Really what you're saying is "start your own credit card."
Hatreon launched as an alternative to Patreon. Know why Hatreon closed down? Visa shut it down. [1]
If Visa bans you, no payment processor will work with you. Not PayPal. Not Stripe. Not Braintree. Not Authorize.net. You are cut off.
So yes, of course Conte says he "welcomes competition" in the article. Any legitimate competition, that caters to the voices booted by Patreon, gets squashed by Visa. There cannot be any competition.
So all anyone actually has to do if he wants to share views the American elites find distasteful is go start his own bank (takes $12 to $20 million and jumping through a load of regulatory hurdles, according to Wikihow [2]), roll out his own credit card, get mass market adoption of that card, create his own payment processor to process the card, found registrars and hosting companies that use that processor, and start a platform.
We need a digital Bill of Rights set up before there's nothing left online but the most sanitized, P.C.-friendly content. A place where everyone has to act fake-nice and pay lip service to beliefs he doesn't really hold so no one will think he's guilty of bad-think. That might sound like a utopia to some, but to many of us it sounds like the opposite.
> To be honest, I'd be OK with going beyond that and just rewriting the laws to European-style "no Nazism allowed anymore", so sadly sighing and talking about how disgusting I am for wanting a world without Nazis isn't exactly going to shame me into changing my mind, y'know?
A simpler way to put this is just "anyone who does not agree with me should go to a reeducation camp, or to jail, or maybe die."
People with views like these were behind the French Reign of Terror, the Russian Bolshevik Revolution, and the Nazi concentration camps. In the end, in all cases, the instigators ended up on the receiving end of the same kinds of punishments they put in place for those who disagreed with them.
History is filled with examples of policies boomerang'ing back on those responsible for them. Just another way of saying, be careful what you wish for, because few wishes come without a catch.
This comment goes very bad when you start accusing the other person of reeducation camps, reign of terror, mass murder, and all the rest of it. Please review the site guidelines and keep this vicious, tedious slop far away from HN, if you want to keep commenting here.
Among many other rules that your comment broke, there's this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." You're required to follow that rule, and all the others, whether the other person does or not.
Edit: it looks like this account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed, as the guidelines explain, and we ban accounts that do it. I've banned this one. If you keep creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with, we will ban your main account as well.
Let me be clear: I do not see it as an inherently bad thing if Nazis have to put in more effort than other people to find or build a platform on which they can spew their thoughts. I do not see it as the first step on a slippery slope to a "sanitized, P.C.-friendly" world. I do not accept the dilemma you pose, in which either we must allow Nazis to run around threatening mass murder or else nobody can say anything.
I think a world without Nazis in it would be a better world than the one we have, and I think the fact that several countries already have laws in place to restrict the speech of Nazis, and they haven't led to your dystopian outcome, is a strong empirical counterargument to what you suggest.
A simpler way to put this is just "anyone who does not agree with me should go to a reeducation camp, or to jail, or maybe die."
You accidentally mixed up your scripts -- you're in favor of the people who argue for rounding up their enemies into death camps, remember? You think those people are great, and need special support and protection. So if I were to argue for rounding you up and throwing you in a death camp, you would suddenly be on my side and offering every resource you have to help me further my glorious cause. Right?
Posting like this is unacceptable on HN. Nazi evil doesn't entitle you to pour acid all over the container here. Regardless of how right you are, venting bile and taunting others helps nothing and is destructive of everything we're trying to achieve here, such as hopefully have a place for discussion that isn't flaming shit. We need experienced users like you to help build that, instead of breaking the site guidelines blatantly. This whole subthread has been hellish, and it's extremely disappointing.
Please review the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Your key flaw, and HN's key flaw -- and to be fair, one shared by a lot of other people! -- is the pursuit of civility as an end in itself. Horrendously evil people can accomplish their goals while publicly conducting themselves with perfect civility, as history has taught us again and again. And HN's stance is that that's OK, because all that really matters is they're civil about it.
This isn't the first time you've been told this. It's not going to be the last time you'll be told this. And I know telling you this isn't going to change anything, but I have to try anyway. We know now beyond any doubt (and a legion of Cassandras were telling us long ago) just how easily social-media sites (and yes, HN is one) can turn into instruments and enablers of radicalization despite openly enforcing "civility".
