7 ms·

I remember reading the story about Lauren Southern a few days ago, they banned her parents because they didn't like Lauren's politics (shes a very polarizing fi

I remember reading the story about Lauren Southern a few days ago, they banned her parents because they didn't like Lauren's politics (shes a very polarizing figure). I totally get bans when a guest damages property or breaks rules, but the whole reason this got kicked up in the news because that ban was just so overtly political.

ahallock 4y ago
That's gratuitous and done for spite only. I really don't want to do business with a company that seeks revenge because of internal political activism. It's gross. Within their legal rights as it stands today, but gross nonetheless.
sintaxi 4y ago
IIRC they banned Southern not for her politics but for being closely associated to people who had unacceptable politics, and then banned her parents for being closely associated with Southern.
- Xeoncross 4y ago
  See, PageRank isn't dead - it's just used on people now
korroziya 4y ago
"Your politics hurt my feelings so you and anyone you know is banned from using my service." How is this reasonable to anybody? Left wingers get mad when a baker pulls this on a gay couple but apparently it's ok as long as it's against someone they don't like?
- howinteresting 4y ago
  Well, the specific reasons matter. Surely Airbnb should ban some people because of their political views (eg members of ISIS), the question is just what the line is.
  - jonfw 4y ago
    I would argue that ISIS shouldn't be banned for their political views, but rather for their participation in a criminal organization. Punishing people for their political views pushes them towards extremism
    - howinteresting 4y ago
      Fair enough. What about Michael Knowles? He just went up on stage and called for "transgenderism" to be "eradicated" from public life [1]. Apparently, he shadow-quoted a Himmler speech while doing so [2]. For the safety of the Airbnb community and in particular the trans people in it, Airbnb should clearly ban him and his close associates. No? [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1632057198577606657 https://mobile.twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/16320571985... [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/GalenMetzger1/status/1632187691029741569 https://mobile.twitter.com/GalenMetzger1/status/163218769102...
  - korroziya 4y ago
    "If ISIS had a streaming service you would be calling your agents," -Ricky Gervais
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    How soon until you can choose host and guest flavours? What would be the scales then too? Sexual orientation, religion, politics, race, age, gender?
    - howinteresting 4y ago
      Thankfully, we are moral agents with the capacity to decide whether particular forms of discrimination are good or bad.
      - korroziya 4y ago
        10/10 satire.
  - 4y ago
- harimau777 4y ago
  That goes both ways. Many right wing states are currently trying to ban drag shows.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Do you mean they're trying to ban children from drag shows? Those are very different things. For comparison, consider that the US hasn't banned pornography but has banned children from pornography.
    - danaris 4y ago
      No, Tennessee has banned drag performances, period, with wording that makes it very easy to claim that any trans person in a public place violates it. (Easy enough that it seems likely to me that that's the intent.)
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        Are you talking about this? https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0003&GA=113 https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillN... Because it seems pretty explicit that it doesn't apply in places where only adults are allowed. And how could a specification of people "who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" apply to any trans person in a public place?
        harimau777 4y ago
        The problem is that it's so broad that it can easily be abused. Many drag performances are not sexual (e.g. drag queen story time). Even those who are sexual are generally no more so than your average pop concert. They are a far cry from something like pornography or strip clubs.
        danaris 4y ago
