That is literally true. Paypal is choosing not to do business with someone. Is your preference that companies must be forced to conduct business with all comers?
FFS the government has already forced people to do business with those they don't like. You do remember the raison etre of the Civil Rights Act don't you?
I'm pretty sure companies in the 1960s South didn't want to serve black Americans.
In fact, many want the Government to go further and force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings when the owners don't support gay marriage [1]
The fact that the Government created protected classes is the entire point. Government's already have forced businesses to do business with people. That is a fact. This argument has nothing to do with what is and isn't a protected class.
What is a protected class could be expanded and the Government can force everyone to do business with unsavoury types.
Payment processors are government licensed oligopolies and if private processors can deny service for no reason, then the goverment should set up its own with a universal service obligation.
If making and receiving payments is considered a necessary utility posting and handling large amounts of cash is restricted, then providers should not have a right to deny service to customers who are not taking payments in violation of the law, regardless of distasteful their activities may be.
Would you agree if the state sided with electrical or water utilities to be able to refuse service to a customer such as brothel, on the grounds that their activitites where distasteful and immoral, not matter how legal?
That would be fine if the person denied service had the right to connect to a river or a well, lay down their own pipes and power and draw their water and electricity directly, but those rights are curtailed by the state, and it requires certain permissions and rights to do those.
The same can be said of online payments and credit card payments. They have become a necessary utility so much so that brothels and panhandlers have credit card machines. If private providers can deny such service arbitrarily then the state must become the providers of last resort.
This is exactly the fight you should be having -- the government should be a universal payment processor. I agree wholeheartedly. I am arguing again the people who state that a corporation should be obligated to serve a non-protected class.
if private processors can deny service for no reason
Ah yes, the "no reason" of being violence-inciting Nazis. What a reasonless judgement.
If you agree that the government should be a universal payment processor, then you must agree that the government should set itself as a universal payment processor "first", before granting the oligopolies they have licensed the right to deny service for no legal reason.
It’s hard to see how the payment processors (operating under government license) are not violating the first amendment when they ban users. Perhaps someone will try that case one day.
It is. Censorship is not solely a government action. We have concepts everyone should be familiar with like self-censorship that don’t involve the government.
This sounds like an argument that can only be made if one believes that they're incapable of competing without PayPal's involvement. It sounds like a meek whine that they deserve special protections that force other companies to work with them.
If PayPal is such an overwhelming giant of a service that you genuinely believe it needs to be forced to do business with certain corporations, then maybe it should be made into some sort of regulated service.
Deciding not to provide a platform for any particular view is not censorship. Also, hate speech specifically calling for violence is not protected speech.
> hate speech specifically calling for violence is not protected speech.
Yes, it is, for the most part. Per Brandenburg v. Ohio,
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Breaking: Gab Upset by the same treatment they promise in their legal terms: "Termination
We may terminate your access to and use of the Services, at our sole discretion, at any time and without notice to you." [1]
Most companies have something in their ToS to the effect of "we can do whatever we want" -- that doesn't mean they're all the same. For example, Stripe and PayPal both have essentially the same ToS. But only PayPal has so many "banned for no reason" horror stories that there are multiple websites dedicated to cataloging them.
Paypal generally doesn't pull out of business unless its illegal. It was a bad move by paypal because 800000 gab users who did nothing wrong are now inconvenienced
We dont live in a 3rd world country where free speech is illegal. Or a middle east country where you get stoned to death for being gay. We live in free speech america.. Gab did nothing wrong, and you pointing to the laws of 3rd worlds is a red herring
This is neither a right in any theoretical system of human rights I've seen, nor is there any practical way to disassociate people from a basic human emotion.
In the context of this conversation people don't have the right to disassociate with anyone they don't like. I'm not being "cute" about hate, and whatever you think hate is isn't relevant to my point. People simply do not have the right to do business with others chosen entirely from their own personal discretion. The US government can and does force businesses to provide services, at the risk of that business's existence, to unsavory entities.
I don't know what Gab is, or what its typical content is like, though I'm getting an idea from the replies to this tweet. But the principle of free speech has nothing to do with the right of a company to use Paypal's services. It's to do with the right of individuals to say what they like without government incarcerating or otherwise harming them or their ability to speak.
