Twitter Allegedly Deleting Negative Tweets About United Airlines' Passenger Abuse (thenextweb.com) 233
New submitter dooode writes: As you would have read, United just had another Nazi moment where they had to "re-accommodate" a customer using some (not so gentle) force. The social web seems to have been taken by a storm by this incident. But suddenly people are noticing their tweets are being deleted -- some of them merely status questions. Does twitter make money (read bribes) to delete negative tweets? What do you feel about it? The Next Web adds that "some of the allegedly deleted tweets did not directly mention the incident with the forcibly removed passenger." On the flip side, "some of the initial tweets exposing United Airlines' abusive treatment of passengers are still very much present and actively being reshared on the platform." It's possible that the "allegedly deleted tweets" initially appeared as replies to now-deleted tweets, but TNW says they contacted several users who rejected that premise, "claiming the missing posts were standard tweets."
Why are we surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
even reddit mods nixed the original posting of the video (in /r/videos)
https://www.reddit.com/r/video... [reddit.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/undel... [reddit.com]
but *supposedly* not because of caving to corporate interests but for showing "police brutality" and "assault and/or battery"
Re:Why are we surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
in what way is removing evidence of police brutality an acceptable policy for a platform? Their excuse is almost worse than the original accusation (that they are serving corporate interests).
Re: (Score:2)
this shit right here...
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly hate speech (Score:5, Funny)
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
It's clearly hate speech, and should be deleted for that reason.
You wouldn't want people to be able to shout hateful things on the internet, would you?
And besides, it's not the government that's doing it, it's a private company. They can censor anything they want because they're not bound by the constitution, and people are free to leave twitter and start their own social media service.
Also: Gab.aio [slashdot.org] is a free-speech twitter alternative. Check out their humor channel sometime - it's actually funny!
Re:Clearly hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Before condemning Twitter for oppressing your sacred tweets, perhaps we should establish if they did actually delete them or not. So far we have some claims from some dubious accounts that tweets went missing, but no actual evidence. No tweet ID numbers, no archived copies, no orphaned responses to the missing tweets... When tweets are deleted, it doesn't kill of replies to them, it just breaks the reply chain and you can easily see what happened.
I'm calling bullshit on this one until someone produces some actual evidence. If you don't need proof then let's have a conversation about how Slashdot deletes "controversial" posts and how awful that is, because even though I have no evidence I swear it really happened!
Re: (Score:2)
Steering people to a platform where they get used to being censored is the entire point of Web 2.0, isn't it? What, do you want people to learn how to host their own webpages again? Luddite.
It's clearly hate speech, and should be deleted for that reason.
Yeah, I hate hate speech so much! Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
FUCK HATE SPEECH
Re: (Score:2)
FUCK HATE SPEECH
Basically, all speech should be banned because anything anyone says might offend someone.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the prevailing opinion but I find it extremely dangerous since it means that Americans effectively do not have freedom of expression.
I agree that Twitter is wrong here, but your statement is false. Twitter is paying for the services to keep the platform up, and if they decide not to host something, that's their decision.
Every American is free to shell out $25, pay for a VPS and host whatever the F they want.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the prevailing opinion but I find it extremely dangerous since it means that Americans effectively do not have freedom of expression.
Americans effectively have freedom of expression, there is nothing stopping another service from hosting, or from creating their own hosting service to spread their message.
What Americans do not have is the right to force others, such as Twitter, to spread their message for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically ISPs can also censor your web pages anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically that might be a tad bit difficult to implement. I say "might be".
Re: Why are we surprised? (Score:2)
Twatter is, and always has been, entirely untrustworthy. Years ago they censored one of the first tweets I ever made - a link to leaked police state documents. That was when I stopped using their duplicitous service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why are we surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking of which, i've just tuned into the entire episode. Turns out after the Hitler comment Spicer apologized, and then came out and explained he only apologized because he didn't want to distract from Trump's attempt to destabilize the region (sic).
The guy is a walking Monty Python sketch. How the hell does he still have his job?
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely because he's a walking MP sketch. WH press secretary has always been a mouthpiece to distract people, but with modern media, the best way to do that is not with someone sober but someone who looks the buffoon, whether or not they actually are. Mind you, I doubt Spicer's that competent, but he's probably not quite the buffoon he plays.
