Private companies holding out against government oversight is not only often a good thing but should be a human right.
Last thing we want is to give any government full insight into everything.
R.I.P. Lavabits.
It's illegal to run entire buildings as hotels 100% of the time on AirBnB for well argued local concerns.
This has nothing to do with a fascist deciding to ethnically cleanse an entire continent.
Me thinks Reddit is leaking.
Anyway, when it comes to government, I adopt a stance I think is in-line with what Sam Altman was saying about defeating Trump: the easiest solution is to support Hilary.
The government exists and isn't going anywhere any time soon. It's easier to accept that and find ways to make it work better. Rather than sit here and think private industry should be allowed to tear it asunder and make it a clusterfuck of an organization.
Look what happened when we did the former. Went to the Moon, invented the Internet.
Look what's happened in the 30+ years since we started tearing it apart.
Person A: John wouldn't do anything evil like that. He has a family and kids!
Person B: Well, let's not forget that Hitler also had a family and kids.
Person A: John is not Hitler!
Person B's analogy is perfectly rational and effective. He's making the point that simply having a family and kids will not stop people from committing even the greatest evils (and therefore probably not lesser evils, either). However, Person A ignores this obvious line of reasoning, and instead focuses on a total strawman: assuming that Person B said that John === Hitler. But what could Person B have done to prevent this? Simply not using Hitler wouldn't work:
Person A: John wouldn't do anything evil like that. He has a family and kids!
Person B: Well, let's not forget that <some other bad person besides Hitler> also had a family and kids.
Person A: John is not <some other bad person besides Hitler>!
Person A is still factually correct in his final statement, yet it's still a total strawman. If he insists on employing this reasoning, then it's impossible for Person B to ever use an analogy, because an analogy always uses as its subject two different things, which are by definition not the same as each other in every single way.
What does this have to do with protecting apartment dwellers in NYC from transients? I don't follow. We have doormen for a reason. NYC is a dangerous, large city and children, the elderly, and women should feel safe and be safe in their own apartment buildings.
... I'd get down voted further if I gave my honest opinion.