Paypal banned me when I was 12 for using a 20% off coupon to buy a pencil from myself for $500. Let me keep the $100 after holding the $500 for 6 months. Best CD ive ever had.
>But only PayPal has so many "banned for no reason" horror stories
There is always a reason. The reason this time is probably:
"Gab is a popular gathering place for alt-right activists and white nationalists whose views are unwelcome or banned on other social media platforms. Early members included the right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website. Other well known users have included controversial media personalities Alex Jones and Carl Benjamin."
That's pretty dismissive and combative. From a neutral perspective, it looks like one of the intrinsic characteristics of Gab is that it is host to more hateful expression than other platforms. Can you give something in the way of an explanation as to why you're so confident that can't be the real reason?
Did Gab pick the hate groups, or did the hate groups pick Gab? What if you created a platform for expression, and it was infiltrated by a certain type of audience that's generally repulsive. Should we sink your project?
Surely this argument is beneath you. Infiltrated? So it's unwanted by you? What efforts are you making to prevent it? Pretty easy to demonstrate that you won't tolerate that behavior. Gab has never done anything remotely suggesting these are unwanted accounts tarnishing their good name.
Gab is just a clone of Twitter. I might well agree that Twitter-type services are more prone to "hateful expression" than longer form writing, but given the relative sizes of Twitter and Gab you can certainly find far more hate on Twitter. And no, Twitter certainly don't crack down on it systematically, not when it's the kind of hate fashionable on the west coast.
Sounds like a good thing to ban, but I'm still wary of the exact method. ('we can ban anyone' clauses, and the idea of generic payment providers being the arbiters)
I think you're confusing the fact that people have repeatedly argued that Gab isn't white supremacist twitter with the notion that it has somehow been established that it isn't. But, of course, it is. Even Voat has better bona fides than Gab.
Later
It's probably not just a coincidence that every time this comes up on HN, there's a Popehat thread about Gab at the same time. Here's Ken today with a telling citation to Gab's own Twitter account from earlier this year:
Unless you can provide evidence where gab says they are Nazis, they support Nazis, or you've found some advertising materials there they advertise to Nazis, you're not winning this argument. Unless you're petty enough to keep having my comments flagged.
A "free speech social network" used by white supremacists, neo-nazis and other extremists who have been banned elsewhere from social media (among others - I know people will be triggered if I don't explicitly disambiguate that not all Gab users are extremists and racists) and recently by the suspected Pittsburgh synagogue shooter.
It's ostensibly the "free speech" version of Twitter, in practice it mostly caters to the far-right. The Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was a user: https://archive.fo/k63LE
His profile has now been nuked by Gab, but only to save face after the shooting. They would usually pride themselves in not removing that kind of content.
It's worth noting that in its heyday --- usage on Gab appears to have plummeted, at least measured by the front page, and seems to be dominated today by bots --- the content on that page was absolutely par for the course for the front page of the site. There was even a House candidate, Paul Nehlen, who campaigned using almost identical anti-Semitic rhetoric on Gab.
You wouldn't want to leave anyone the impression that this kind of stuff was somehow buried on individual user pages on Gab. Rather, it is the raison d'etre for the whole site.
Picture of cat, picture of eagle, JEWS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA, picture of cat, picture of dog, THE BOMBER IS A FALSE FLAG, picture of dog, LOOK AT THIS HORDE OF MUSLIMS COMING TO DESTROY US, picture of house
It is much saner looking today (not that it looks sane); again, posting traffic on Gab pages seems to have plummeted. A year or two ago, the whole front page was racist and anti-Semitic memes. Oh, and of course, picture of cat, picture of eagle, picture of house.
That's been reported, yes, but really the thing to know about Gab in 2018 is that it seems to be like 80% bots and 20% white supremacist UGC, which is what really makes it look more normal than it is.
I assume not, but I figure someone does payment processing for them that an upset crowd could apply pressure to?
I guess I was generally curious if people thought there'd be any sort of similar repercussion(s) toward Twitter though. I finally got off Twitter a couple months ago and can still imagine a likely "outrage bubble" yesterday about their handling of that account, but with little actual impactful change in user usage of the service, etc. (In fact, if anything, "major" events like this likely drive a lot of traffic, even if there's criticisms.) (Please note, I'm explicitly not commenting on whether or not I think the criticism/handling/etc is appropriate or justified.)