Offtopic advice (Score:2)
Usually it's phrased "How do you feel?" and "What do you think?". (Perhaps you could ask someone reaching into a dark hole "What do you feel?") Also, you don't normally say "What do you think about it?" because the "about it" part is implied.
Tone deaf. (Score:2)
Uh, Godwin's law? If "new submitter dooode" hasn't heard from the news, drawing any such comparisons is very much off-limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at a minimum it does show that "dooode" is pretty ignorant regarding history.
Re: Tone deaf. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, even Hitler never had someone beaten and forcibly removed from an area.... well, not his own people.
Godwin's Law went out... (Score:2)
When all the governments started acting like Despots.
It gets in the way of calling them out for Acting like Nazis.
Spicer is just an idiot; he needs his Easter Bunny Costume back.
(Yes, really...)
Re:Tone deaf. (Score:5, Insightful)
"another Nazi moment"
I've been coming to Slashdot less and less because while my filter for garbage news with garbage sentences like this hasn't decreased, stuff like this is becomes the news around here more frequently.
Re-accommodate not re-allocate... (Score:2)
...was the bizarre term used by the CEO.
what should not be a surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no clue whether they "deleted tweets" and if so which and how many about what.
But can people please stop acting surprised when you centralize your communications on a commercial service you do not control, cannot run yourself on your own node because it's proprietary, and which grants itself 100% control of the contents of your communications, and then that service somehow alters or removes things you say? It's all inside their walled garden. You said that was OK when you signed up.
If you give control to someone, don't complain when they use it.
Someone needs to sue Twitter (Score:5, Interesting)
Twitter has obviously gotten WAY away from being a Common Carrier in any sense, since they are constantly cherry-picking what is and is not allowed to be seen.
Someone needs to file a lawsuit over this and soon, so Twitter can go back to being a platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter has obviously gotten WAY away from being a Common Carrier in any sense,
WTF are you talking about? Twitter is not & has never been a common carrier. You do not have the intelligence to comment on this (or probably any other matter).
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter as common carrier is more of a marketing perception created by Twitter, obviously Twitter does not want to market itself as what it is a marketing channel designed to be controlled over time to present corporate preferred messaging. Juts like the bullshit Google is putting out about YouTube censorship being demanded by corporations a total crock of shit. The corporations lose big when they give up on advertising channels, not those advertising channels especially one the size of YouTube, so what is
Re: (Score:2)
"Common Carrier"?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there another story about this currently on the Slashdot front page. Not directly about Twitter, but it sure sounds like it would be precedent. Perhaps not, though, as Twitter may not fall under the DMCA...but it's hard to see why it wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is called "network effects". IIRC similar free programs exist, but not enough people use any of them for them to take off.
Re: (Score:2)
Common carrier is the wrong term, but why do they merit "safe harbor" status when they aggressively edit the posts? Probably they don't, but it's going to take a court case to decide that.
reputation management (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be interested to know if UA uses any of the "reputation management companies" on this list [businessnewsdaily.com]. Do they put in the call to Twitter and other social media platforms, or is it handled directly by corporate?
Either way, its all hands on deck for the corporate shills. They will censor where they can, and are already using character assassination as a tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
Since United has doing a u-turn and apologised now, presumably they will be asking for a refund from these "reputation management" companies who have utterly failed to manage their reputation.
The story is bullshit. There is zero evidence that tweets were deleted, and masses of evidence that a grassroots campaign on Twitter forced a large corporation to reverse course and admit their mishandling of the situation. It's fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the EU with all the employment protections that we have, the CEO could be dismissed for bringing the firm into disrepute for his initial defense of the actions of his employees. To be honest that would in my view be a fair outcome, his actions in part have lead the wiping of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of the share price of the firm.
I would expect to also see whoever was in charge of getting people to get bumped, dismissed for failure to do their job and bringing the firm into disrep
What the hell kinda shit post is this?! (Score:1)
"United just had another Nazi moment "
This is beyond even Gawker grade shit posting.
Twitter deleting posts is a good story.
Whether or not United Airlines calling in the police to drag an uncooperative passenger off the plane (as was their right to do) is crossing the line is a good story.