You know what the solution is. You know, on some level, that civility isn't an end in itself; you know that the actual ends to which people use civility as a means matter. You know some of those ends are very, very bad. And you know how to recognize the people doing it. You also hold in your hand the power to do something about it.
Abandon the civility-at-any-cost policy. Stop being an enabler for the stuff I've been responding to in this thread. Take it from an "experienced user" who's had to learn this the hard way when moderating elsewhere. Or, in keeping with the season, treat this as a visitation by a spirit who warns you of the chain you're winding about yourself, link by link, and change it while you still can.
> I thought I followed climate change issues but somehow did not know that in most people's lifetimes sea levels will rise multiple feet. I would've thought folks would be more... concerned?
According to Sir David King (head U.K. climate scientist) in 2004, all continents other than Antarctica will be uninhabitable by 2100 due to manmade global warming.[1]
I wouldn't be worried about New York. I'd be on the next ship down to Antarctica to go stake my land claim right now before it all gets gobbled up.
I mean, if this manmade global warming stuff is real, and it's as bad as they say it is.
King is not stating that here. He just says that the earth was no fun place to be, the last time greenhouse gasses were as high as they’ll likely be in 2100.
> "No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life, he said.
> Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100"."
[Emphasis mine]
He literally did say that, unless you think "would not sustain human life" is compatible with "habitable". That quote was an asinine statement to make and only serves to provide ammunition to those who want to convince people that climate change is not a real problem.
Imagine if I were to say "the last time that large amounts of people walked around in suits on daily basis, we had two world wars!". This is both true and misleading.
No scientist believes that climate change will cause such sire circumstances.
The experts on the matter believe that sea levels will rise by a meter or so over the next hundred years.
If you believe that this will end the world, then you should know that the experts disagree with you, and that you should go read some more science.
So yes, it is true that "the last time C02 levels were at this level, the world could not sustain life". But it is also misleading as it implies causation.
The scienctists do not believe that these levels would cause mass extinction of human life. The badness is closer in scale to another Iraq war.
I read the article. King does seem to be stating that. At least, he says the last time co2 was as high as it will be in 2100, then only antarctica was suitable for human life.
Now, there's a lag to warming, so it might only reach the full temperatures by 2150 or so, but King did explicitly seem to be saying we're likely to make the world uninhabitable. Or at least that the last time co2 was that high, the world was uninhabitable.
I haven't figured out why people don't take this more seriously. A child born today can expect to live past 2100. People have children and grandchildren, and yet....
King has no basis whatever for his claim that the rest of the globe other than Antarctica was uninhabitable 60 million years ago. There are fossils from this period, including fossils of mammals, from all continents. The global average temperature during the PETM (which I assume is what he is referring to) was about 8 C warmer than today, which is warm but by no means uninhabitable. It's also a lot warmer than the expected warming by 2100.
We were on a paid tier. In 2012 we decided to try sending our own email via arpReach + SES. Once we set this up we asked MailChimp how to pause our paid account. We wanted to stop sending email and return to a free account until we needed MailChimp again.
Their response was that there was no way to do that... I recall it being something like "we do not like" or "do not allow" customers to return to free accounts. You could either keep paying, or delete your account and everything in it.
We'd already moved our MailChimp-collected emails over to arpReach (on our own server). At that point, I just opted to delete our MailChimp account.
Everything was fine while we used them. But that strange incident left a really bad taste in my mouth; it was one I never forgot.
Yeah, MailChimp support is absolutely terrible. And it literally looks like they don't care about it at this point. I stopped using them a few months back and moved to SendX. The experience with their support team has been phenomenal.
Won't the term "person" unnecessarily alienate otherkin[1]?
Walter would appear to be safest with "thinking entity's game."
Then he has full coverage for men, women, intersex, asexual, androgynous, and non-human identities. His game will also still be relevant and inclusive once we've made contact with non-human extraterrestrials, and uplifted animals and machines to sentience.
Weird, you're being a sarcastic shit but you don't exactly make a terrible point. OP is probably safe with "person", but if genuine concern came up I'm sure the two seconds it takes to change a word in an HTML file wouldn't derail his day.