Was Gab actively supporting the hateful groups more than just giving them a speech platform? Because if not, this is truly terrifying. It seems like the "left" (whatever that means), with waves of ignorant support, is turning into the monster it thinks it's fighting against.
It’s easy to say everyone has the right to a platform, but an overwhelming majority agrees that this shouldn’t apply to groups like pedophiles and Islamic State. The antisemitic alt-right is growing more violent. When do they cross the line, if you feel it hasn’t been crossed yet?
PayPal is a profit-oriented company, not the "left" - whatever that boogeyman means. A company that doesn't want to support one of the most vitriolic, hateful platforms on the internet. Speech has consequences and can turn violent and this platform welcomed these people and this hate speech (by explicitly catering to those that got banned from other services etc).
It should honestly come as no surprise considering Gab, much like Voat, is a website filled with some of the most vitriolic and racist garbage I've ever seen. No company wants to be associated with a walking PR disaster.
Most of the time however they're more than happy to take money from said places as long as people don't make it into a big PR problem.
Historically, voat and gab were set up because its users disapproved of the moderation on reddit and twitter. That differentiates the cultures on voat and gab from their predecessors.
That is an extraordinarily charitable way to describe the genesis of Gab, which actually has roots in a YC batch (that its founder, Andrew Torba, was kicked out of).
Torba had an unrelated YC startup during the batch that was running during the 2016 election season. He was ejected from YC for harassing batch-mates; there's an HN thread about it you can find in the search bar. He started Gab at just about the same time as he was kicked out of YC.
Of course it exists everywhere in some measure (one can’t change the nature of humanity all that easily with just a website), but at least YouTube/Twitch/Facebook actually have some degree of value/utility. Voat et al appear to exist as little more than platforms for hateful bile that isn’t tolerated elsewhere.
I can see "some of the most vitriolic and racist garbage I've ever seen" on Twitter any day I want. Granted, I don't want to go on Twitter that often, but finding garbage there is not a problem. I mean, https://twitter.com/louisfarrakhan exists and this is the person who literally talks about "Satanic Jews". Why it isn't a walking PR disaster I wonder?
Good. Now for Stripe. I already called their customer support this morning and told them I'd pull my organization's account unless they dropped Gab. I'm sure I'm not the only customer who has. They enable payments processing for Gab, which means that they also profit from Gab. They make money off the alt-right. They choose to make money off the alt-right.
You want protests in front of your office, Stripe, raising hell about the blood money you take? We can surely arrange that. For every TechBro being oh-so-concerned about "financial censorship, oh noes!": you ain't seen nothing yet.
not doing business with white supremacist profiteers > nice API and documentation
Apparently yes, based on several conversations with/from some of their leadership on Twitter today. Stripe did suspend them earlier this month, but that seems to have been temporary.
I notice your organization (reclaimtherecords.org from your profile) uses Cloudflare, which also serves Gab. Are you going to threaten to leave them, too?
Hmmm, that's a good point. But we don't pay Cloudflare, we're on their free plan, so you could say we're actually a drain on their system rather than a customer. In contrast, we pay Stripe quite a bit, so threatening to leave them actually hits them in their wallet.
I signed us up for a Braintree account today as soon as I heard the PayPal news (PayPal now owns Braintree). We can take our business elsewhere -- and so can lots of other organizations and companies.
Yes, it's related to free speech, but I just want to point out that it has nothing to do with the US first amendment protections and likely has nothing to do with free speech laws in other areas as well, since those only restrict what government can do.
Choosing to disassociate from speech you don't like is yet another use of free speech, as is banning groups that use speech you don't like from your private platform.
So yeah, gab, Reddit, and Facebook are exercising their right to free speech.
I think you may be confusing “government infringement upon free speech rights” and the much wider concept of “free speech” in general, which is the ability, provided by common spaces and a soap box, or printing presses, and now by the internet, that permits someone with something to say to reach their audience who wishes to hear them.
There are a lot more people who have the ability to shut down a website, regardless of hosting company choice, than have the ability to shut down dissemination of a flyer or stop a speaker from speaking.
Yes, a TOS is freedom of association. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing for society when unpopular speech gets banned from every web host they use, in order.