        > it doesn't apply in places where only adults are allowed Like...in public. Or in many other places where someone in drag might be. Or in most places that a trans person might be. Drag performances are not inherently sexual, and are not inherently intended only for adults. The idea that they must be sexual in nature is part of the propaganda being spread by conservatives to try to invoke the "think of the children" effect. There are a number of places that have "drag reading times" at libraries that are very popular, just as a quick example.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
  It's the difference between refusing service because of an inherent aspect of someone (like their sexual orientation) and refusing service because someone is choosing to actively broadcast their highly inflammatory opinions.
  - colpabar 4y ago
    You know the baker didn’t refuse service and was happy to sell them an already made cake, he just didn’t want to make a cake with a gay couple on it, right? Are you really saying the multiple lawsuits weren't ridiculous?
  - jlawson 4y ago
    The cake shop never refused service to anyone because of an inherent aspect of anyone (how would they know?). They'd happily bake a birthday/retirement/graduation cake for a gay person. They refused to use their own artistic talents to inscribe a message that they disagreed with. They refused to participate in the words, not the people. Kind of like you might refuse to make a MAGA cake.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  In California, political affiliation is nominally a protected category. But not federally. So I think we as a society have decided some things are okay and some aren't and there's no real reason for much of it except rationalization. We've decided that sexual orientation is different from political affiliation and that's it. For instance, how is it reasonable that, in many places, nipple pasties are legal but exposing a nipple is not? It just is.
isleyaardvark 4y ago
“Very polarizing” is one way to put it, considering she’s been banned from entering the UK.
- blfr 4y ago
  Brits arrest people for silently praying (so... standing) near an abortion clinic or teaching their dog to do a nazi salute. Not exactly paragons of sound judgement.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    Brits are certainly not paragons of sound judgment, but arresting people who are making a public show of harassing women is one case where they are making a perfectly good judgment.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - JesusLovesEwe 4y ago
      Which case are you referencing?
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    Only the US has any pretensions to universal free speech. Most places recognize that it has limits and rules.
- pjc50 4y ago
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035 Quite an achievement being bad enough to get interviewed by the anti-terrorist police. Although I imagine if you told US border control that your intent in entering the country was to start fights and promote violence they wouldn't let you in either.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rngname22 4y ago
They didn't ban her parents because they didn't like their daughter's politics, they likely had reason to believe Lauren attempted to circumvent her own ban by using her parents as a go-between or even through impersonating one or both of her parents (things like IPs, phone device IDs, etc can be used as signals although we all have to admit they aren't a smoking gun just hints). But due to legal risk are unable to disclose means or methods for how they did so or to comment publicly on the decision. So of course there's no way to prove this, but it would be typical of the types of systems that large tech companies' trust and safety systems use everyday. Ultimately with some situations like this they are making a judgment call and weighing brand risk if they get it wrong and retain a bad actor especially if said actor remains on the platform and does something even worse in the future VS the sort of injustice of removing a good actor due to being too careful/overly cautious. Guess which usually wins. Source: work in Trust and Safety (not at Airbnb).
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > But due to legal risk are unable to disclose means or methods for how they did so or to comment publicly on the decision. So of course there's no way to prove this, but it would be typical of the types of systems that large tech companies' trust and safety systems use everyday. And the kinds of systems that produce Kafkaesque articles on HN every other day, where a transparent appeals process needs to be forced onto those companies by the government, or they need to be broken up by antitrust legislation.
  - rngname22 4y ago
    Yeah I think a lot of us who work in tech TNS honestly welcome regulation.