Calling the actions nazi-esque (which they were not) is kindergarten level bullshit.
But maybe I shouldn't be surprised at how far this site as fallen.
twitter? (Score:2)
"What do you feel about it?" (Score:3)
Are you an Oprah wannabe?
One of the left wing rag/mags (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why we used to regulate public services like transportation. But as the saying goes ain't nobody g
Re:One of the left wing rag/mags (Score:4, Interesting)
Meh, they'll forget it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not denying that it's "pretty damn corrupt on it's own merits" as I don't have any unbiased evidence, but it's sheer size means that it *is* competitive. It doesn't just look competitive. When you count it as an entity (say for international travel) then it *is* competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
What's that word? (Score:2)
I think there's a word that applies to situations where corporations utilize the police power of the state to enforce their corporate whims...
Have been saving the stream since the start. (Score:5, Informative)
I've been saving the stream of "united" tweets since Apr 10 15:32. At this point I have close to 4 million tweets saved and over 700MB of data. I may have the deleted tweets, but definitely not if they don't have the word united in them.
I think some users may be confused. I can see in the data that @Jay_Beecher's earliest tweet about united was April 10th 18:12, which seems to be the one he is thinking was deleted. But that tweet is here [twitter.com]. If he thinks its gone because he is looking at his normal tweet timeline, then he doesn't understand how Twitter's interface works. It doesn't show tweets that start with an @. Other people I checked (TalkIBC, iknowimbitter, seem to be equally confused.
Based on the data I have, I don't think Twitter deleted any tweets.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saving the stream of "united" tweets since Apr 10 15:32.
What kind of psycho paranoid are you? :)
(but, really, why are you doing it?)
Re: (Score:2)
Historical conservation. I expected that this might be a watershed event in American history and thought it was worth preserving as many tweets as possible to preserve the attitudes and thoughts (and perhaps misconceptions) of the public. Besides, its easy enough to do.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of psycho paranoid are you? :)
Also, you jokingly suggested I was a psycho paranoid for saving this data, but obviously the data was already useful in discrediting a news story major enough to be on Slashdot's front page. So maybe not so paranoid?
Mastodon (Score:2)
This wouldn't happen on Mastodon [mastodon.social]! It's distributed and decentralized
Weird phrasing (Score:2)
Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score:5, Insightful)
He brought this on himself ...
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case. I kinda get it -- he who runs away lives to fight another day. Maybe. Yield to the dictator du'jour. Acquiesce to those in charge simply because they are "in charge". The people have no power. I don't particularly like where this is heading.
I'm trying to imagine the response if it had been an elderly black woman or a man wearing a ghutrah.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect, despite the certain unpleasantness of the beating, that he is going to come out way ahead on this by the time the lawsuits are settled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawsuits? To get what, money in compensation? How does money smooth out wrongdoings? Money is not justice.
You are an idealist... What else do you think the person who was forcibly taken out of the airplane should try to do in return then? Asking for a formal apology from the airline at his home? The pride can't feed him, and it would be forgotten pretty soon. Laws changed? He can't simply change the law; besides, why would he spend even more money to lobby? A law suit is a tangible (monetary) reward that he could get at best...
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score:5, Insightful)
He who runs away lives to run away another day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He who runs away lives to run away another day.
Its easy to tell who has no idea how to fight on the internet.
If you stand and fight against an opponent who can easily flatten you, you're going to get flattened. If you run away, you survive to fight a fight you can win.
Pretty sure Sun Tzu covered this shit pretty early on in his treatise.
The greatest military defeats of WWII came from leaders who refused to allow a retreat. Running away isn't cowardice, it's smart. It gives you time and resources. Winning is about picking your battles, sometimes
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
This isn't authoritarianism any more than having a post deleted on a web forum by a moderator is authoritarianism. Aircraft owned by airlines are in fact private property.
Are United assholes for doing this? Yep, but don't try to confuse the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
This isn't authoritarianism any more than having a post deleted on a web forum by a moderator is authoritarianism. Aircraft owned by airlines are in fact private property.
Are United assholes for doing this? Yep, but don't try to confuse the issue.
