.

Crime coverage is usually the easiest starting point. You can, and some people do, continually scan the country for crimes. Then when such a crime happens, you publish an emotive article declaring that it happened. Crime is of course bad, so each of these articles will make sense on its own terms; poor innocent victims who've been hurt or killed by evil men deserve sympathy! But if you only ever publish content on crime from within that framing, your readers will inevitably start to conclude that it's the only framing, and crime policy should primarily be focused on protecting us innocent potential victims from the hordes of evil men who want to hurt us.

Hopefully that makes sense. If it does, then I'd encourage you to take that critical eye and turn it to the 404Media Flock coverage (https://www.404media.co/tag/flock/). When you scroll through, does it seem like they're carefully studying Flock to keep you informed on the policy landscape surrounding it? Or does it seem like they're searching for the most sensational Flock-related stories they can find?

Post reply on HN