They were both wearing helmets.

> Its SIMPLE.....

> Here at Brand New Tube we want our users to enjoy building their own personality up on our platform.

> There are so many additions on the way...including live stream but more of that later.

> Rest assured however, we will not de-platform you, remove your content simply because it may question a particular narrative or upset someone else's point of view.

> Yes we have guidelines and standards but as certain platforms have shown recently, some individuals having their channel removed from certain platforms...we simply would not do that!

> So we say...join our platform and share what you have with the rest of the World.

> Kind Regards

> Team BNT

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23348650

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23336274

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23321370

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

> Regarding twitter case I feel that it's unfair to classify the issue with a single anecdote. Especially when this anecdote is about notoriously mismanaged, pointless corporation such as twitter.

Evaluating online behavior, which is presented in text, across all languages, is Hard.

It seems clear you didn't watch the video. Pool doesn't present Twitter as a single anecdote, but an example of a larger problem.

Addtionally, it is not clear to me that a platform as large as Twitter can be dismissed as an "anecdote".

The larger problem is people with these positions are not even interested in evaluating other positions, a claim supported by your comment and the down-voters of mine.

An argument could be made that RNC operatives do this because, in fact, they have benefited the most from such efforts.

I don't know why so many people making these conspiracy claims and only consider the single, most obvious party as the one that must be engaging in such actions instead of the party that has actually benefited the most.

This occurs, right now, here on HN, and IMHO it comes from the comments feed, a feature I find only useful to moderators and manipulators. Even the mention of certain topics from even a meta-discussion perspective receives down-votes, sometimes within seconds. This seems further amplified in communities where senior community members are granted super powers.

The reason this episode is relevant to your comment discussion is that Pool presents that there is this paradigm problem where certain policies intended to bring "inclusion" end up excluding something like half of the U.S. population. This paradigm Twitter management is stuck in prevents them from understanding how people outside their paradigm view their actions, and this results in effectively banning a enormous set of the population from popular discourse.

It is hard to evaluate if this is exclusively an American issue because, really, there are so few other countries that speak English.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ

> Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a binding minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;

> Taking actions to ban, sanction, or otherwise limit the access of Wikimedia movement participants who do not comply with these policies and the Terms of Use;

> Working with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases which pose legal or other severe risks; and

> Significantly increasing support for and collaboration with community functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that prioritizes the personal safety of these functionaries.

The first thing they state is creating a universal code established by some hand-picked team.

The second thing discussed is how this code will be enforced.

The third thing discussed is rewriting everything published to be sure it conforms to the new code.

The fourth thing discussed is building a wall around the functionaries. It seems notable they have chosen a word which describes an obtuse rule enforcer.

These activities do not describe the way to create anything "inclusive" of anything that is not in service to some very specific set of viewpoints.

Prior to the lockdowns, there were ~120 million people in the workforce. One-third has been knocked out, so the current workforce is 80 million, thus 50% of the current workforce has applied for unemployment. The last week's numbers indicate that just over 2% of the workforce was lost, which is the lowest percentage yet, but only a little lower than the previous week's. It is only so many more weeks we have left to have a percentage that can leave the workforce. There have never been millions of people losing their jobs in a week, now it is every week.

There are regular stories about restaurants opening, but when I read them I can see clearly the restaurants are unlikely to be able to survive profitably under the new rules. I'm not sure what the rules look like for other employers.

Are manufacturers going to be required to retool their entire production line to meet these requirements? This is more likely to lead the manufacturer to at least temporarily shut down, if not permanently.

How are apparel stores supposed to make money? And wedding gown makers? Is no one to try on clothes before purchase any more? These businesses will likely remain closed until the full ramifications of the new legislation are made clear.

I'm sure there are many examples of these things everywhere, so likely what will happen is businesses will just open and ignore the rules, and with such rampant rule-breaking either entire city staff are converted to rule enforcement, or the rules are selectively enforced (e.g., cronies shut down competitors), though even that won't work out because employees will sue employers out of business.

Employees let-go due to lockdowns are making some nice free money, and incentivizing them to go back to work before their free money dries up is incredibly difficult. It's not a clear equation, but the employee is looking at incremental earnings, meaning that going to work for 40 hours may not be worth an extra $150 in take home, so either the employer has to offer more or wait until someone comes in to work.

There is also the still undiscussed issue of the rolling regional lockdowns that Fauci and others described earlier in all of this. I suspect most people, including business owners, did not catch these stories and it seems like they've been a bit memory-holed, but if they do enact such policies, then I suspect there will be a domino effect where other businesses choose to close before they are further in arrears.

There are also secondary effects coming in the form of incredible government budget deficits. The likely policy response will be more debt and increased taxes, but this typically makes business growth more sluggish.

If this were the case, it would not be that so many companies have moved out of the Bay Area. I know of a small manufacturer that moved their entire operation 3000 miles away with 7 years left on their lease. That was a few years ago and the building is still empty.

The businesses that remain are ones where the salaries align with the living expenses, not the other way around.

I suspect this trend of lowering pay based on location will work while there are limited employers hiring remotely. If there is broad embracing, then salaries will likely rise to reduce attrition.

The problem employers face is that they can't get many of their employees back due to the employee preferring to receive the benefit to a paycheck. The employer could contact the employment office, but this is not likely to result in the employee coming back work, or at least not to coming back to work and being as productive as they were before - who wants to be a snitch, let alone work for one?

When I want to put words down without intrusion, I disable spellcheck and generally don't find myself that concerned with mispelling.

I'm not sure what you mean, but to clarify: the libertarian position is that if the fence harms no one, then there is no one, not even governments, to have anything to do with said fence besides the fence's owner, as that is the owner's right.

Not sure about what anyone here considers as libertarian, but if you were to ask a libertarian what they would tell you is that if you own property you are free to do as you please so long as you do not harm someone else.

Also not sure what you mean by lefty orgs, because labor unions, public unions and environmental groups are the biggest lobbyist influence on the high price of housing. When it comes to affordability, housing is generally (ahem - not "always") less affordable in blue states and least affordable in the bluest regions of the blue states.

> The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type of content they are allowed to show.

> The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them

This assumes they don't have the legal resources to fend off such a case.