8 ms·

Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstand

Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. > you have the right to express it Out in public sure. In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave. Trying to 'own' the space in this context is a dick move. If I'm a traveling passenger I don't want to be subject to your political ideas/religious sentiments/music preferences/sporting affiliation or whatever else. Besides the irritation it may or may not inflict on other passengers, it's an unnecessary burden for the flight crew, who are going to have to field any complaints about it. In short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone.

virgil_disgr4ce 5mo ago
> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this Ah yes, the classic "your politics," but of course the person having this opinion's politics are perfectly fine, because they're the "normal" person with the "normal" politics, not like that crazy person who thinks some randos shouldn't be the subject of genocide. How dare they!
- MobiusHorizons 5mo ago
  I believe the idea is that no one should be declaring their political beliefs loudly in such an environment regardless of how “normal” they are. I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly”, but otherwise I tend to agree.
  - moi2388 5mo ago
    Believing you do not have the right to name your Bluetooth what you want is also a political belief.
  - idle_zealot 5mo ago
    Maybe, but you know as well as I do that if the SSID were "God Bless America," "Support our Troops," "Fuck George Bush," "I'm glad Hitler is dead," "The South will rise again," or any number of things that there would be no incident.
  - godelski 5mo ago
    > I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly” And that's why so many of us are treating this as insane. A SSID is not "loud". You can go your whole flight without ever knowing about any other passenger's device names. You have to take action to find out. That action might be the 5 seconds it takes to connect to the plane's WiFi, but serial, if you get triggered over a piece of text that's easy to ignore, you're absolutely mental. "Loud" is in your face. "Loud" is hard to ignore. "Loud" is you'll know even if you take no action. I agree, and I think most people do, that it's not a great idea to annoy other people, but it's magnitudes worse to start a fight over someone being incredibly low amounts of annoying. I'd long defend the lunatic who yells at the person who keeps bumping their seat than the person who yells at someone for the same of their SSID. Both are crazy, but come on, the latter isn't even defensible in the slightest. It's so easy to ignore and it's not like it's actively bothering you unless you let it
- anigbrowl 5mo ago
  You should try reading to the end next time.
pesus 5mo ago
> In short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone. What does a Bluetooth device's nickname have to do with leaving people alone?
- hunter2_ 5mo ago
  Right, those other people (well, their devices) are asking you (well, your device) what your (device's) name is. You're not telling them until they ask. They need to leave you alone!
fsckboy 5mo ago
[flagged]
- bschwindHN 5mo ago
  I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, but what exactly is your vision of HN "without politics"? It's very hard to avoid because so many technical things have overlap with politics, and lots of technical decisions have political implications. HN currently loves talking about all things AI, and that's probably one of the biggest political topics out there.
  - pepperoni_pizza 5mo ago
    Oh it's easy! There's just two genders - male and political. Just two races - white and political. Just two beliefs - conservative and political.
_moof 5mo ago
> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." You're talking about should or shouldn't. The issue here is past that point: whether it's then right to involve people who are empowered to take away your physical liberty, and worse.
- steve1977 5mo ago
  You are actually giving away liberties when boarding a plane and I'm pretty sure this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on.
  - close04 5mo ago
    No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. Either the law says "except on a plane/ship/etc." (which is plausible) or the contract is invalid. Can you imagine how it would be if every contract you sign had a "I own you now, no backsies"?
    - steve1977 5mo ago
      That's not what I said though. I just said you're giving away liberties. For example, at home, I'm free to walk around nude and scream. On a plane, I'm not.
      - defrost 5mo ago
        On a commercial passenger plane it's frowned upon. On planes in general, many people jump nude for their 100th skydive - the original and best video of this has been scrubbed from youtube, but a quick search shows others. Often screaming is included.
        steve1977 5mo ago
steele 5mo ago
Your passport is inherently political. Uniformed service members boarding first is inherently political. The choice of language the crew is able to communicate to passengers in is inherently political. If I can ignore seeing your neglected toenails tangled haphazardly around the sandiest pair of adidas flip-flops you possess, you can kindly ignore the SSID "Electronic Frontier Foundation", Karen.
steve1977 5mo ago
> they have no way to leave Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air. And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite violence in the cabin.
- vkou 5mo ago
  Will the captain likewise call the FBI if some knuckledragging mouth breather with three ex-wives and a flag tattoo on his groin has an access point called 'Make Murucuh Great Again'? That would make me uncomfortable on the flight, and it's also one-hundred percent a political statement. One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans, and many more people outside of it.
  - steve1977 5mo ago
