@pascalguyon No, they are acting like newsroom editors, as a responsible owner of a mass media platform ought to do. The first amendment doesn’t grant people the right to say dumb things on a platform that is privately owned. It grants freedom from legal prosecution for speech.
@Clarence_Bethea Privately, the name of this fund should be spread far and wide among founders. I have no idea who this is, but I have no tolerance for this kind of behavior. This is why I quit VC.
Look out, Denmark, here I come! Now... if I can just remember how to pronounce “rødgrød med fløde” — traveling to Copenhagen from The Club At Sea https://t.co/LqM51EU4iV
I’ve always said that Minnesota is a terrible place to visit, but a great place to live. It was hard to make the decision to move from the third best state in the nation....but at least I got an upgrade! https://t.co/0Rg26r7h2v
@chadcapp@TheHustle How interesting! My original premise might be mistaken if there is value to a disabled mobile phone. But if we think through the consequences of a stolen phone, doesn't that just exacerbate the systematic wealth gap? Victim buys a new phone for $1000 > the wealthy profit.
@J_MartinKY Taxes are the answer, if ideally implemented. Taxing fairly, spending judiciously and efficiently, maximizing the positive long-term social impact of the tax dollars...that's where we continue to fail.
@J_MartinKY Well, I guess you could argue there's a distinction between what's legal and what's right. It's possible to steal in a way that's legal so that the wealth transfer is one-way. Laws are semi-objective, but what's right is purely subjective. Tough dilemma.
How would a modern-day Robin Hood liberate the wealth of the top 0.01% in today's society? It can't happen. No crime = no equality. Agree or Disagree? Let me hear your thoughts.
When we allow wealth to accumulate and erect systematic barriers to the small, natural methods of equalization that have existed throughout the ages, what are the unintended consequences? All I can think of is Revolution.