Because they don't care, can't be bothered to wait for one, and any ones with personnel are probably not going to admit them because they will make a big mess.
The only war against freedom of expression is the constant threat of no longer allowing private organizations their freedom of speech by letting them publish what they want.
Society doesn’t have a censorship problem, we have an entitlement problem. People now apparently think they’re entitled to someone else’s platform, when they’re not.
A request from someone with power is bound by law.
I went through a ton of government contract law training. I can’t request that my contractor wash my car. I can’t “just ask” that they work unpaid labor. Etc etc.
It’s one thing if a rando or equal power requests. But a person in authority can’t do that.
Imagine all those jerk bosses saying “I just asked my secretary to perform fellatio on me. I didn’t require it. And I never even threatened to fire them.” That defense doesn’t work just like the courts found that the government requesting isn’t allowed.
It is factually incorrect to claim a request from someone with power is bound by law.
You can absolutely do those things as a matter of law. You can’t do those things as a matter of policy, however. You were trained on policy, written out of an abundance of respect for the law, training it’s clear needs to be more common, but the law itself is less clear.
No, the courts have ruled that the law prevents these types of illegal requests. Policy was created to make it easier for the government to follow the law.
The other issue is often it is government employees who have been paid by laws passed by congress (appropriations) making these requests. So the act of making the request potentially makes the appropriation a violation of the first amendment. I don’t think it’s a stretch to interpret the government using money to pay people to request twitter to remove protected speech as ‘abridging free speech’ and such appropriations as congress passing a law. There is similar case law for how publicly funded universities must conduct themselves. Though, even though you could make a similar argument for how public universities work I suspect courts have used a different argument to justify that framework.
But it’s very weird to me that universities run by the state must be viewpoint and content neutral in their speech restrictions even if there is no explicit law passed by the government to restrict speech but the government is allowed to employ a mass of people to make ‘requests’ and such requests don’t need to pass a viewpoint and content neutrality test. The situations are very similar because in both cases there is not an explicit law passed by the government punishing people for making bad speech.
That's a nice legal fiction, but realistically, they did until the moment the courts stepped in and told them to back off. Unless there are severe consequences for unconstitutional actions, the abuse always comes first.
You are confusing de jure power with de facto power. Government has shown, again and again, that they will abuse and overstep without any legal right to do so. In the meantime until the courts catch up, that coercive power imbalance still exists.
The problem, as you can see in the story we’re commenting under, is that often requests from the government can imply (either intentionally or not) the threat of retaliation or force.
The government spends a lot of time making requests of private companies, of other governments, and of individuals. But they have a duty to avoid crossing the line and applying unfair pressure to coerce the response they want.
Agreed, the threats were going too far. But those are clearly being dealt with, and not in any way indicative of a free speech crisis such as what was referenced to in the parent comment.
No, a nation should not put just its citizens first, that’s nationalistic garbage. Firstly it presumes a nation decides who its citizens are through some fair system, and secondly it presumes its citizens are somehow inherently more deserving than its non citizens.
Anyone who agrees to the social contract gets to benefit from the nation. That’s what a country actually is.
Your premise is flawed. If I create a new nation and my nations social contact is one norm: no outsiders, then you can't simply be a national by agreeing to the contract.
In practice, nations prioritize their own citizens, in the same way you will prioritize your family. Do you abandon taking care of your family because it would be "more fair," to take care of someone on the other side of the planet?
Your countrymen should have aligned values, cultures, goals, missions, etc that prioritizes them. That's the fabric of society.
The problem you’re ignoring is that there is not a 1:1 correlation between citizenship and people who agree to the social contract.
Everyone who gives up freedom to the state is entering into a social contract with that state, citizenship or no. Once those people enter into that contract, they deserve all of the rights and services the contract provides.
By tying the contract to citizenship, you provide a way for racists and nationalists to steal from the people arbitrarily determined to be noncitizens, usually along racial lines.
At the same time, if a surplus of noncitizens enter and suddenly the country's ability to provide for all of its people is strained, wouldn't that be a grave disservice to the citizens? What would be the difference between a citizen and a noncitizen then? Not that a country like the US is reasonably providing for a large portion of the populace anyways, so I suppose that's a moot point right now.
No, as these people who are part of the influx, once accepting the social contract, are no better or worse than anyone else who has agreed to the social contract, citizen or no.
Besides, all evidence suggests immigrants benefit a society substantially more than they harm it. In the US for example, noncitizens consume significantly fewer national resources while still paying the full amount of taxes expected of citizens.