Well now the web site’s getting kicked off Joyent. And, you know, I want the right to choose who I host and who I don’t host if I ran a hosting company. And I’d be happy to host conspiracy theorying white nationalists, but I wouldn’t want to have to transmit child porn wedding cake payments if that were legal.
Their web site is indeed being shut down. :/ I hate Gab and all the nazis they host, but I am troubled about the difficulty in hosting the wider category of unpopular speech.
Gab may have a large number of alt-right conspiracy nuts, but they also have a lot of users who rightfully mock those nutty people. It really is a platform for pure free speech. Unfortunately, its polarization was inevitable as Twitter and Reddit started cracking down on far-right users, leaving only pure free speech websites left for the crazies. But suggesting the website itself condones violence or sympathizes with neo-Nazis isn't accurate.
Per tptacek's comments, the founder does appear to be an asshole, but that doesn't make him a neo-Nazi.
I don't know what "neo-Nazi" means to you, but if you'd like, we can refine our terminology and simply talk about "white supremacists and anti-Semites", at which point if will become very difficult for you to argue that the site doesn't "condone or sympathize with" those forces.
> Sam Altman is the CEO of YC. I said that YC kicked out Andrew Torba for harassing batchmates. And lo, there's the CEO of YC, on a Hacker News thread, saying he kicked out Andrew Torba for harassing batchmates. There's probably nothing more to be said about it here.
Ah yes, be dishonest about what was in the thread. Did you even read it?
Ok, I didn't see these. You're right. Whoever controls that Twitter account is definitely very alt-right and possibly sympathizes with Nazis. I take back what I said.
People like asparagirl will not join a free speech platform because her speech isn't really restricted from the non-free speech platforms. The people who have the biggest incentive to join these platforms are the one which are kicked out from all the other networks.
The ACLU seems like a worthwhile cause for actual advocates of free speech. And no, they don't only advocate for liberal causes. Campaign finance laws would be one area of policy where they have starkly different ideas than the political left.
As to these platforms: the whole argument is essentially build on this slippery-slope fallacy that banning vile racism, anti-semitism, etc. inexorably leads more restrictions on speech, and (eventually) the end democracy.
That's demonstrably false: there have always been restrictions on speech (such as obscenity laws), so there really isn't some bright red line that would be crossed, and these restrictions have also not lead to the end of free speech.
There are restrictions on almost any other activity if you expand your definitions to the extremes: the right of peaceful assembly is just as central to democracy, but nobody is bothered by the restriction that you can't hold your protest in the Oval Office.
So maybe these people should consider being kicked out of all these platforms not as an incentive to change platforms, but to rather think about how far they must have removed themselves from society. Seriously: if the people who think youtube comments are worth it ban you, it's time to start listening more and posting less.
I am very confused by your response, it seems like you're responding to what you think I said rather than what I actually said.
I am saying that if you create a product NEW, and hope to lure away people from product OLD, the only people who will migrate to the new platform are the people who have problem with product OLD which product NEW solves for them.
In case of the 'free speech' platforms, the group which has the problem and need of 'free speech' are the ones which are restricted in their speech.
And oddly enough the ones that get kicked out from other networks are the ones repeatedly targeted by people like Asparagirl. Their mission is quite obviously to completely erase anyone who doesn't share their same set of hates and out-groups from the internet: first, get them kicked off the big platforms, then try to choke off payment processing to smaller platforms.
Then they sit back and wonder how they can get those people at the ballot box too.
I don't know how this ends, but people like Asparagirl are clearly the sort of people Trump means when he talks about mobs. They will presumably never stop trying to shut down anyone she identifies as an enemy. This probably ends with some sort of legislative solution, in the long run.
I assume from your pissed-off tone and what you say that you are a some sort of leftist wanna-be activist.
Aren't you guys for free speech and minorities? Stopping alt-right (a minority) exercising their right to free speech doesn't seem like a good cause to pursue.
It's getting so annoying how leftists want to silence anyone that doesn't agree with them. This is part of the reason why people are abandoning your ideology in droves, at least in Europe.
Haven't you become the very thing you think you're fighting, or am I missing something?
People like you support freedom of speech or expression only for your views.
Democracy is underpinned by the principle, by the faith, that if people are given the right information they will make the right choices, no matter or learned or ignorant they are. This the reason why the votes of people who in less politcally correct times would be clinically labelled as idiots, morons, or simpletons carry as much power as those of members of the professions, respected academics, or even high court judges.
