I answered that in my original post: "I understand that there are other options (reset password to random gibberish, run a script to delete my comments[, or, third option I'm inserting now, which seemed obvious to the point of not bothering to state it, just stop using the site]) and none of that would provide the catharsis I aimed for so I'm still here, for now, I guess."
Some version of "these comments are a donation to the community and the idea of taking your ball and going home is anathema to what we are trying to build here"
which is a long way of saying "we think our shit don't stink"
I've recently (over two months) deleted my Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook accounts and was not impressed by what I found when I went to delete my HN account.
I understand that there are other options (reset password to random gibberish, run a script to delete my comments) and none of that would provide the catharsis I aimed for so I'm still here, for now, I guess.
Edit: looking at the other replies next to mine, I think "we think our shit don't stink" was an accurate description of what's going on here.
According to the FBI, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 proves you wrong, and I'm going to believe fbi.gov over anonymous HN commenters 99 times outta 100. Even if you think you're right because you think some part of the law is unconstitutional, or the way you worded the question was specifically chosen such that you think it doesn't fall under this law, or something I am not aware of idk, I don't believe that the FBI agrees with you, and they're the ones who would be charging me/my kids.
I think it explains the why quite clearly- editorial independence. It's a big deal. NPR is allowed to be critical of the US government in a way that RT is not.
If it's a progressive plank, surely you can provide an example of an actual progressive politician making the argument, yes? Instead of two private, non-elected people, that no one who doesn't have an agenda to push has ever heard of? You know, something to tie it to actual progressives, so that it doesn't just look like you're nutpicking.
What do you mean? According to the sources I'm reading- not this paywalled one, of course- the lawsuits allege the presence of asbestos in their talc, detected in-product by the FDA as recently as 2019. Are you saying that was intentional? Because that would seem to be even more damning than what's alleged.
They detected the incident on the 29th of December. I kinda think that regardless of what day they disclosed, from that day to today, people would find various reasons to complain- "to soon to know what happened", "the day before New Years", "the day after New Years", and "too long after the event". In snark I will suggest that's a pessimist voice you're hearing- the cynic in me wonders if there's any time to disclose that won't receive a complaint.
I mean...surely you're aware that, at this time, already, there are many people committing non-violent crimes, and being sentenced, and not being incarcerated, right? Punishments include fines, travel restrictions, wage garnishment, loss of license or ability to hold certain types of position, monitoring of movement, there's quite a list. Unless you think "all people convicted of a crime go to jail" is already true- and it is not- the answer to your question is "what we're already doing".
Yes, I think that non-violent offenders should not be sent to jail, and I think that we should only punish people for what we can prove in a court of law.
They're already out of top sport by virtue of not being able to compete against people who are actually at the top of the sport. Really we should be coming up with better ways to divide "top sport" than gender. Weight class, for example. Or just skill level/rankings regardless of gender and stop acting like #1 in both things is the same.
Immigrants: you don't get to choose where you're born. Dual citizenship seems similar. I see no particular reason to consider "allegiance to the government" as a matter of trustworthiness, barring actual treason.
Job search: this is a real topic of debate in the business world already, but seems pretty commonly accepted due to the deteriorating nature of employer-employee relationships.
Religious conversions: the "you don't get to choose birth religion" argument from above combined with the inherently illogical nature of religion makes this one nearly impossible to judge on.
Unfaithful before marriage: seems pretty easy to toss this into the same category as "unfaithful during marriage".
Not trying to be flippant, but I genuinely do see basically all of the cases you listed as strictly less serious than being unfaithful during a committed relationship.
See, that statement makes me think you haven't fully considered the ramifications of this decision. If a dude wearing full Hugo Boss Nazi regalia walks into my private establishment, I should not have to serve him, and I refuse to respect the idea of serving him.
You can argue that Twitter is different because it's bigger, but if there's only one bar in town I don't see a substantial different between these two acts; I just don't see the size of Twitter as especially important to this.
What I'm saying here mostly is- I really don't think you want to add "political belief or opinion" as a protected class. That means not being able to fire someone for expressing racist opinions, that means not being able to ban gang colors from a club, it really has a very far reaching effect.
What you probably want to do is socialize Twitter. Same effect (they are treated as a public entity, and can only punish you for illegal content) but without a bunch of insane restrictions on my own personal Freedom of Association (you remember that part of the Bill of Right, not just the Freedom of Speech parts, right?)