I don't deny that immigrants are beneficial at the moment. However, some people aren't going to have jobs. Besides, it's not as if noncitizens should be paid less just because they can survive with those wages. I'm saying that if the US actually cared for all of its people, I'll say present immigrants included, there won't be room for an arbitrary number of new immigrants. Are you going to try to stretch that limit until something bad happens? I have no interest in excluding people of "other races" or something like that, but pragmatically, I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere at some point.
There is no "pragmatic" limit. As more people arrive, more jobs are needed to support them, more jobs are made available as a larger pool of workers able to do a wider variety of tasks for wages that allow for corporations to turn a profit. It's a self sustaining cycle.
The general rule here is that unless there's an obvious reason to deny equal people something you've given other people, you shouldn't deny it in the first place.
> The general rule here is that unless there's an obvious reason to deny equal people something you've given other people, you shouldn't deny it in the first place.
Of course. The problem is that your view of the economy is optimistic, perhaps dangerously so. Let's hope we never reach the limit and have a concrete problem on our hands, I guess.
This viewpoint appears somewhat naive and unrealistic. It's important to consider that there are literally billions of people who might be willing to make certain sacrifices and agree, or at least pretend to agree, to a social contract just to migrate to the US. What would happen in such a scenario? Society could collapse. To get a clearer perspective on this, it's worth examining what started happening in the European Union around 2015 when there was a substantial influx of immigrants from Africa and Asia. It created huge social tensions. Look at the rising crime rates in Sweden (majority from immigrants, that's not some right wing propaganda but actual statistics, just google it), the increased popularity of far-right parties like AFD in Germany or neo nazi parties in France or Italy. I am grateful that this perspective is in the minority because the consequences of the proposed decisions could potentially harm society. There will always be individuals who exploit divisions and tensions between groups to gain power. Don't forget that Hitler was elected in democratic society.
Preach it fellow human. I sometimes am baffled by how little a damn people in privileged positions can give about others. All they're interested in is preserving their position of privilege, and their political views and philosophy on life will typically reflect that.
Personally I would give citizenship and a free house to any good hearted hard working individual and not give a damn where they come from. Our whole society would benefit if we didn't have to waste so much of our brain power just on surviving.
You throw a lot of half baked assertions on this thread but it doesn't seem to go anywhere.
Who should a nation put first then?
I dont see the connection between how citizenship is acquired (AFAIK each nation is free to set the rules/laws that they think is fair) and if citizens should get special treatment or not.
If citizens can't get "special" treatment over non resident in their own country what's the point of countries?
How people become residents and what "rights" they have die to this status is part of the "social contract".
A nation supports the people who agree to the social contract upon which the nation is founded, citizenship be damned.
Citizenship in the US is a profoundly broken system with a horrendous and racist past, and using it to decide who deserves the benefit of the social contract and who doesn’t is actively buying into the nationalistic and false idea that Americans are superior just because they were born somewhere and foreigners weren’t.
You wouldn’t argue that black slaves weren’t worthy of US protection and services until the 14th Amendment was passed, would you? You wouldn’t pretend like the US granting and then revoking citizenship from Mexican settlers repeatedly in the 19th and 20th century was acceptable, would you? Was the Chinese Exclusion Act acceptable?
A foreign life is worth exactly the same as an American life, and the difference is completely arbitrary.
You're now blatantly strawmaning. Nobody is talking about the value of a life or people being superior to others. We're discussing employment policies.
Deserve means everything in this context, because I, as an American, am discussing with my fellow Americans how our country works and the principles upon which we ought to rule ourselves.
Those principles are heavily founded in “deserve”. You are watching some infinitesimally small part of that “ruling” process.
Citizenship is meant to limit external actors influencing the vote of who should represent the people of any given area, and being qualified to represent the people by virtue of a sustained commitment and longevity.
No, it's meant to determine which people have agreed to the social contract. Citizenship is not some sacred thing you must earn; simply agreeing to give up some freedom is all it takes to benefit from the social programs offered by a government.
The bureaucratic concept of "citizenship" is just a way for people to construct barriers of hate around the benefits offered by a nation while still forcing people to accept the sacrifices.
Man that's some serious goal post moving happening on this thread. We go from land superficy to land ownership - with a little sprinkle of "muh racism" because why not.
Is it about land superficy or about ownership? Can we establish a clear framework here instead of constantly jumping from one wishy washy thing to the other?
You aren't the sole owner of your house either. Even without a mortgage you are not. So if someone adhere to the social contract in your house I assume you let them in to do as they please (within the limit of the contract of course.)
