npiazza83

That's the cost of starting a business impersonating a common carrier.

Please keep the discussion to how this affects Facebook stock prices and IPO or you will be removed by Hacker News' moderators.

Watch me make a grand jury disappear.

The law is designed to cover cases you might not immediately think of. Protecting men/women from "legal" harassing communication in the work place, protecting homosexual couples from discrimination, etc. eliminating such protections to stick it to nazis is, to put it mildly, naive

In making this argument to personal friends I have heard several times, "Well what about tow trucks? They have the right to enforce contracts on private property and they aren't officers of the law!?"

The answer is that there are existing federal statutes in place to allow this. They are controversial and often challenged. Tow truck drivers operate in a grey area of the law and are frequently found to be in violation of the law. I would hope that the BBC values their operating license more than my local tow company.

That's why I put in all my contracts that I may personally enforce fines and payment using the client's credit card info that I have incidentally acquired through managing their online services.

I sure hope that's legal!

Its A) codified into a business contract, not the actions of a private individual B) the use of private metadata and C) the stipulation that BBC is the enforcement mechanism that is problematic here.

Otherwise the BBC would quickly find that when they are late paying the contractors who work on their website their credit cards mysteriously get charged for the services rendered.

The court treats the actions of individuals on a case by case basis. Your analogy breaks down when codified into a business contract. By stipulating a course of action that may cause real financial harm. Even if they were to stipulate fines or other remedies in response to perceived financial harm on their part the enforcement of such penalties is not their responsibility. They have taken enforcement powers away from the government.

Think of it like this: If I'm a web developer and I haven't received payment for my services I can withhold those services or even retain control of the product I am providing or use the courts to enforce the contract, but if I used the client's credit card info to enforce fines and pay myself I have broken the law regardless of whether I put it in the contract.

Funny, I've never heard of an Officer of the BBC. I've heard of an Officer of the law and an Officer of the court. They're generally responsible for enforcing penalties, fines, jail sentences, probation, sex offender lists, etc.

If you'd like to add, "tattling to your employer" to that list I suggest you talk to parliament. They get awfully upset when you try to "do things for them" via cellophane business contracts.

The courts and laws are established to determine appropriate action in such a case.

Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult.

The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech".

I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to jail. Such is the case here. The BBC just made themselves look like idiots for no enforceable reason.

Honest question here... can you plead the 5th amendment to avoid civil liability? I don't know if revealing company trade secrets is an actual crime (even if you work for NASA) but working for almost any company this would be breach of contract and grounds for termination...

This is what legislation is for. There's always a bigger fish.

This is akin to my bank freezing my accounts because I gave them a bad review online.

I would love to see them try to enforce this. *If a brick and mortar bank tried this there would be a run on their accounts so fast it would make Usain Bolt blush.

handouts.

Most of America isn't a great place for those with children but not wealth!

I think what makes San Francisco a target is that it isn't a great place for those without children who would be classified as wealthy in any other part of the country.

You can probably find a path to home ownership in a safe neighborhood with decent services in any city in the country if you are in the upper quartile of incomes for that area.

The housing prices in San Francisco are such that most incomes even in the upper quartile would take a decade to save for a downpayment. You need two incomes (Two working parents) in the upper quartile of incomes in the area to get you to home ownership in a good neighborhood.

Strawmen are stuffed full of perhaps. It makes the best kindling.

Anecdotes and mild testimony from his peers about odd behavior sways you to the side of involuntary medical incarceration? I don't understand what convinces you here?

if you remove the trailing slash it loads.

please tell me the bonus is a party parrot

People complain about Silicon Valley's obsession with culture fit, infantilizing its employees, and supplanting an actual adult life with 'perks' but truth be told only the last one is a SV invention. (government standard raises and hours are probably the only good thing about such jobs)

I would love to see more foreign voices in China and one day I hope one of them will be able to tell us, "Yes, Virginia, you can start a company in China."

For now there is only one repeated refrain coming out of entrepreneurs who wanted to start their success in Beijing: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mark-kitto-youll-...

When you use a true doughnut stuff drifts toward the outside of the doughnut. You have to up the current constantly to keep it from drifting toward the outside of the doughnut.

If you make a doughnut twizzler it doesn't happen.

Furthermore, how do we ascertain whether or not group work is just "outsourcing" for teachers and the students that learned the concept aren't simply k-12 unpaid TAs who find their role as "assistant professor" pretty tedious thus turning off the best and brightest from a lifetime of enriching educational experiences?

I don't understand how our government can fight against the widespread use of strong encryption but in the same breath insist that it is the ONLY way to conduct an election?

This argument that everyone's vote or at least the default method of voting MUST be absolutely inviolately private and secure while our most personal conversations and details of our lives be matters of government scrutiny seems, to put it in the most charitable light, "inconsistent".

A much more plausible explanation would seem to me to be that making voting more accessible regardless of security implications will change the voting demographics in ways that haven't been vetted and agreed upon by both parties in our two party system.

Let's see the alt-right turn up to peacefully protest and enact change through hard fought legislation and community action then.

They don't need anyone's help. Let their movement fail and maybe they'll protect yours next time.

I don't agree with conservatives on much, but we can sure agree on this:

Stop giving "participation awards" to people who clearly have lost.

Facebook sponsored a hackathon to solve this issue and a team of college students found a somewhat trivial answer in just 36 hours. That's pretty cool.. and related to the topic of this news article... Its worth discussing I guess? But the article itself is pretty paltry.

http://www.businessinsider.com/students-solve-facebooks-fake...

A bad narrative beats no narrative.

Then you have no allies

I propose a common core for dating.

The first 3/4 of each initial pairing shall be spent picking out furnitue at IKEA and the last quarter you both shall play portal 2 co-op.

There shall be an officiator and witness on hand to immediately marry you both in the unlikely event that you survive either endeavor.