    If the captain thinks it poses a risk to his plane, why not?
    - no-name-here 5mo ago
      I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the better solution for airlines be to ban clothing, stickers, military uniforms, etc., that have countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. on them? As if someone believes that turning around planes over it is reasonable, better to address that 'problem' even before taking off and costing large amounts of money and time for hundreds of others, instead of based on the whim(?) of a pilot hours into a flight.
      - 5mo ago
ExoticPearTree 5mo ago
> In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave. Its not private space. Its public because they sell tickets. Its like going to any other event, and I don’t think there’s a constitutional exception to free speech on airplanes where you can’t express your opinions.
- refurb 5mo ago
  Flying on a plane is in no way similar to a public ticketed event. It takes about 30 second of logical thinking to realize that's not true.
- stateofinquiry 5mo ago
  I'm not sure if you are saying one can or can't express opinions on airliners.. but I do want to point out that the "contract of carriage" of most airlines is more restrictive than you might find for a ticketed event like a concert. You might want to read the one for United, just for fun (especially if you fly). https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html Rule 21, item H 16 even indicates that you can't smell bad. YMMV, but it is pretty far from a "public" space as I define one.
- School-Cotton 5mo ago
  It is perfectly legal to sell tickets to an event and require people going there not to express political opinions.
- anigbrowl 5mo ago
  If you buy tickets to a concert or a movie, the fact that they're on sale to the public does not make it a public space. You're a guest in a private space and can be thrown out if the operators feel you're being an ass. On a ship or plane, you can't safely be thrown out mid-journey.
koiueo 5mo ago
> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience "not trying to make a political statement", but... Can we say, that Palestine is an enclosed space, considering its total land and sea blockade? Oh, the irony
- anigbrowl 5mo ago
  Don't be disingenuous. In the very same sentence you quoted from, I mentioned that I happened to agree with the pro-Palestine sentiment. I then went on to explain that it's the broadcasting of personal sentiments to everyone else on the plane that's bothersome.
refactor_master 5mo ago
It's actually even simpler than that. The airplane isn't just a "private business, and you shouldn't mess with their space". They're protected and empowered by broadly ratified conventions (which includes virtually every country in the word), starting with the Tokyo Convention: > The convention [...] recognises certain powers and immunities of the aircraft commander who on international flights may restrain any person(s) he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence liable to interfere with the safety of persons or property on board or who is jeopardising good order and discipline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Convention
- knollimar 5mo ago
  And this is an offence? Or does he actually believe they're about to commmit a crime? Is there some reasonable test? Could he do this for a band t shirt
- godelski 5mo ago
  > he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence Punish the person who starts a fight over some tacky device name that is trivial to ignore. That is the person that is committing (or about to commit) an offense. You're being unreasonable. Think about what you're saying. It's the equivalent of "You can't wear that shirt, someone might get offended and punch you in the face." We don't act like this in society. You arrest the person who throws the punch, not the person wearing the shirt. Just the same way you don't arrest a woman for wearing something slutty, you arrest the person who sexually assaulted them. This is the definition of victim blaming. It doesn't matter if the victim is increasing their odds of being victim (unless they are actively seeking out and attempting to become a victim). Be reasonable. Punish the person who is actually committing the offense. Don't punish someone because of some imaginary offense.
  - refactor_master 5mo ago
    > We don't act like this in society Did you miss the part where the convention was ratified by 180+ countries, because clearly society can't just take a seat?
basilikum 5mo ago
> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. If you are in any way harassing people by shouting through the plane for example, I agree. But the SSID of a WiFi network isn't that. No one is forced to continually read the list of available hotspots over and over again. There is nothing special about the fact that it's on a plane here.
- thrownthatway 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - gpvos 5mo ago
    > Indicating that you sympathise with terrorist But that isn't what they did. And even if they did, sympathizing isn't being a terrorist yourself. Law enforcement has nothing to do there, unless you're in a totalitarian state.
  - knollimar 5mo ago
    Which causes that have extremists are okay? Or you're saying all of them?
  - mrguyorama 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - thrownthatway 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 5mo ago
        We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
barbazoo 5mo ago
Considering the passengers of an airplane a captive audience of a wifi hotspot name is wild. Have these people no ability to not be triggered?

virgil_disgr4ce 5mo ago

> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this Ah yes, the classic "your politics," but of course the person having this opinion's politics are perfectly fine, because they're the "normal" person with the "normal" politics, not like that crazy person who thinks some randos shouldn't be the subject of genocide. How dare they!