Imagine if the car industry operated this way. You buy a car, but when you go to pick it up, eh sorry, we sold it to someone else. Whether it is is legal or not by the airline industry is irrelevant to the more profound and important question: is it right? A contract is a contract, and that the fact that airlines have the power to force an overbooking clause in a ticket sale contract turns it into an "addition contract" that enforces an inequality in bargaining power for the other party (the consumer base.)
Re: (Score:2)
he Progressive excuse for all manner of corporate authoritarianism and malfeasance.
"Progressive" excuse? Sorry, USian political slang confuses me immensely. Can you define what you actually mean by "Progressive"?
If you are extreme enough on the right wing, you consider everyone from Communists to ultra-Conservatives as "left wing" or "progressive". Similarly, but not identically, if you are an extreme libertarian, then basically anything in the political mainstream is equally evil, and that includes normal businesses just as much as Stalinists or Fascists.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
That is precisely correct. In a country governed by a rule of law, the correct place to state your case is in court, when you sue the shit out of everybody, not getting physical with the cops.
If you don't like it, move to a place with no rule of law, like, say, Somalia or the Caliphate.
Re: (Score:2)
On what do you base the claim that, if he had cooperated with the demand he leave the plane, that he would have been incapable of filing a lawsuit later on?
Re: (Score:2)
On what do you base the claim that, if he had cooperated with the demand he leave the plane, that he would have been incapable of filing a lawsuit later on?
Yes, he would have since he would have "complied" with what is, in essence, an adhesion contract clause (that he can get bumped out if the airline overbooked.)
The greatest problem for UA in this case is that they decided to bump people already seated.
Airlines typically bump out people that aren't boarded yet, then by cheapest ticket fare, leaving disabled and people with children for last. Airlines would typically offer money upfront (not just a ticket) to get someone to volunteer. Keep rising the size
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case. I kinda get it -- he who runs away lives to fight another day. Maybe. Yield to the dictator du'jour. Acquiesce to those in charge simply because they are "in charge". The people have no power. I don't particularly like where this is heading.
I'm trying to imagine the response if it had been an elderly black woman or a man wearing a ghutrah.
There is a time and a place to fight everything. Once he was asked to get off of the plane, he was breaking the law. I, as an individual, do not believe that private property laws need protesting, even if this behavior by United was inappropriate. Protest at the gate. For one thing, he would have found that United would have made better accommodations than what they were offering people to accept as a volunteer. They would have booked him on another airline, if necessary.
The tl;dr of it all is that thi
Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score:5, Insightful)
>"I think I would have gone quietly and complained afterward."
That strategy is only good for cases where you are merely unhappy, rather than are being treated unfairly. The airlines who do this already know that people who are bumped involuntarily are going to be unhappy, and they don't care, and won't change. Complaining might get you additional compensation, but won't get the airlines to change. By resisting, this guy may have changed things for the better for all of us.
Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score:5, Insightful)
And negroes should sit in the back of the bus or hop off the bus and quietly complain afterwards. Polite requests have always worked in the past after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he should. An airplane is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Think about it this way; by refusing a legal order, he was holding the rest of the passengers hostage.
Such a dictatorship is not absolute, there are limits on what a crew can demand. The demand to leave the plane was clearly not security related; nobody would be endangered while he stayed in his seat, it would only inconvenience the airline.
Calling the order 'legal' is also highly debatable. He was already boarded, while the rules to resolve overbooking only apply before somebody is boarded. And the 'holding the rest of the passengers hostage' thing is just a standard thug excuse.
Finally, the passenger's ob
Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score:5, Insightful)
If the rules are that everyone has to do everything a flight attendant asks (as long the flight flight attendant asks nicely) then I'm going to become a flight attendant and (nicely) ask everyone to give me all their money. And then, for an encore, I'll (nicely) ask all the hotties to have sex with me. :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There will never be a shortage of people who will toadie up to bullies in the hope of not being bullied themselves.
Just look at the House GOP caucus.
Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. It was not a lawful order. You do not have to follow an unlawful order.
He had boarded. All restrictions and regulations about bumping people are before a passenger boards.
"So, even if United argued that there was some ambiguity in “denied boarding” based upon “boarding priority” – and that it could possibly mean removal based upon a removal priority – a court would be forced to rule against this interpretation because United drafted the contract."
