You wouldn't hold a landlord accountable if it was a surprise that a crime took place, but if they were aware that some of their tenants were committing crimes and just "choosing not to ask about it," they could reasonably be called "accountable."
Telcos are regularly asked to give up information regarding crimes committed by their customers, see the Patriot Act for details - in some sense, we as a country have decided to hold them accountable for this (though, not spam).
Meta have been involved in a whole list of litigation that is at minimum adjacent to stalking/harassment, if not directly involving those things. I would need to look up to be more specific, though.
You say landlords should only have accountability for the crimes of their tenants if they chose to do nothing to prevent their property from being used for crime.
Google doesn't just ignore bad advertisers, they prevent the vast majority of malicious ads and report the worst offenders to law enforcement. Google is already doing far more than what you say immunizes landlords.
You say telcos are in the clear because they give info to law enforcement on demand.
Google also does this, so according to your goalposts, Google is also in the clear.
You say Meta is in the clear because they have been sued for crimes their platform enabled.
Google has also been sued and paid billions in damages.
The standard I'm asking you to generalize is the one I replied to: "hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network".
If this standard can't generalize to landlords, telcos, Meta and everyone else who has a platform that bad actors abuse, then it's a bogus standard.
I will concede that I missed the "every" in the GP comment - and you're right, that by itself is probably an unreasonable standard. I do think there is more that Google could do to address what most of us would call "known" bad actors, in the same way that telcos could do more to drop bogus spoofers. It's great that Google is doing something, but it's also knowingly leaving channels open that are for illegitimate operators.
This is how software trends go. AI has already had several of these; it started with every site needing their own chatbot powered by AI. A decade ago, every product was trying to integrate some sort of blockchain. It takes time for them to shake out to where they actually belong.
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: Node, TypeScript, C#, cloud deployment, etc
Résumé/CV: https://grahammueller.com/Resume.pdf
Email: graham.mueller315@gmail.com
I've really worked on just about everything. The last few years have been primary various node applications, the few years prior to that were mostly C#, prior to that mobile development...
Looking to get into something new. Open to pretty much anything at this point.
Usually, I'd say this sort of comment is not really contributing much to the conversation, but in this case I agree with the sentiment. With a lot of these posts about the surveillance tech that's becoming increasingly prominent everywhere in the public, there are a lot of commenters here that seem to be of the opinion that "this is fine, as long as you have nothing to hide, there's nothing lost" - or worse in this case, that perhaps that there's something to be gained by taking the "bizarre and dangerous" off the street. Admittedly, I do not live in one of the cities that have issues with a large homeless population, so the experience is a bit lost on me, but I am surprised to see, especially on this forum, people embrace any form of surveillance state. We evidently have learned nothing by both the performative and actual surveillance adds since the Patriot Act. Perhaps the general populous is in fact on board with this and those of us who aren't are the minority.
> I do not live in one of the cities that have issues with a large homeless population, so the experience is a bit lost on me
That's the key experience you're missing. If you've never lived in a high-homeless/drug abuse area, you don't really understand how thoroughly draining it is on every aspect of civic life.
I recognize that I'm missing that part of the context, but it still surprises me that the answer to that is relatively global surveillance. In the current state of things, homelessness is perfectly public and observable, right? And so at any point now, the proposed "enforcement" could take place without the need for cameras? I think that part is unclear to me as well, the problem that exists that this solves.
Well, there are two ways to reduce homelessness: enforce vagrancy laws directly or wait for homeless people to commit a second crime and arrest them for that.
Some American cities have the state capacity necessary to do the former option, but the rest are stuck with the latter. And the latter only works if you can get evidence for low-level crimes when they happen.
Yes. It solves the "surveillance tech company needs to make quarterly goals" problem, and the "politician needs to look like they are doing something about crime" problem.
I live in DC and do not wish for human rights violations against these people because they bother me. I understand how draining it is but IMO forcing us all into a surveillance state because of "undesirables" is the laziest way to solve this problem.
So the answer to a problem the police and authorities already know about is a surveillance state for everyone? How are ever more cameras going to fix the drug abuse/homlessness problem?
Except you don't fix homelessness by charging all the homeless people with felonies for engaging in their hobbies (weed smoking) - you do it by working out why the housing economy is so dogshit that so many people can't get one.
Full agree. It certainly feels like people are afraid of imagined threats, there just is no way there's so much rampant crime that people's living space is broken into so often, that surveiling everything all the time is a valid solution.
Like, I live in Detroit, and we don't have enough crime to justify it.
Having owned an Impala of that generation, and having seen so many around for so long, this is exactly where my mind went. These are a dead ringer for their rear lights.
Man, you've been on a streak of these purely vitriolic posts. Maybe take a break from the internet for a bit? These posts read like someone who needs help.
I think that the idea is each action uses more tokens, which means that users hit their limit sooner, and are consequently unable to burn more compute.
> There are no more basic utilitarian pickups any longer, at least in the US.
What makes you say this? The F-150 series has a pretty serviceable option in their XL trim. 8ft bed, 4x4, "dumb" interior (maybe not, looking at their site looks like the most recent is iPad screen, sigh) - but what else would you look for to call it utilitarian?
You're right that each feature is further limiting, but I would argue premium and utilitarian are reaching for opposite goals.
A F-150 from the previous century is much utilitarian than today's F-150's. The bed height and rail height are much more reasonable heights -- you can reach into the bed from the side.
I would argue that the first couple of these could be considered "features." Not sure what you mean about the bench seat - the "regular cab" configuration is a 3 person bench.
You wouldn't hold a landlord accountable if it was a surprise that a crime took place, but if they were aware that some of their tenants were committing crimes and just "choosing not to ask about it," they could reasonably be called "accountable."
Telcos are regularly asked to give up information regarding crimes committed by their customers, see the Patriot Act for details - in some sense, we as a country have decided to hold them accountable for this (though, not spam).
Meta have been involved in a whole list of litigation that is at minimum adjacent to stalking/harassment, if not directly involving those things. I would need to look up to be more specific, though.
reply