MobiusHorizons 5mo ago
I believe the idea is that no one should be declaring their political beliefs loudly in such an environment regardless of how “normal” they are. I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly”, but otherwise I tend to agree.
- moi2388 5mo ago
  Believing you do not have the right to name your Bluetooth what you want is also a political belief.
- idle_zealot 5mo ago
  Maybe, but you know as well as I do that if the SSID were "God Bless America," "Support our Troops," "Fuck George Bush," "I'm glad Hitler is dead," "The South will rise again," or any number of things that there would be no incident.
- godelski 5mo ago
  > I’m not sure broadcasting a WiFi endpoint meets my threshold for “loudly” And that's why so many of us are treating this as insane. A SSID is not "loud". You can go your whole flight without ever knowing about any other passenger's device names. You have to take action to find out. That action might be the 5 seconds it takes to connect to the plane's WiFi, but serial, if you get triggered over a piece of text that's easy to ignore, you're absolutely mental. "Loud" is in your face. "Loud" is hard to ignore. "Loud" is you'll know even if you take no action. I agree, and I think most people do, that it's not a great idea to annoy other people, but it's magnitudes worse to start a fight over someone being incredibly low amounts of annoying. I'd long defend the lunatic who yells at the person who keeps bumping their seat than the person who yells at someone for the same of their SSID. Both are crazy, but come on, the latter isn't even defensible in the slightest. It's so easy to ignore and it's not like it's actively bothering you unless you let it
anigbrowl 5mo ago
You should try reading to the end next time.

pesus 5mo ago

> In short, please stow your rights in the overhead container or in your checked baggage and respect other peoples' right to be left alone. What does a Bluetooth device's nickname have to do with leaving people alone?

hunter2_ 5mo ago
Right, those other people (well, their devices) are asking you (well, your device) what your (device's) name is. You're not telling them until they ask. They need to leave you alone!

fsckboy 5mo ago

[flagged]

bschwindHN 5mo ago
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, but what exactly is your vision of HN "without politics"? It's very hard to avoid because so many technical things have overlap with politics, and lots of technical decisions have political implications. HN currently loves talking about all things AI, and that's probably one of the biggest political topics out there.
- pepperoni_pizza 5mo ago
  Oh it's easy! There's just two genders - male and political. Just two races - white and political. Just two beliefs - conservative and political.

_moof 5mo ago

> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. That is a very, very, very different statement than "I'm calling the FBI." You're talking about should or shouldn't. The issue here is past that point: whether it's then right to involve people who are empowered to take away your physical liberty, and worse.

steve1977 5mo ago
You are actually giving away liberties when boarding a plane and I'm pretty sure this is even written somewhere in the contract between you and the airline that you agreed on.
- close04 5mo ago
  No contract is allowed to take away what the law gives you. Either the law says "except on a plane/ship/etc." (which is plausible) or the contract is invalid. Can you imagine how it would be if every contract you sign had a "I own you now, no backsies"?
  - steve1977 5mo ago
    That's not what I said though. I just said you're giving away liberties. For example, at home, I'm free to walk around nude and scream. On a plane, I'm not.
    - defrost 5mo ago
      On a commercial passenger plane it's frowned upon. On planes in general, many people jump nude for their 100th skydive - the original and best video of this has been scrubbed from youtube, but a quick search shows others. Often screaming is included.
      - steve1977 5mo ago

steele 5mo ago

Your passport is inherently political. Uniformed service members boarding first is inherently political. The choice of language the crew is able to communicate to passengers in is inherently political. If I can ignore seeing your neglected toenails tangled haphazardly around the sandiest pair of adidas flip-flops you possess, you can kindly ignore the SSID "Electronic Frontier Foundation", Karen.

steve1977 5mo ago

> they have no way to leave Not only do the people have no way to leave, the owner of the place also has no practical way to make people leave, like they would for example in a restaurant. At least once the plane is in the air. And the captain has to ensure the safety not only of the flying machine but also of the cabin. So I can absolutely understand the move here and the need to forbid everything that could incite violence in the cabin.

vkou 5mo ago
Will the captain likewise call the FBI if some knuckledragging mouth breather with three ex-wives and a flag tattoo on his groin has an access point called 'Make Murucuh Great Again'? That would make me uncomfortable on the flight, and it's also one-hundred percent a political statement. One that is actively hostile to millions of Americans, and many more people outside of it.
- steve1977 5mo ago
  If the captain thinks it poses a risk to his plane, why not?
  - no-name-here 5mo ago
    I think GP's point is that it's not a risk to the plane? Or in what way is it a risk to the plane? If passenger(s) are wearing a super pro or anti Biden or Trump shirt or Bluetooth/SSID name, is that a risk to the plane, as what if there are other people on the plane who feel strongly in the other direction? But if someone really is OK with pilots turning around flights because of such shirts, etc., then wouldn't the better solution for airlines be to ban clothing, stickers, military uniforms, etc., that have countries' flags, candidate names, political slogans, etc. on them? As if someone believes that turning around planes over it is reasonable, better to address that 'problem' even before taking off and costing large amounts of money and time for hundreds of others, instead of based on the whim(?) of a pilot hours into a flight.
    - 5mo ago

