5 ms·

I'm boycotting MSG over this, and it's an easy call: I didn't bust my ass for 30 years creating tech to have companies pull nonsense like this. Among the issues

by asah 4y ago

I'm boycotting MSG over this, and it's an easy call: I didn't bust my ass for 30 years creating tech to have companies pull nonsense like this. Among the issues, this is a violation of their own written policy, stated that this is for "safety" when this clearly about retribution. MSG, you want retribution, you got it. I'm really hoping the CEO faces personal penalties over this, causing other companies to take notice and setting de facto limits on acceptable use of this tech. Normally, I'm not one to take reactionary stances, but the CEO absolutely knew about and approved this policy and exercised __extraordinarily__ bad judgment unbecoming of a public company CEO. A fifth grader would understand that this policy doesn't work at any scale.

paul7986 4y ago
The CEO is a billionaire (Dolan) who owns it and many other properties.
voisin 4y ago
Let’s take a step back for a second: is it the use of technology to ban certain people from the venue, or the way people are being chosen for exclusion? If the former, and banning people you consider to be your enemies is not an issue here, then I guess I struggle with why using technology to exclude people efficiently is a concern. If the latter, then I struggle as it should be within the rights of any property owner to exclude their antagonizers (or really anyone on any basis not covered by anti-discrimination laws) from their property. I feel strongly about inalienable property rights, and who is anyone else who hasn’t put money up to own the land to tell them what to do with it? Are we all just a giant HOA? Or is the issue that it’s a public company and as such is expected to have separate standards? I don’t mean to be pedantic - I am honestly trying to understand. As a landowner myself (of publicly accessible spaces), if I were to be sued by someone I certainly wouldn’t want to be forced to extend hospitality to those suing me by allowing them onto my land for their own enjoyment. If technology allowed me to do this more efficiently, I’d utilize it if I felt that strongly about the merits of the case against me. But I am not a public company, so perhaps that’s where the issue is? To be clear, if they were excluding people based on things out of a person’s control or otherwise protected by civil rights, I’d understand that society restricts this - it isn’t a society we collectively want to live in. But I am not sure I want to live in a society where someone can antagonize someone else and we force that party to host the antagonizer for the antagonizer’s enjoyment. That seems somewhat dystopian to me as well.
- fphhotchips 4y ago
  The best way of expressing this was posted in the comments when this issue was raised a couple days ago: the scale enabled by technology means that decisions that would have had to be reasonable before can now be made unreasonable by applying them at scale - and in most cases without the nuance applied when done by humans. In essence, it's fair enough to ban the legal team suing you, and in the past you would have to restrict it like that, because who's going to check against 1000 photos on the wall, right? But when it's automated, it's probably just easier to ban the whole firm. Is it fair to ban some paralegal who works in probate law from seeing their favourite artist or attending a show with their kids because someone in a different state in a different division is suing a different division of the giant conglomerate that owns the venue? I think that crosses a line for most people.
  - geoduck14 4y ago
    I wonder what the world would look like if Google, Microsoft, and Apple had term wars everytime one of their legal teams sued another over patents. I bet companies would stop suing each other really fast
  - voisin 4y ago
    Ok, I appreciate this response and I hadn’t read the comments you reference from a past post. This nuance is valuable and I can understand the logic. There should be some connection to the thing offending the land owner, and the way to embed this into the decision making is to take technology out of it so that decisions have to be internally governed by some thought to efficiency. Thank you
  - kmlx 4y ago
    > Is it fair to ban some paralegal who works in probate law from seeing their favourite artist or attending a show with their kids because someone in a different state in a different division is suing a different division of the giant conglomerate that owns the venue? depends on many things, from pettiness all the way to financial harm. i’ve seen places ban whole families.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
Avshalom 4y ago
> I didn't bust my ass for 30 years creating tech to have companies pull nonsense like this Hate to break it to you, but this is exactly what you busted your ass for.
glitcher 4y ago
From MSG's perspective the ban is about safety - albeit the safety of their own perceived attack surface from adversaries, not the safety of their customers. This is where they are twisting words to fit the "safety" narrative, and it is completely disingenuous IMO.

by asah 4y ago

paul7986 4y ago

The CEO is a billionaire (Dolan) who owns it and many other properties.

voisin 4y ago

Let’s take a step back for a second: is it the use of technology to ban certain people from the venue, or the way people are being chosen for exclusion? If the former, and banning people you consider to be your enemies is not an issue here, then I guess I struggle with why using technology to exclude people efficiently is a concern. If the latter, then I struggle as it should be within the rights of any property owner to exclude their antagonizers (or really anyone on any basis not covered by anti-discrimination laws) from their property. I feel strongly about inalienable property rights, and who is anyone else who hasn’t put money up to own the land to tell them what to do with it? Are we all just a giant HOA? Or is the issue that it’s a public company and as such is expected to have separate standards? I don’t mean to be pedantic - I am honestly trying to understand. As a landowner myself (of publicly accessible spaces), if I were to be sued by someone I certainly wouldn’t want to be forced to extend hospitality to those suing me by allowing them onto my land for their own enjoyment. If technology allowed me to do this more efficiently, I’d utilize it if I felt that strongly about the merits of the case against me. But I am not a public company, so perhaps that’s where the issue is? To be clear, if they were excluding people based on things out of a person’s control or otherwise protected by civil rights, I’d understand that society restricts this - it isn’t a society we collectively want to live in. But I am not sure I want to live in a society where someone can antagonize someone else and we force that party to host the antagonizer for the antagonizer’s enjoyment. That seems somewhat dystopian to me as well.

fphhotchips 4y ago
The best way of expressing this was posted in the comments when this issue was raised a couple days ago: the scale enabled by technology means that decisions that would have had to be reasonable before can now be made unreasonable by applying them at scale - and in most cases without the nuance applied when done by humans. In essence, it's fair enough to ban the legal team suing you, and in the past you would have to restrict it like that, because who's going to check against 1000 photos on the wall, right? But when it's automated, it's probably just easier to ban the whole firm. Is it fair to ban some paralegal who works in probate law from seeing their favourite artist or attending a show with their kids because someone in a different state in a different division is suing a different division of the giant conglomerate that owns the venue? I think that crosses a line for most people.
- geoduck14 4y ago
  I wonder what the world would look like if Google, Microsoft, and Apple had term wars everytime one of their legal teams sued another over patents. I bet companies would stop suing each other really fast
- voisin 4y ago
  Ok, I appreciate this response and I hadn’t read the comments you reference from a past post. This nuance is valuable and I can understand the logic. There should be some connection to the thing offending the land owner, and the way to embed this into the decision making is to take technology out of it so that decisions have to be internally governed by some thought to efficiency. Thank you
- kmlx 4y ago
  > Is it fair to ban some paralegal who works in probate law from seeing their favourite artist or attending a show with their kids because someone in a different state in a different division is suing a different division of the giant conglomerate that owns the venue? depends on many things, from pettiness all the way to financial harm. i’ve seen places ban whole families.
- mannykannot 4y ago

Avshalom 4y ago

> I didn't bust my ass for 30 years creating tech to have companies pull nonsense like this Hate to break it to you, but this is exactly what you busted your ass for.

glitcher 4y ago

From MSG's perspective the ban is about safety - albeit the safety of their own perceived attack surface from adversaries, not the safety of their customers. This is where they are twisting words to fit the "safety" narrative, and it is completely disingenuous IMO.