The house analogy makes zero sense, as my house is not a commons (I am sole owner, even with a mortgage, methinks you don’t have one of these), but if it were then yes, anyone agreeing to the social contract of the government of my home would be allowed in or out.
It’s about how to manage shared resources amongst people who all have equal claim, which is everyone who has agreed to the social contract. When you agreed is irrelevant.
Frankly, I would argue that many people born in the US do not hold up their end of the social contract, and should thus take a backseat to immigrants who would come here and care deeply for the social contact in their place.
Zoning laws, property taxes, liens, HOAs. You live a fantasy, you never answer any question in replies and just keep jumping from one thing to another. Completely unproductive. Done here.
No. But they shouldn't restrict sales based on birth / color, and allow everyone to buy-in. The problem here is that people who actually want to join/buy/agree cannot do so.
"Judge a person by their actions, not their words"
When you willingly leave your family out in the cold, thanksgiving winter; to have space to provide random passersby into your house to eat your turkey, lets talk!
And in America we earn our keep. Life is not fair, if someone's willing to work for less, you simply show up and do a better job and demand a better salary. Entitlement is not America, it's communism
Life isn't fair, but we could do a lot better than imposing even more unfairness. Sexual harrassment and sexism, LGBT discrimination, racism, nepotism, etc. We're not quite living in a meritocracy.
Where's the joke? The purpose of any government ought to be to benefit its citizens. Certainly there's a moral obligation to not unduly wrong others in the course of that pursuit, but it is contrary to the mission of a government to benefit foreigners at the expense of its own population.
The purpose of government is to provide social goods to everyone who agreed to give up some freedoms to be part of that government.
Non citizens have equal right to feed their families, and anyone who has agreed to the social contract has equal rights to the social services the government has agreed to provide, regardless of citizenship.
If my house were like a country, it would be quite convenient and I would indeed open my home to everyone willing to participate in my social contract.
But my home isn’t in any way like a country, so this question isn’t meaningful.
So your logic doesn't apply for your home, for your neighborhood or your city? Does it hold for you state or do you need to become completely independent country?
The people who share ownership are entitled to the resource and can decide how someone can join.
The land your home is built on is part of a shared resource: the space available for the community.
If we apply your logic there s nothing wrong with immigrants showing up and colonizing natives - be it in America, Australia, etc - shared resource bro!
Once we reach level 4 or 5 of replies I think it's not really worth pursuing so I'll just give my take on this one and leave it there. That's probably a case where principles/values or whatever you want to call it differ too much for anything to come out of it.
People were allowed and welcome to immigrate because there was a gigantic country to fill. Now this policy makes no sense so rules have changed. It's just common sense. The way a country was built/populated doesn't need to persist forever and should adapt to whatever works best at a given time.
Otherwise let's push the logic: mostly white people immigrated at the beginning, should we stick to this? It makes no sense.
It's not about "deserving". It's about the common good of the population. I believe in helping people who are already here better their life instead of relocating someone.
One could argue that having access to good jobs is part of the nebulous "social services" you mention.
As a side note, it's interesting how the interest of the immigrant seems to always be superficially taken into consideration. Immigrants don't all want to move. I would bet a lot of them would much prefer to have a better life where they are to begin with.
You keep getting stuck in the bureaucracy, presuming it results in just outcomes. It doesn’t.
If the concept of citizenship was simply an agreement to the social contract, open to all, you could start to favor those who’ve agreed over those who haven’t, though even then you can’t say from a moral perspective the lives of those who’ve agreed are superior.
However you seem overly attached to the concept of soil and citizenship, both of which can be manipulated by bigots to hurt the people they’re hateful towards. This is why “Americans” can’t be considered first; what even qualifies is set based on a wildly racist past, riddled with hateful people making nationalistic laws that remain in effect today.
If the contract is this simple then is it surprising that existing control givers (aka permanent residents) may have a sense that as long as they're still 'giving' they should still be 'getting' or at least have a place in line to 'get' ahead of a prospective 'giver' (h1b).
H1Bs aren’t second hand citizens, and canceling the H1B program would trigger an immediate humanitarian crisis, not to mention completely shut off America’s main advantage in innovation; the idea that we don’t care where you’re from if you’re great at what you do.
> we don’t care where you’re from if you’re great at what you do.
Yes, that’s true but isn’t what is happening here. They’re not bringing in H1Bs for their talent, they’re firing US workers so they bring in H1Bs to do the same job, but cheaper.
All well and good but I never mentioned performance. Of course they’re able to do the job, no doubts there. But the bottom line is US companies are firing US workers not because they need to, but because they want an excuse to hire cheaper workers through an immigration program.
