Posted by cdrnsf 10 hours ago
The fact that they’re this motivated to track people on this niche topic sounds alarm bells for me.
That would be not unexpected. How else would an organization be able to tell the difference between someone who makes frequent and spurious complaints from a genuine feedback? [0]
0. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/01/th...
(relevant username)
Yeah, I've gotten it from people with minds like your's for a long time, continually since grade school. Your comment illuminates more about you and your fellow noticers than me.
(Name checks out) yeah this is not a normal thing to do. Man we need mandatory ethics classes in school.
The people who said "This is bullshit" in my ethics class are the ones who went to work at facebook and such so they could be rich. They don't care that you get hurt in the process.
Education can only improve a situation caused by lack of education. Most people doing shitty things aren't doing it because they don't know it's shitty.
You see people here on HN making up rationalizations all the time because they know it's shitty. They just don't care that they cause harm. They were raised by people and society to think it's okay to harm someone for your own gain because that's basically what America has advertised for 50 years.
No. No, this is not normal.
What a contrived way to spell "democracy"
sorry to the rest of the esteemed hn community for the low-effort reply, but... gross.
Am I normal?
And very much not normal.
The sandbagging on this story is crazy.
Dolan does.
Its usually about the company, not the individual
its one level of unhealthy to point at a demographic and say, "them they the source of the problems" , thats like archie bunker.
going further, individual names and dox, curated summarized to a quick read list, gathering weapons building a cell, thats historically malignant.
There's a few examples of entities like Jehovah's witnesses making do-not-visit lists that have been considered as a personal information database and such have been in hot water many, many times about that. Yes, even though you might do them to help you personally, you're acting as an agent of the org you're associated with, and such you're not supposed to be doing that.
It has been normalized to you.
It is not normal.
If you ever showed up at my business with something like that, we would never meet again, and I would tell all of my peers, other businesses, etc.
What you're doing is called PsyOps and it's a military function.
this is antisocial manipulative behavior normalized under the auspices of "good business".
Because of the thing.
That is NOT normal.
Half the tech industry thinks its fine though -- at least as long as it's not the government doing it.
NY Penal Law § 140.00 says a person in premises open to the public is there with license/privilege unless they defy a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated by the owner or another authorized person.
So, in plain English:
“You have to leave. You are not allowed back.”
The owner does not need to say: “You have to leave because…”
There was a ton of hoopla around this when Radio City and MSG trespassed lawyers that were suing the company and venues.
Everyone was up in arms and nothing happened.
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/knicks-owner-extreme-measu...
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/msg-facial-reco...
With facial recognition, enforcing a trespass order becomes nearly zero cost, so it can be applied for basically any reason. I can sort of get to understanding the tactic for "this lawyer is actively suing us", but if its "this person said something mean about us online, and we can get a facial recognition match from their profile picture", it seems like a wild abuse.
Which is why that whole Radio City Music Hall situation was such a good illustration of the actual harm of facial recognition systems. If a potentially bad action is only kept "good" because the high cost (in labor or lucre) causes discernment in its application, then removing the cost will necessarily remove the discernment, almost guaranteeing bad actions.
Business owners should have the right to bar someone from the premises, and legal recourses to enforce that right. But enforcing that right should be sufficiently cost prohibitive that enforcing that right does not grant the business outsized power to limit the public's rights to e.g. express negative opinions of that business.
Also the ban was not communicated. So probably counts as theft as well.
NYC grants significant concessions to developers in exchange for public access. It’s important to overreact and push back to every incursion into the public sphere as every incremental pushback of public benefit is cumulative over time.
Manhattan in particular is a precious resource that is already largely a playground for the rich. Normal people used to live there.