My experience hiring women for our company has been 1.) they often don't want the job, 2.) when they get the job, they often balk at how demanding it is, then 3.) if they do stick around, regardless how much training we give them we end up having to let them go. This is not all female hires; we have women in customer service roles, for example, who outperformed our male hires; the females kept the job, the males did not. But for more technical roles, they have consistently either balked at the workload or underperformed and been quickly fired (we fire male workers who underperform just as quickly).
I would love to hire female employees who are every bit as driven, thorough, methodical, and accountable as our best male employees (the ones we don't fire), who are also cheaper. But they do not seem to exist.
The rare female prospective hires who are available and seem good are often priced so high I assume their rates are the result of Fortune 500 companies competing over them to have an effective female on the team. Good for them, but until effective females become cheaper than effective males it doesn't make sense for us to hire them from a value perspective (we don't need the social signaling points).
What field is your company in? Given that this is HN and going off of a few things you said I am going to assume it is Tech, but I know that is still a pretty big assumption.
However if it is Tech or some similarly male dominated field then of course competent women can charge more because they are more in demand. But that is in those specific fields and doesn't explain away the lack arbitrage opportunity from hiring women in general if they are indeed paid less in general.
"I have no sympathy for people who want to make a living by making things who then rent space in existing channels to tell users said things are for sale. At this point I'm rooting for anyone making bootstrapping and entrepreneurship less viable."
You're strawmanning. They were saying they have no sympathy for the ad and ad tech industry - not that they have no sympathy for people who want to advertise their businesses.
You can thank the adtech industry for making every other business model inviable, except for exploiting your users, disregarding their privacy and selling their eyeballs to be flooded with manipulative crap.
Yes. With regards to it being a call to arms for business leaders against Marxists/communists, that's accurate to a certain degree. If you look at what gets lumped in with marxists/communists though, it becomes pretty apparent that the memo was meant to be an assault on everything that could be "unfriendly" to business.
In the Powell memo, you can see some of the precursors to what's happening today. For instance, I think the demonization of academia in right-wing circles as well as the death of organized labor (unions) probably start with this memo (I'm not the only person who thinks this. Chomsky as elaborated on this at length.)
The Powell memo was also started the process of making lobbying both widespread and acceptable to society (even when it was legal, it used to be frowned upon.) I think most people would agree that lobbying is a cancer on our democracy.
Hatreon launched as an alternative to Patreon. Know why Hatreon closed down? Visa shut it down. [1]
If Visa bans you, no payment processor will work with you. Not PayPal. Not Stripe. Not Braintree. Not Authorize.net. You are cut off.
So yes, of course Conte says he "welcomes competition" in the article. Any legitimate competition, that caters to the voices booted by Patreon, gets squashed by Visa. There cannot be any competition.
So all anyone actually has to do if he wants to share views the American elites find distasteful is go start his own bank (takes $12 to $20 million and jumping through a load of regulatory hurdles, according to Wikihow [2]), roll out his own credit card, get mass market adoption of that card, create his own payment processor to process the card, found registrars and hosting companies that use that processor, and start a platform.
We need a digital Bill of Rights set up before there's nothing left online but the most sanitized, P.C.-friendly content. A place where everyone has to act fake-nice and pay lip service to beliefs he doesn't really hold so no one will think he's guilty of bad-think. That might sound like a utopia to some, but to many of us it sounds like the opposite.
> To be honest, I'd be OK with going beyond that and just rewriting the laws to European-style "no Nazism allowed anymore", so sadly sighing and talking about how disgusting I am for wanting a world without Nazis isn't exactly going to shame me into changing my mind, y'know?
A simpler way to put this is just "anyone who does not agree with me should go to a reeducation camp, or to jail, or maybe die."
People with views like these were behind the French Reign of Terror, the Russian Bolshevik Revolution, and the Nazi concentration camps. In the end, in all cases, the instigators ended up on the receiving end of the same kinds of punishments they put in place for those who disagreed with them.
History is filled with examples of policies boomerang'ing back on those responsible for them. Just another way of saying, be careful what you wish for, because few wishes come without a catch.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatreon [2] https://www.wikihow.com/Open-a-Bank