There is nothing at all special about a US worker.
Welcome to the world, where people who aren’t from or in the US also need to feed their families, and have just as much a right to do so as Americans do.
So what stops them from doing it in their host country?
And if their host country is non functional what should be done about that?
Are you arguing we should bring back colonialism? Or are you arguing that all the most capable people should live in one rich country and the rest of the world should be an endless slum?
Maybe all these capable people should work to reform and improve the conditions of the country where they are.
Welcome to the world, where people who are from the US need to feed their families, and have just as much a right to do so as immigrants do.
See the issue? Just because we accept immigrants and they benefit the economy doesn't mean everyone is magically happy. Do you think the US should support every poor person in the world? Can it?
You'd be fine with us going from a population of 3XX million to, say, 3 billion? I feel like there'd be a few problems with that. Can we annex other countries then? I'm not trying to be facetious; I genuinely don't understand how "immigrants good" translates to "literally anyone who is willing to work should be allowed and there won't be any logistical issues because why would there be".
That may be the original idea, but the focus on the worker and ignoring their lives and family is brutal. Moving between jobs or location is difficult. Going outside the country may land people in trouble. It’s not slavery, but feels like one at times. Of course, it’s a choice, but they do live as second hand citizens.
What, don't Americans need things too? The logical conclusion of "countries should support their people" is that the countries these people are emigrating from should support them. If a country like the US is doing that well for its people, it can afford to give aid to these other countries, maybe accept a portion of the immigrants. As it stands, it's kind of a lose-lose situation because who cares about caring for their people? Not the US or those countries that people are emigrating en masse from. It's not like the US has the sole responsibility or capability to care for everyone under the sun. That's the reality of the situation, if nothing else.
I'm clearly not against immigrants because I don't like immigration. It's also not grounded in reality for you to say that Americans can support arbitrary numbers of immigrants because the economy will magically make things work out.
It absolutely is grounded in reality, because in reality billions of people wouldn’t move to the US. You’re trying to claim realism but then applying absurd hyperbole.
“ A good pair of shoes should come at a cost — Potter puts the minimum price for high-quality men’s shoes in a traditional style at $300 — but they should also last at least a decade with proper maintenance.”
I don’t want my shoes to be a hobby; if they only last a little longer than mass manufactured shoes without this maintenance and still cost triple the price, the math just doesn’t work out.
Your larger point is that 4chan isn't de facto moderated, but it is. Just because you agree with the level of moderation doesn't mean it's not moderated.
The even broader point is that nobody wants to participate in a truly unmoderated discussion, which may not be technically true, but if you allow "nobody" to mean "nearly nobody" (the author's intent), it's accurate.
Besides, one of the key aspects of 4chan is anonymity which could itself be considered a level of moderation; the default and indeed strong preference of commenters is to not be identifiable, which is a form of (self) moderation.
You can try to weasel around with what "moderation" means here, but the effect is largely the same no matter how you slice it; some stuff on 4chan isn't posted by tradition, not by technical capability.
DPRK’s top 1% live what amounts to an upper middle class life, and tend to educate their children abroad.
My understanding is that they even have access to an unfiltered Internet supplied by China. The threat of extermination of their families if they step out of line politically seems to keep those people in check.
I would think they are kept in check the same way the upper middle class is kept in check pretty much everywhere in the world. They live a very comfortable life style and have no interest in doing anything that would jeopardize that.
That's a latent function present to varying degrees in every society (who wants to rock the boat if you're having a good ride?), whereas the threat to one's family is more of a manifest function, sociologically speaking.
Because you aren't actually entitled to online banking services from Chase, and if we lived in a world where, "I didn't read what I signed" was a valid defense, contracts would be more or less unenforceable.
This is much more okay than the alternative, in other words.
Contracts are not automatically valid just because you signed them, though.
For example, if I buried a clause stating that you transfer all your assets to me somewhere deep inside my website's Terms of Use, there is no way in hell I will be able to enforce that. It would be considered an "unconscionable contract", and it would be voided.
An on-topic example would be Uber v. Heller, where an arbitration clause in the contract was ruled unconscionable, and as a result the plaintiff was allowed to file a class action lawsuit against Uber.
Similarly, clauses can be deemed unconscionable because they are an "unfair surprise". An example is Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co, where the fact that Williams did not understand the contract was considered to be a major factor for the contract being unenforceable.
So yeah, when it comes to a contract between an individual and a large business, "I didn't read it and assumed it to just be the standard legalese stuff" is in fact a valid defense.