ExoticPearTree 5mo ago

> In an airplane you're in someone else's private space (ie the airline's) and everyone is not only confined with you in minimal comfort, they have no way to leave. Its not private space. Its public because they sell tickets. Its like going to any other event, and I don’t think there’s a constitutional exception to free speech on airplanes where you can’t express your opinions.

refurb 5mo ago
Flying on a plane is in no way similar to a public ticketed event. It takes about 30 second of logical thinking to realize that's not true.
stateofinquiry 5mo ago
I'm not sure if you are saying one can or can't express opinions on airliners.. but I do want to point out that the "contract of carriage" of most airlines is more restrictive than you might find for a ticketed event like a concert. You might want to read the one for United, just for fun (especially if you fly). https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html Rule 21, item H 16 even indicates that you can't smell bad. YMMV, but it is pretty far from a "public" space as I define one.
School-Cotton 5mo ago
It is perfectly legal to sell tickets to an event and require people going there not to express political opinions.
anigbrowl 5mo ago
If you buy tickets to a concert or a movie, the fact that they're on sale to the public does not make it a public space. You're a guest in a private space and can be thrown out if the operators feel you're being an ass. On a ship or plane, you can't safely be thrown out mid-journey.

koiueo 5mo ago

> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience "not trying to make a political statement", but... Can we say, that Palestine is an enclosed space, considering its total land and sea blockade? Oh, the irony

anigbrowl 5mo ago
Don't be disingenuous. In the very same sentence you quoted from, I mentioned that I happened to agree with the pro-Palestine sentiment. I then went on to explain that it's the broadcasting of personal sentiments to everyone else on the plane that's bothersome.

refactor_master 5mo ago

It's actually even simpler than that. The airplane isn't just a "private business, and you shouldn't mess with their space". They're protected and empowered by broadly ratified conventions (which includes virtually every country in the word), starting with the Tokyo Convention: > The convention [...] recognises certain powers and immunities of the aircraft commander who on international flights may restrain any person(s) he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence liable to interfere with the safety of persons or property on board or who is jeopardising good order and discipline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Convention

knollimar 5mo ago
And this is an offence? Or does he actually believe they're about to commmit a crime? Is there some reasonable test? Could he do this for a band t shirt
godelski 5mo ago
> he has reasonable cause to believe is committing or is about to commit an offence Punish the person who starts a fight over some tacky device name that is trivial to ignore. That is the person that is committing (or about to commit) an offense. You're being unreasonable. Think about what you're saying. It's the equivalent of "You can't wear that shirt, someone might get offended and punch you in the face." We don't act like this in society. You arrest the person who throws the punch, not the person wearing the shirt. Just the same way you don't arrest a woman for wearing something slutty, you arrest the person who sexually assaulted them. This is the definition of victim blaming. It doesn't matter if the victim is increasing their odds of being victim (unless they are actively seeking out and attempting to become a victim). Be reasonable. Punish the person who is actually committing the offense. Don't punish someone because of some imaginary offense.
- refactor_master 5mo ago
  > We don't act like this in society Did you miss the part where the convention was ratified by 180+ countries, because clearly society can't just take a seat?

basilikum 5mo ago

> Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to bring your politics into a an enclosed pace like this where people are forced to be a captive audience, notwithstanding that I agree with theparticular sentiment expressed. If you are in any way harassing people by shouting through the plane for example, I agree. But the SSID of a WiFi network isn't that. No one is forced to continually read the list of available hotspots over and over again. There is nothing special about the fact that it's on a plane here.

thrownthatway 5mo ago
[flagged]
- gpvos 5mo ago
  > Indicating that you sympathise with terrorist But that isn't what they did. And even if they did, sympathizing isn't being a terrorist yourself. Law enforcement has nothing to do there, unless you're in a totalitarian state.
- knollimar 5mo ago
  Which causes that have extremists are okay? Or you're saying all of them?
- mrguyorama 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - thrownthatway 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 5mo ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

barbazoo 5mo ago

Considering the passengers of an airplane a captive audience of a wifi hotspot name is wild. Have these people no ability to not be triggered?