ahallock 4y ago

That's gratuitous and done for spite only. I really don't want to do business with a company that seeks revenge because of internal political activism. It's gross. Within their legal rights as it stands today, but gross nonetheless.

sintaxi 4y ago

IIRC they banned Southern not for her politics but for being closely associated to people who had unacceptable politics, and then banned her parents for being closely associated with Southern.

Xeoncross 4y ago
See, PageRank isn't dead - it's just used on people now

korroziya 4y ago

"Your politics hurt my feelings so you and anyone you know is banned from using my service." How is this reasonable to anybody? Left wingers get mad when a baker pulls this on a gay couple but apparently it's ok as long as it's against someone they don't like?

howinteresting 4y ago
Well, the specific reasons matter. Surely Airbnb should ban some people because of their political views (eg members of ISIS), the question is just what the line is.
- jonfw 4y ago
  I would argue that ISIS shouldn't be banned for their political views, but rather for their participation in a criminal organization. Punishing people for their political views pushes them towards extremism
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    Fair enough. What about Michael Knowles? He just went up on stage and called for "transgenderism" to be "eradicated" from public life [1]. Apparently, he shadow-quoted a Himmler speech while doing so [2]. For the safety of the Airbnb community and in particular the trans people in it, Airbnb should clearly ban him and his close associates. No? [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1632057198577606657 https://mobile.twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/16320571985... [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/GalenMetzger1/status/1632187691029741569 https://mobile.twitter.com/GalenMetzger1/status/163218769102...
- korroziya 4y ago
  "If ISIS had a streaming service you would be calling your agents," -Ricky Gervais
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  How soon until you can choose host and guest flavours? What would be the scales then too? Sexual orientation, religion, politics, race, age, gender?
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    Thankfully, we are moral agents with the capacity to decide whether particular forms of discrimination are good or bad.
    - korroziya 4y ago
      10/10 satire.
- 4y ago
harimau777 4y ago
That goes both ways. Many right wing states are currently trying to ban drag shows.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Do you mean they're trying to ban children from drag shows? Those are very different things. For comparison, consider that the US hasn't banned pornography but has banned children from pornography.
  - danaris 4y ago
    No, Tennessee has banned drag performances, period, with wording that makes it very easy to claim that any trans person in a public place violates it. (Easy enough that it seems likely to me that that's the intent.)
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Are you talking about this? https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0003&GA=113 https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillN... Because it seems pretty explicit that it doesn't apply in places where only adults are allowed. And how could a specification of people "who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" apply to any trans person in a public place?
      - harimau777 4y ago
        The problem is that it's so broad that it can easily be abused. Many drag performances are not sexual (e.g. drag queen story time). Even those who are sexual are generally no more so than your average pop concert. They are a far cry from something like pornography or strip clubs.
      - danaris 4y ago
        > it doesn't apply in places where only adults are allowed Like...in public. Or in many other places where someone in drag might be. Or in most places that a trans person might be. Drag performances are not inherently sexual, and are not inherently intended only for adults. The idea that they must be sexual in nature is part of the propaganda being spread by conservatives to try to invoke the "think of the children" effect. There are a number of places that have "drag reading times" at libraries that are very popular, just as a quick example.
sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
It's the difference between refusing service because of an inherent aspect of someone (like their sexual orientation) and refusing service because someone is choosing to actively broadcast their highly inflammatory opinions.
- colpabar 4y ago
  You know the baker didn’t refuse service and was happy to sell them an already made cake, he just didn’t want to make a cake with a gay couple on it, right? Are you really saying the multiple lawsuits weren't ridiculous?
- jlawson 4y ago
  The cake shop never refused service to anyone because of an inherent aspect of anyone (how would they know?). They'd happily bake a birthday/retirement/graduation cake for a gay person. They refused to use their own artistic talents to inscribe a message that they disagreed with. They refused to participate in the words, not the people. Kind of like you might refuse to make a MAGA cake.
renewiltord 4y ago
In California, political affiliation is nominally a protected category. But not federally. So I think we as a society have decided some things are okay and some aren't and there's no real reason for much of it except rationalization. We've decided that sexual orientation is different from political affiliation and that's it. For instance, how is it reasonable that, in many places, nipple pasties are legal but exposing a nipple is not? It just is.

isleyaardvark 4y ago

“Very polarizing” is one way to put it, considering she’s been banned from entering the UK.

blfr 4y ago
Brits arrest people for silently praying (so... standing) near an abortion clinic or teaching their dog to do a nazi salute. Not exactly paragons of sound judgement.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Brits are certainly not paragons of sound judgment, but arresting people who are making a public show of harassing women is one case where they are making a perfectly good judgment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - JesusLovesEwe 4y ago
    Which case are you referencing?
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  Only the US has any pretensions to universal free speech. Most places recognize that it has limits and rules.
pjc50 4y ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035 Quite an achievement being bad enough to get interviewed by the anti-terrorist police. Although I imagine if you told US border control that your intent in entering the country was to start fights and promote violence they wouldn't let you in either.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rngname22 4y ago

They didn't ban her parents because they didn't like their daughter's politics, they likely had reason to believe Lauren attempted to circumvent her own ban by using her parents as a go-between or even through impersonating one or both of her parents (things like IPs, phone device IDs, etc can be used as signals although we all have to admit they aren't a smoking gun just hints). But due to legal risk are unable to disclose means or methods for how they did so or to comment publicly on the decision. So of course there's no way to prove this, but it would be typical of the types of systems that large tech companies' trust and safety systems use everyday. Ultimately with some situations like this they are making a judgment call and weighing brand risk if they get it wrong and retain a bad actor especially if said actor remains on the platform and does something even worse in the future VS the sort of injustice of removing a good actor due to being too careful/overly cautious. Guess which usually wins. Source: work in Trust and Safety (not at Airbnb).

lamontcg 4y ago
> But due to legal risk are unable to disclose means or methods for how they did so or to comment publicly on the decision. So of course there's no way to prove this, but it would be typical of the types of systems that large tech companies' trust and safety systems use everyday. And the kinds of systems that produce Kafkaesque articles on HN every other day, where a transparent appeals process needs to be forced onto those companies by the government, or they need to be broken up by antitrust legislation.
- rngname22 4y ago
  Yeah I think a lot of us who work in tech TNS honestly welcome regulation.