6 ms·

I'm glad this is happening this early in the tech's advances so that we have time to legislate over it. With megacorps owning bigger and bigger chunks of every

I'm glad this is happening this early in the tech's advances so that we have time to legislate over it. With megacorps owning bigger and bigger chunks of everything, these sorts of bans will start having deep effects on peoples lives. Imagine being banned from all grocery chains within 200 miles because the parent corp that owns all grocery stores in the area decided that it doesn't like you.

bcherny 4y ago
Wouldn’t every other grocery chain in the area be incentivized to let you in? (If your answer is “yes but many areas have just one store”, then maybe the real problem is uncompetitive markets?)
- JohnPrine 4y ago
  that's a much harder problem to solve tho
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
The US is going to start looking like China if big companies can ban you for doing anything they don't like. I'm usually in favor of companies deciding what they want to do and how they want to price things - but anything related to general discrimination or suppressing free speech seems like a VERY slippery slope that companies shouldn't be allowed to do. There's already a lot of companies sueing people for leaving bad reviews. This seems completely dystopian. Imagine if you say anything bad about Apple and you can't message iPhone users anymore. If you say anything bad about Google, you can't use any website with Analytics. If you say anything bad about Comcast, you have to sell your house and move to get Internet, etc. This isn't a world I want to live in.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Well thats A-OK because the good guys are in charge here! We love our corporations and when they work with government agencies we love them even more. You’d have to be some kind of nazi to have a problem with that.
- kmlx 4y ago
  how is this company “generally discriminating” or “suppressing free speech”? i feel like your comment is about the right to deny service more than the use of face recognition.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. If you don't think that's suppression of free speech, then I guess it's subjective - but I disagree.
    - kmlx 4y ago
      the government is not involved here so there is no free speech issue. if someone bans me from MSG or twitter free speech has nothing to do with it.
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        You mean it's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech is a broader principle about how a society should conduct itself, not merely a set of restrictions for governments.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I like this framework for discussing free speech. https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped... >there are three distinct categories of free speech values: free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.
patrickthebold 4y ago
I think this is a bit of a blind spot for libertarian ideals. One tends to get the impression that people only need to be protected from the government. I, myself, am quick to point out that the first amendment only applies to the government, but I'm starting to think it might be better if those kinds of protections are broadened.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  Far too many so-called libertarians are jealous of the government’s power to oppress people instead of being lovers of liberty.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Yes, I have been wondering for a long time why some libertarians seem to dismiss the issues of monopolies and cartels, even though these too are anti-free market.
Overtonwindow 4y ago
This has been happening since 2004, at least, in malls and big box stores. See "No Place to Hide" by by Robert O'Harrow.
maxerickson 4y ago
Even the relatively lax enforcement of anti-competitive laws we do have is likely to prevent that particular scenario. I'm not sure it is possible to write a good law that says you can't act against people for some set of reasons, without impacting the ability of venues to deny service in more reasonable cases. (Current trespassing law pretty much relies on notification, if you are told you aren't welcome in a private place and then refuse to leave or later re-enter it, you are trespassing). Like say an attendant observes that someone is visibly intoxicated, sees them vomit in a spot that isn't part of the venue, and then tries to deny them service. In that case, an escape hatch that lets them add people to a list if they are ejected wouldn't work, but it's perfectly reasonable to deny that person entry. The better mechanism to deal with things like this would be social pressure. Arbitrary denial of service is outrageous and people should punish them by not doing any business with them (don't book events there, don't attend events there). But no way is anyone going to inconvenience themselves over a few lawyers getting a bad deal. Maybe we'll get a more charismatic scenario sometime in the future.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  > Even the relatively lax enforcement of anti-competitive laws we do have is likely to prevent that particular scenario. Maybe in the US, but in Canada and elsewhere, anti-competitive behaviour is basically seen as a national policy objective. “Strong & powerful industry is good for you” (as they no longer even need to collude to raise prices and reduce competition for labour).
- kstenerud 4y ago
  You don't need a full-on monopoly. All you need is for a megacorp to have enough of a stake in a group of companies that it can dictate certain policies due to the damage it could cause by tanking the share price if they don't play ball. Something like "All of you must adhere to this ban list that we will keep updated". The megacorp doesn't outright own them so there's no monopoly, but that hardly matters to the poor sod who can no longer buy food because every single food-selling outlet in his area is affected, and toeing the line. And it wouldn't even need to be this nefarious. Like all paths to hell, it could start with a "bad people" list that becomes homogenized across the companies because one of them has special skill in this area and it's cheaper that way. Then the list starts to expand, and since all of this group of companies are linked, they all follow the same ban, use the same facial recognition etc.
geodel 4y ago
Sounds horrible. But it may be a win if person denied groceries turned out to be climate denier, vaccine denier and so on.
felipelemos 4y ago
From my background I find really bizarre that in the United States it is allowed to refuse service at all.

bcherny 4y ago

Wouldn’t every other grocery chain in the area be incentivized to let you in? (If your answer is “yes but many areas have just one store”, then maybe the real problem is uncompetitive markets?)