Once he is on, then he could potentially be thrown off because of "Refusal of Transport", but...
"The rule, which unlike the denied boarding rule does provide for removal “from the aircraft at any point,” lists some two dozen justifications including: unruly behavior, intoxication, inability to fit into one seat, medical problems or concerns, etc. But nowhere in the list of some two dozen reasons is there anything about over booking, the need to free up seats, the need for seats to accommodate crew members to be used on a different flight etc."
Therefore it's not a lawful order. If a cop tells you to fight another person for his or her amusement or sing Auld Lang Syne, you don't have to follow it.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profil... [lawnewz.com]
Legality (Score:3)
United ordering him to leave his seat may have been against their own, or FAA, regulations. He has a point there. He could argue to his hearts content to the attendant, pilot, boarding agent, whomever.
Not doing what a police officer orders? At that point it doesn't matter - you have to comply. The place to argue an unlawful police order is a court of law.
Re:Legality (Score:5, Insightful)
Bollocks.
The police can under the right circumstances do a strip search.
That does not give a police officer the right to demand you strip off on the street.
The airline was WRONG.
It was NOT over booked, they wanted seats to transports staff. They should have known this before anyone boarded and gone though the process before anyone got on the plane. United screwed up big time and I hope this costs them millions.
Re:Legality (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. They could have acknowledged their screw-up and raised the sum they were offering (their last offer was, what, $800?), provided an alternative means of transportation, or whatever.
Yeah, that may have appeared expensive, but I hope that it will appear cheap compared to the costs of this case.
Re: (Score:2)
It was NOT over booked, they wanted seats to transports staff.
Yes. They could have acknowledged their screw-up and raised the sum they were offering (their last offer was, what, $800?), provided an alternative means of transportation, or whatever.
Yeah, that may have appeared expensive, but I hope that it will appear cheap compared to the costs of this case.
^^^ Finally a thread chain that gets it.
Re: (Score:2)
So if a police officer orders you to kill yourself, or the person next to you ... you comply and then argue that in a court of law?
Re: (Score:2)
Not doing what a police officer orders? At that point it doesn't matter - you have to comply. The place to argue an unlawful police order is a court of law.
So if a police officer orders you to kill yourself, or the person next to you ... you comply and then argue that in a court of law?
^^^ This. I am troubled by the amount of people in /. (and real life) that seem hell bent in defining rights as the narrow subset defined by a law (Rosa Parks would disagree with them) and/or (in the case of airline tickets) adhesion contracts that enforce an inequality of bargaining power on consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
United ordering him to leave his seat may have been against their own, or FAA, regulations. He has a point there. He could argue to his hearts content to the attendant, pilot, boarding agent, whomever.
Not doing what a police officer orders? At that point it doesn't matter - you have to comply. The place to argue an unlawful police order is a court of law.
Rosa Parks disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you get when you cross Stockholm Syndrome with The Nuremberg Defense?
Re: (Score:2)
you're a fucking moron. cops don't have the right to detain you absent a crime. it means they're fucking breaking the law, and if they use force you should crack them over the head.
I'm hoping You Are Not A Lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to comply with unlawful orders.
A police officer could come to your door and demand entry w/o a warrant and you are perfectly within your rights to deny them access and even using force if necessary (not recommended). Probably better to allow them under protest and sort it out not the courts later.
Thanks
However with a valid warrant it's a different story.
But know you can refuse to comply with an unlawful order but better be certain it's unlawful.
This is kind of how civil forfeiture works in the USA. The cops stop your car, search it, find cash. They declare the cash "Obvious drug money" and take it. You now have to go through lengthy and expensive legal action if you want any chance of getting that cash back.
Kind of like bandits except in uniform and with the backing of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't exactly declare the funds "obvious drug money." What they do is file charges against the money/property being seized. This results in a situation where the money/property is guilty until proven innocent.
Yes you read that right. You have to prove the money/property was not being used in any illegal way to get it back. This process is designed to have a price tag of about $5k in most areas, though it can be much higher.
If this were done to organized criminals most of the time you would see lots
My lawyer friends disagree with you (Score:2)
Bullshit. It was not a lawful order. You do not have to follow an unlawful order.