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship, it is well reasoned counterarguments. This implies that you have taken it upon yourself to judge that some people are not intelligent enough to understand the counterarguments, and that they should be denied access to those counterarguments since those counterarguments will never be made or heard, if the arguments that are being countered are not allowed to be made or heard in the first instance.
So can you, together with those others who believe freedom of speech should be curtailed, explain why you are the ones who are intellectualy competent to deny those you consider intellectually challenged the right to hear the viewpoints you disagree with?
This is nothing more than intellectual arrogance and superciliousness on the part of the likes of you, and it is time you and likeminded people recognize it for what it is.
I flagged this post, which I hardly ever do, both for its vitriolic and sexist tone ("TechBro" is clearly a sexist term of abuse), plus its explicitly threatening nature.
I appreciate that fact that you can tell this is all just a front for beliefs they don't have.
I mean if they really believe in free speech you would assume they would have mentioned Julian Assange or Wikileaks once. It would have made a lot more sense if they had ever mentioned how dangerous the censorship of Wikileaks by monetary means was. Fortunately they never did this so you can reasonably assume it is a front.
Most people who believe in free speech only believe in freedom for their speech. That's just the way people are.
Extremists cry foul that their free speech rights are being violated or that they're being censored but within their own groups they would quickly stamp out opposing ideas or criticism.
They do this because they see words as weapons to be used against their enemies, nothing more. It’s not that they believe in freedom of speech incompletely. They just know that freedom of speech is something other people care about, and it can be used as a rhetorical weapon.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
I’m suggesting that people who cry “freedom of speech” when others won’t do business with them, while simultaneously suppressing dissent among their own ranks, are using it as a rhetorical weapon rather than as a principle they follow but I completely.
No one. Banning Gab.com isn't suppressing dissent, since Gab.com weren't dissenting against Paypal. Also, Gab.com weren't in "the ranks of" Paypal, nor was Paypal "in the ranks of" Gab.com.
Paypal had no apparent issue with Gab until recently, so politics being the catalyst of Paypal's decision seems unlikely in this case, as they could have banned Gab at any time. Rather, recent extenuating circumstances seem to have made a client relationship with Gab no longer tolerable for Paypal.
I don't really have a take on gab.com (never heard of it until now) but a couple years ago I was processing thousands of transactions per day with PayPal. Their technology is awful and (from outside observation) their engineering teams are incompetent.
In a business where "the hard technical problem" is how to stop fraud while allowing legitimate transactions to occur, you'd expect bad engineering to mean that the fraudsters win and the whole thing blows up. But what seems to have happened is that they've simply overcompensated on the other side. It's easy to stop fraud if you just flag everything as fraud. You end up with pissed off annoyed users, but you don't go bankrupt.
It's too bad. I really wish PayPal was a vibrant alternative to Visa & Mastercard; they fundamentally have the trust model right. It's just that they've been failing at execution for decades now and even with the braintree acquisition it looks like they're dead in the water, milking the last of their fading reputation.
Stripe is really the class act here, but they're playing a very conservative game. I wish they "owned" the payment process more instead of just being a front for credit cards. Maybe someday.
Interesting thoughts. It could be that PayPal has over extended certain models for far longer than they should have. Some forms of tech debt should be resolved sooner, rather than later. It would be fascinating to know the real reasons behind the fall from grace.
Is it really the employees, or the managers? There could be dilapidated business processes still in place that even prevent the company from healing itself. An interesting take on this is the book How The Mighty Fall.
Some relevant things to know might be if they have restructured a lot, and what their churn has looked like both in the executive suite and in engineering.
It's hard to be certain from the outside, but my impression is:
- Fractured product line; they have a bunch of products that are similar but different and they themselves are confused about which is which. Product management is in chaos.
- Tech debt from the 90s that has never been paid off.
- Acquisitions that were poorly integrated.
- Some weird attempt to mash their platform together with ebay that never quite fully baked, then more debt incurred hastily ripping them apart again.
- Some attempts at outsourcing development overseas? Can't be certain about this, just an impression.
- A major attempt to rewrite their API, but instead of simplifying they got an architecture astronaut to design it. He wrote a lot of annoying blog entries about HATEOAS but AFAICT no longer works at the company. The modern API was published but it's broken and crippled in so many different ways that they would be better off putting a big "DO NOT USE" at the top of their documentation.