JohnPrine 4y ago
that's a much harder problem to solve tho

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

The US is going to start looking like China if big companies can ban you for doing anything they don't like. I'm usually in favor of companies deciding what they want to do and how they want to price things - but anything related to general discrimination or suppressing free speech seems like a VERY slippery slope that companies shouldn't be allowed to do. There's already a lot of companies sueing people for leaving bad reviews. This seems completely dystopian. Imagine if you say anything bad about Apple and you can't message iPhone users anymore. If you say anything bad about Google, you can't use any website with Analytics. If you say anything bad about Comcast, you have to sell your house and move to get Internet, etc. This isn't a world I want to live in.

colpabar 4y ago
Well thats A-OK because the good guys are in charge here! We love our corporations and when they work with government agencies we love them even more. You’d have to be some kind of nazi to have a problem with that.
kmlx 4y ago
how is this company “generally discriminating” or “suppressing free speech”? i feel like your comment is about the right to deny service more than the use of face recognition.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. If you don't think that's suppression of free speech, then I guess it's subjective - but I disagree.
  - kmlx 4y ago
    the government is not involved here so there is no free speech issue. if someone bans me from MSG or twitter free speech has nothing to do with it.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      You mean it's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech is a broader principle about how a society should conduct itself, not merely a set of restrictions for governments.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I like this framework for discussing free speech. https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped... >there are three distinct categories of free speech values: free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.

patrickthebold 4y ago

I think this is a bit of a blind spot for libertarian ideals. One tends to get the impression that people only need to be protected from the government. I, myself, am quick to point out that the first amendment only applies to the government, but I'm starting to think it might be better if those kinds of protections are broadened.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Far too many so-called libertarians are jealous of the government’s power to oppress people instead of being lovers of liberty.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Yes, I have been wondering for a long time why some libertarians seem to dismiss the issues of monopolies and cartels, even though these too are anti-free market.

Overtonwindow 4y ago

This has been happening since 2004, at least, in malls and big box stores. See "No Place to Hide" by by Robert O'Harrow.

maxerickson 4y ago

Even the relatively lax enforcement of anti-competitive laws we do have is likely to prevent that particular scenario. I'm not sure it is possible to write a good law that says you can't act against people for some set of reasons, without impacting the ability of venues to deny service in more reasonable cases. (Current trespassing law pretty much relies on notification, if you are told you aren't welcome in a private place and then refuse to leave or later re-enter it, you are trespassing). Like say an attendant observes that someone is visibly intoxicated, sees them vomit in a spot that isn't part of the venue, and then tries to deny them service. In that case, an escape hatch that lets them add people to a list if they are ejected wouldn't work, but it's perfectly reasonable to deny that person entry. The better mechanism to deal with things like this would be social pressure. Arbitrary denial of service is outrageous and people should punish them by not doing any business with them (don't book events there, don't attend events there). But no way is anyone going to inconvenience themselves over a few lawyers getting a bad deal. Maybe we'll get a more charismatic scenario sometime in the future.

Scoundreller 4y ago
> Even the relatively lax enforcement of anti-competitive laws we do have is likely to prevent that particular scenario. Maybe in the US, but in Canada and elsewhere, anti-competitive behaviour is basically seen as a national policy objective. “Strong & powerful industry is good for you” (as they no longer even need to collude to raise prices and reduce competition for labour).
kstenerud 4y ago
You don't need a full-on monopoly. All you need is for a megacorp to have enough of a stake in a group of companies that it can dictate certain policies due to the damage it could cause by tanking the share price if they don't play ball. Something like "All of you must adhere to this ban list that we will keep updated". The megacorp doesn't outright own them so there's no monopoly, but that hardly matters to the poor sod who can no longer buy food because every single food-selling outlet in his area is affected, and toeing the line. And it wouldn't even need to be this nefarious. Like all paths to hell, it could start with a "bad people" list that becomes homogenized across the companies because one of them has special skill in this area and it's cheaper that way. Then the list starts to expand, and since all of this group of companies are linked, they all follow the same ban, use the same facial recognition etc.

geodel 4y ago

Sounds horrible. But it may be a win if person denied groceries turned out to be climate denier, vaccine denier and so on.

felipelemos 4y ago

From my background I find really bizarre that in the United States it is allowed to refuse service at all.