Two different lawyer friends both said that they felt that the order to leave the plane was lawful and the customer was in the wrong for refusing to do so. However, that doesn't mean that the customer can't go to court and get a big payout anyway. I asked one for some more details and asked specifically if he felt that the customer was assaulted in being forcibly dragged off the plane. He said that in his opinion he felt that a jury probably wouldn't rule that way. You do need to realize that anything can happen once a jury gets the case, so the fact that he said he didn't think a jury would find that to be assault doesn't mean with absolute certainty that's the verdict they would return. But both lawyers still thought the situation was horribly handled by United and the customer can probably make big money in a settlement as they doubt it will go to trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. It was not a lawful order. You do not have to follow an unlawful order.
Private property laws allow them to deny him access to private property at any time. Therefore it was a lawful order. Whether or not they could be sued for violating the Contract of Carriage laws is irrelevant as they have the right to ask him to deplane. He can sue if they did violate the Contract of Carriage laws, but he cannot refuse to leave private property.
Re: (Score:2)
Every utterance from a lawyer not a direct quote of statute is pretty much an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
"The plane has not "boarded" until the doors have been closed and sealed."
The plane may not have boarded, but the passenger clearly has.
"And if a US cop tells me to do something, particularly a CPD, then by fuck I'm going to follow it, or risk having my 6th vertebrae snapped when the officer picks me up in a headlock."
If a CPD tells me to strip naked and sing Auld Lang Syne at the top of my lungs, I will tell him no. And I will be legally correct. The fact that he may decide to assault me doesn't change t
Re: (Score:2)
This shows that you're just a pushover. I have a violent record from when i was younger. Any interaction i have with a police officer, they are very polite as am i. I comply with legal orders from them but laugh at anything in the grey area of the law. I know a few decent lawyers in the city i live in and am very well versed in criminal law. Plus they know and understand that if they try to take advantage of me i WILL fight, physically and legally. because as soon as they're in the wrong and they strike me,
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty please give me your wallet?
You wouldn't want to bring a beat down on yourself, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty please give me your wallet?
You wouldn't want to bring a beat down on yourself, would you?
In the USA the police officer would say "Give me that wallet, its obvious drug money."
Civil forfeiture.
Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score:4, Funny)
"He brought this on himself."
Because he lawfully boarded a plane and had a right to stay?
"Next time should they ask pretty please, with a cherry on top?"
Yes, they should, a way of doing that is increasing compensation amounts until enough people take it.
"Disregard a flight crew AND law enforcement at your own peril. News at 11."
So if a flight crew or cop said "stand up and take off all your clothes while I piss on you" you'd simply roll over and take it?
Actually, don't answer that last one.
Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score:4, Insightful)
As fas as I heard, they actually did that, but stopped at $800.
Which was probably a bad move, because at that point, people are waiting for the psychologically important threshold of $1000 being crossed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
because its a felony to interfere with a flight crew or the police, and in the worst case you'll end up with homeland security blacklisting you. I'm sure they'll all be happy to give him recorded testimonies for his multimillion dollar lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Interfering with an air crew can get you 10 years in jail. The reaccommodation they would have gotten would have included bars on the windows.
Everybody who is just now noticing that Twitter is censoring criticism of corporate misconduct (just like Reddit, Wikipedia, Youtube, Facebook, Hacker News, Github, etc, who are also all censoring the same "right-wing" wrongthink that the Democrats ran on in 2014) really ought to get in touch with the Gamergate pe
Re: (Score:2)
we should blame ourselves. People generally book by one and only one parameter, price. There are dozens of websites to help you save 50 cents on your ticket price. The airlines have responded by squeezing you for a pillow, blanket, chips, water and coming soon, taking a wiz.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply make a service much like Twitter with a similar name, but controlled by the users, not a soulless, bought-and-paid for corrupt corporation and it's bullshit owners. Democratize that bitch! Also, while you're at it, the 140 character arbitrary bullshit limit has to go, so maybe increase it to... whatever you want to put in your account profile. Then let other people limit how many characters they want to read, as part of THEIR profile, allowing people to decide for themselves, rathr thn frcng ppl to tlk mr & mr lik ths, bc THS SHT s jst FCKNG anyng!
Like 'Twatter'?