The bank, which makes (a little bit of) money off the low-income, low-wealth customers but an absolute crapload of money off the business as a whole.
Keep in mind that banks receive enormous support from the government and society. There’s the FDIC, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, the Fed (and its discount window, FedWire, etc), the fact that banks are effectively permitted to create M2 money, and more. And the governments (federal and state) essentially require a bank account to do many useful things, including paying taxes. The government regulates the banks quite firmly in exchange, but the regulation is missing the bits where the banks may not refuse service or abuse their customers.
Exactly, the social contract is that the government plays a role in the market to 1) ensure competition actually exists and 2) consumers can't be bullied into harmful practices. It's a constant cat and mouse game too. (there are more things the gov does too).
Both of these we've seen the government hold up frequently in the past. We monopoly bust as well as bust when companies become too big. For some reason people think precise monopolies are different from effective monopolies. Contract law itself doesn't allow you to put illegal things into the contract. Anarchocapitalism doesn't work, despite libertarian beliefs because power is not linearly proportional, natural monopolies exist, and collusion exists. Two-three big companies that control 70% of a market can all gain if they decide to include clauses where they acquire all your assets immediately. Insurance companies can maximize profits by kicking you out as soon as you get sick and requiring that you have to have one. The solution spaces are large and even when competition exists the nash equilibrium isn't always what's best for consumers. Nuance is requires because multiple solutions exist, not just the one we want to exist.
>but an absolute crapload of money off the business as a whole.
Of the 11 sectors making up the S&P 500, over the last 15 years, finance is one of the least profitable. Banks are not very profitable compared to other sectors of the economy. [1]
The reason is there are ~5000 banks in the US, and a huge number you can choose from. If a few banks were simply charging tons more than it actually costs to run a bank, another of the 5000 would lower costs and attract more customers from the costly banks. The largest bank by deposits, JP Morgan Chase, holds < 8% of deposits held by banks. There is no monopoly, or duopoly, or anything approaching market dominance. [2]
If you're sure they making "an absolute crapload" you should invest in them. But since in reality they are not very good investments, you should rethink your beliefs. Your beliefs simply are not true, as demonstrated by market evidence.
>Keep in mind that banks receive enormous support from the government and society.
Keep in mind that society and government receives enormous support from banking. That's why they have trillions in assets - because they provide value to those using banks. When people, or govt, chooses to use a bank, both sides gain (consumer and producer surplus in economics). So the amount of business some entity obtains is reasonably proportional to the amount of utility they provide to customers. This is simple econ.
>There’s the FDIC
Paid for by banks....
>Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac
Paid for by, you guessed it, banks.... Where do you think the loans the FMs holds originate?
>the Fed (and its discount window, FedWire, etc)
Designed to help banking remain stable from bank runs, from, guess what, panics of people. It's such a good system for stability compared to previous times that the structure has been adopted by all 200+ countries on the planet. Not a single one has decided not to use this structure.
>the fact that banks are effectively permitted to create M2 money
A common misconception - it is not "free" money. It is backed by an exactly equal debt, netting zero in assets for the bank. To cover the risk that the borrower defaults, the bank charges interest. If the bank makes enough bad loans, the bank, not you, lose money.
The alternative is no loans, for college, cars, houses, payroll, etc.
>the governments (federal and state) essentially require a bank
To fund their functioning. How do you think the govt runs a deficit? Banks lend them money. Without the markets made by the banks to provide liquidity to govt, at the municipal, state, and federal level, society would be tremendously worse off.
Go spend time learning how the bond markets work, how treasuries work, detailed differences between the Fed and Treasury, and look at historical events and how they were paid for.
>the regulation is missing the bits where the banks may not refuse service or abuse their customers
Then you have not read any laws, ignore the many agencies that precisely do this, or the long history of punishments.
> Who pays for your free banking? Other people? Taxpayers?
Yes. I'm happy to do so. Can't the gov even make money through this? Seems like they could buy bonds with that money. But I'm no economist
> How about people realize services cost money and pay their own way?
That's not the calculus. It's part of it but far (FAR) from the whole calculus. There's also the cost of not providing the services. Again, there's more to the calculus, but this other side always needs to be considered and almost never is because we weigh money spent far more then rewards not received. But the ability to do this is exactly what makes us human and distinct from many animals
Me not being entitled to Chase does not make their predatory practices ok, if that’s what you’re getting at. This is a pretty stupid way of looking at things.
You realize the difference between a contract and what this article is about? Besides that this change wouldn't fly in some european countries for similiar reasons parent cited
Sanitation is one of the main things we need a government for; failure here is unacceptable.