4werfaw34r

No. Companies believe their only duty is to protect shareholder value, so that's what drives their decision making, not ethics. As long as we have that problem, it won't matter how many ethical people we have in our society. As of right now, we have plenty of people who want to do the right thing, but can't because they'll lose their jobs.

For most tech, the design is aligned with the goals of the business that made it. Until you invent ethically aligned capitalism, limited progress can be made.

I don't think that's what they are trying to say at all:

https://projects.propublica.org/chicago-tickets/

Some of the insights they pull from this data: Most tickets are issues in majority-black wards, in places with high poverty rates. Motorists in these wards were found more at risk of losing a vehicle or declaring bankruptcy. Most tickets that are contested are in more well-to-do, majority-white wards, and contested tickets have more than a 50% chance of the driver being found not liable.

Here's what I draw from this: Parking tickets frequently trap the poor into a cycle of debt. People who have money and free time have more resources available to challenge the ticket and not have to pay.

That doesn't say to me "we should forgive tickets for low income residents" but it says to me we need to find other ways to enforce the parking laws that don't just make the poor even poorer.

I swear, every HN article, you get 10% of the comments are about the article being discussed, and the other 90% are people quibbling over the headline.

Ok, that's an exaggeration.

And when the comments are good, they are really good. Makes the entire HN experience worthwhile.

Some of what's in the article seems to contradict what YouTube's product chief said in a recent interview.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19523415

The chief contradiction I see - The product chief claims youtube has been taking this problem seriously, while this report implies youtube has ignored the problem for some time, going as far as to avoid searching for videos to claim plausible deniability. According to the bloomberg article, YouTube was aware of the "bad virality" problem for sometime, but it was never addressed.

I sympathize with your frustration.

My theory of HN comments: People prefer to respond to familar arguments, rather than the arguments you make in your comments. People prefer to discuss topics that they are familiar or passionate about, rather than the specific topics addressed in the articles or parent comments.

Posting Fast and Slow

IMHO

> I tried sharing on facebook but it got banned

You still have free speech.

> So I hosted it on my own website but then Cloudflare and AWS dropped me

You still have free speech

> So then I hosted it on my own physical box in my house but then Comcast disconnected my service

Now you don't. Is that legal? If it is, we should consider regulating ISPs in the manner we do phone companies. Someone call Ajit pai.