- They've effectively abandoned the new API and apparently are relying on a sort of reverse-takeover from Braintree to save them. Maybe there is progress but it's been a while and I don't see any.
From my perspective, PayPal was always distracted by what it wanted to sell to consumers, which impacted what it offered to retailers.
All most merchants wanted was "let me accept credit cards with quick and easy setup, even if it's expensive." (Hence the success of Square, Stripe, etc.). All they needed to do was to offer a few APIs that acted like every other credit card gateway, and they'd be fine.
But instead, they went whole hog on telling consumers "you never need to give the retailer a card number." Now, I'm skeptical this was ever a huge selling point, but it means that any API they can ever offer will always be a nonstandard mess to work with because it means you're going to have to bounce users off your site to finish checkout.
What is Gab? Some knock-off clothing brand? Their website returns a blank page unless - I assume - you enable external scripts (which ain't happening).
A quick glance at Gab seems to show a large number of hate groups.
Perhaps PayPal simply do not want the fallout that might ensue from that association.
Google has already removed the Gab app for violating their hate group policy. Apple and Twitter have also removed them.
It's funny how those who cry hardest about being censored, when given a completely free space to express themselves, fill it to the brim with xenophobia, racism, fake news and outlandish conspiracy theories involving the Clintons
Only in this particular cultural context. In the context of the Arab Spring such a platform would have very different content. What does seem to be the case is that every time someone attempts to deplatform the people writing about the subjects you listed, their audience grows instead of shrinks. What is the ultimate goal here because it seems like the deplatforming movement is spreading the ideas they oppose much further than these people ever could have on their own.
Is there a belief that we'll eventually reach a point where every single platform accessible to humanity is closed to those with ideas that we find unsavory? If not, then all of this seems to be causing much more harm than good as each attempt to silence them turns into a megaphone.
Their audience doesn't grow because of this, it gets funneled into places like this where their true colours are on total display. Nobody gets converted to a xenophobic racist because they hear PayPal banned some crappy site
That being said, this kind of stuff is growing, but it's not because of some hand wavey "deplatforming" issue. It's because wages are stagnating people are being locked out of a future they want. Then some very powerful voices, often those benefiting from this very thing, turn around and tell them it's because of the Jews or the Mexicans or some other minority.
But that won't stop because it doesn't make economic sense. And you can't tell anyone this because your platform is built on it. So you have to keep spreading this toxicity and division even though it's killing the country. Because it's good for your side.
Then you combine this with the deep rooted racial issues that have been swept under the rug for the last 60 years with the current social changes plua external countries that would profit from division in America, and oh boy, you've got yourself some strong punch.
You're watching America eat itself in real time on platforms like this.
What is the ultimate goal here because it seems like the deplatforming movement is spreading the ideas they oppose much further than these people ever could have on their own.
I'm gonna need to see evidence for that assertion before I take it at face value, because the alt right figures I monitor hate being deplatformed and anything that ruins their day is fine by me.
> What does seem to be the case is that every time someone attempts to deplatform the people writing about the subjects you listed, their audience grows instead of shrinks.
Alex Jones' audience collapsed after he was banned from the major social networks. Denying nonsense a megaphone works.
> I am suspending my involvement with the NEOM advisory board until the facts regarding Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance are known. This is well out of my area of expertise, so I don’t plan to comment on the case until the investigation is finished. I remain a huge believer in the importance of building smart cities.
He decided to step back because a heterosexual male was murdered. How about the discrimination against LGBT and women in Saudi Arabia? I guess the money is just too good to turn down.
Nothing like a good photo op with a dictator that murders gays.
None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about. I think everyone doing business with Saudi Arabia has blood on their hands. I'm not interested in litigating the point further.
Sam Altman is the CEO of YC. I said that YC kicked out Andrew Torba for harassing batchmates. And lo, there's the CEO of YC, on a Hacker News thread, saying he kicked out Andrew Torba for harassing batchmates. There's probably nothing more to be said about it here.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. This obviously has nothing to do with Sam and I expect the thoughtful readers of this site to discern this.
Could you please just stop breaking the guidelines and instead post civilly, informatively, and on-topic? We've asked you many times before and we ban accounts that won't.
reply