Readit NewsThe government shouldn't put someone under (specific|personal) surveillance without strong evidence of course. But I don't see what prevents them from reading twitter, going into public chat rooms, etc.
Reading public messages seems like a super reasonable thing for the police to be doing, to keep tabs on groups that have recently engaged in disruption and violence. Whether those groups are right wing or left wing.
I don't see how you can prevent the police from reading stuff that's being broadcast for everyone else to see.
And threats of violence, or evidence of organizing to cause violence, should be investigated.
Dead Comment
If drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will deal in drugs.
The cartels are terrible, evil organizations made up of despicable and desperate human beings. There is nothing good to say about them. But if drugs were strongly regulated, instead of made illegal, and drug addiction treated like an illness, would they even exist?
The best internet communities are ones that don't need to be a "company".
HN is a great example. HN is run by a rich guy as a hobby. There will never be ads, there will never be a board of directors, the UI will basically never change, there will never be consultants hired to figure out how to make money off of us posting. Yeah you probably could put ads on HN or data mine and make some money, but it won't be enough money for Paul Graham to get out of bed for.
Twitter is also like this. Jack makes his real money from Square. He can run Twitter like his hobby. That's what makes it so great.
Because it's an extremely hard problem, and it's easier to be abstractly mad and hope someone else solves it, than to come up with concrete practical effective solutions?
Radical affirmative action. Not radical in the rioting / revolution understanding of the word, but in its application.
So, if the issue with systematic racism is such that it endangers the foundational core of American society, it's time to take a big risk: literally pull random people to sit on VC and companies boards, in skilled jobs, etc. (a bit like the Diversity Visa Lottery the US already does for immigration). And train them on the job.
Sure, there will be issues here and there, but it would definitely solve the issue once and for all. It wouldn't even have to be explicitly racial. If it's truly random, you would end up with an accurate representation of the population.
It would also desegregate schools and neighborhoods, too, because with such a disruption people would have to move to match their new jobs.
Now, an exception should be made of course for professions where an error would mean life or death (or injury): doctors, airline pilots, etc. But I suspect 95% of careers at least could be desegregated in this way.
And perhaps an exception for jobs that truly require special abilities: professor of physics, professional athlete, etc.
Dead Comment
It must be very difficult to catch (unless you want a surveillance society where everyone is suspect).
Even in cases where it's planned and announced it's difficult to stop (Al Qaeda did announce they would assassinate Charb, editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, and despite police protection they managed to do so).