It's all about unfounded accusations, but even if the accusations are founded, if the person living there is the worst fucking racist who deserves to be shunned; that may be a valid reason for Amazon to stop delivering stuff to his home, and refuse to sell anything to him, but not to disable his entire home and disable the devices that he has already paid for.
Once you've sold it, it shouldn't be yours anymore. Inviting this kind of surveillance into your home, where we're being policed by profit-driven corporations, is the biggest condemnation of this sort of IoT crap. Imagine if my car stops working if Toyota disapproves of something I say. Imagine I can't pay for food because of something I said.
Pulling this sort of crap should be punished with heavy fines.
And if companies are at the same time held responsible for the stuff that goes through their servers and that creates an impossible situation for them, then maybe they shouldn't be creating these sort of dependencies at all.
Totally agree. Moreover, there could be people living in the same house who are not involved in the racism incident in any way but are still affected by Amazon's decision.
Wouldn’t it be even more wrong to send drivers to someone who might racially abuse them? Of course that doesn’t excuse the smart home part and they should have done a better investigation
Amazon thought that the person had already shouted a slur at the driver. They were wrong, but if they had been right blocking further deliveries to protect the drivers would have been reasonable (if it was just that)
So Amazon should continue sending people to someone who will racially abuse them just because the police didn’t catch it yet? (again, assuming that they had done the investigation properly which they didn’t in this case, which would involve collecting more evidence to back it up)
Agreed, but note that "abuse" is the operative word here. It's possible to be racist and not be outwardly hateful, and it's also possible to be non-racist and horribly abusive to staff.
These terms (gay, black, racist) are arbitrary classifications that are just broad enough to be useful, but are often attributed due to narrow characteristics or specific behaviors. eg "acting <label>"
This discussion ostensibly is focused on labeling that may be inaccurate, so I am not considering self identification.
Racist behavior is a judgement call to determine state of mind (behavioral patterns). Gay is a term that describes attraction to a similar gender, despite the overlap with other classifications (eg bi), which again is a judgement call about state of mind (behavioral patterns). Black is a label that also occurs due to behavior. Black is also a label based on a visual cue, which is arbitrary based on a pattern from personal experience. These terms are alike as labels, in these ways.
> This discussion ostensibly is focused on labeling that may be inaccurate, so I am not considering self identification.
You can't accurately talk about these topics without considering self identification.
> Racist behavior is a judgement call to determine state of mind (behavioral patterns).
That is one option, but it can also be a description of the results of someone's actions, without considering their state of mind.
> Gay is a term that describes attraction to a similar gender, despite the overlap with other classifications (eg bi), which again is a judgement call about state of mind (behavioral patterns).
Gay describes attraction only to the same gender, so the overlap with bi is only there if you ignore this. Since it's fundamentally self-identification I don't see how it's a judgement of state of mind.
> Black is a label that also occurs due to behavior. Black is also a label based on a visual cue, which is arbitrary based on a pattern from personal experience.
Black is a self-identification label which has overlap with visual cues, but isn't predicated upon them. It's a fundamentally different label from "racist".
To be fair, I'm talking about labeling, not the larger social structures groups inhabit.
> That is one option, but it can also be a description of the results of someone's actions
I don't believe pure actions are how humans derive intent. Actions are often used as an implication toward the state of mind. A child hitting another child is an action that does not connotate racist behavior under most conditions. Per your own statement:
"even if you think you're not being racist, you might be racist from the PoV of someone you were racist towards" - the classification is arbitrary based on observation.
> Since it's fundamentally self-identification
That's an opinion. Given the existence of homosexual behavior in animals, I think there is a biological component that is separate from conscious decisioning.
> it isn't predicated upon them
I do not subscribe to the idea that "black" is a specific differentiation in humans. It's an arbitrary label based on observation.
> To be fair, I'm talking about labeling, not the larger social structures groups inhabit.
I am also talking about labelling. But we as a society don't go around and say "you're gay, and you're gay , and you're gay" - we listen to what people identify as. This is fundamentally different from racism, which is rooted in behaviour, which we don't have to listen to self-identity for. That's my whole point.
> I don't believe pure actions are how humans derive intent. Actions are often used as an implication toward the state of mind. A child hitting another child is an action that does not connotate racist behavior under most conditions. Per your own statement: "even if you think you're not being racist, you might be racist from the PoV of someone you were racist towards" - the classification is arbitrary based on observation.
How are the classifications arbitrary if they are based on observation?
> That's an opinion. Given the existence of homosexual behavior in animals, I think there is a biological component that is separate from conscious decisioning.
No, it's not an opinion. You can't look at someone and accurately judge their sexual preferences. You can't even necessarily look at their actions - how many gay people had to live straight lives in the past?
The only way to properly arrive at someone's sexual preferences is to ask them.
> I do not subscribe to the idea that "black" is a specific differentiation in humans. It's an arbitrary label based on observation.
I don't understand how you're arriving at "black" being arbitrary based on observation, since it's an identification. Someone isn't black because they "act black".
In some places, it's "gay" if two guys hold hands. On the racist bit: it can be hard to disambiguate why someone treats you in an unfavorable way -- it could be because they're actually racist or they could just be a pissy person who hates their job.
Just because a person or group of people classifies you a certain way doesn't make it universally true.
> In some places, it's "gay" if two guys hold hands.
Sure, but that doesn't mean those two guys are gay.
> On the racist bit: it can be hard to disambiguate why someone treats you in an unfavorable way -- it could be because they're actually racist or they could just be a pissy person who hates their job.
Just because a person or group of people classifies you a certain way doesn't make it universally true.
It might not be universally true, but it is subjectively true. That's the difference: even if you think you're not being racist, you might be racist from the PoV of someone you were racist towards.
Just a counter example, if a Comcast customer unloads a racist tirade against a customer support rep on the phone, it's reasonable for Comcast to cut-off their internet services, right? Even if they bought their router and modem from Comcast - is there a meaningful difference?
No. Internet connectivity is now on the same level of utility as phone service was 30 years ago. As far as I know ma bell couldn’t disconect your phone just because you yelled at them. Utilities are held to higher standards (often because they’re sanctioned monopolies) and companies cannot just decide to not do business with you because you’re a bad person.
Something like a smart home starts to be a gray area I think, due to the indirect nature of it. Does shutting off some MQTT service count simply because it serves traffic? But if it becomes more common I guarantee it’ll become more regulated, so things like this can’t happen as easily.
Personally I think it’s foolish not to control the backbone your smart devices run on, home assistant gets better every year, but I also know that most people aren’t going to add that to their already busy lives.
Once you've sold it, it shouldn't be yours anymore. Inviting this kind of surveillance into your home, where we're being policed by profit-driven corporations, is the biggest condemnation of this sort of IoT crap. Imagine if my car stops working if Toyota disapproves of something I say. Imagine I can't pay for food because of something I said.
Pulling this sort of crap should be punished with heavy fines.
And if companies are at the same time held responsible for the stuff that goes through their servers and that creates an impossible situation for them, then maybe they shouldn't be creating these sort of dependencies at all.