It’s really great that the most successful people in Silicon Valley disregard the social implications of their work. Arguably that’s what makes them so successful.
Customer profiling for restaurants is now available as a hosted service.[1] The industry term is "unified guest profile".
"Imagine this: A guest walks into your hotel. The front desk greets them by name, already knows they prefer a room away from the elevator, and offers a complimentary drink, the same cocktail they ordered at your rooftop bar during their last stay. At breakfast the waiter suggests asks if the guest wants the usual omelet or the menu to try something new, and at checkout, they’re offered a late checkout because their flight doesn’t leave until 8 p.m.
That’s not sci-fi. That’s what happens when your guest data systems actually talk to each other."[2]
> Imagine this: A guest walks into your hotel. The front desk greets them by name, already knows they prefer a room away from the elevator, and offers a complimentary drink, the same cocktail they ordered at your rooftop bar during their last stay
> at checkout, they’re offered a late checkout because their flight doesn’t leave until 8 p.m
This would honestly be amazing. Most hotels I've seen don't even want to clean the room as often, and try to minimize the need for front-desk staff.
Everyone hand-wringing over this forgets that learning about you is one thing, but using it requires spending money on making the guest happy, and most businesses won't do that, so they won't pay to collect and process that info.
If they're already vetting your social media, they can also start refusing service based upon religious or political leanings displayed in your posts. No slope (slippery or otherwise) is required.
Imagine making reservations for a family dinner but being turned away at the door because the restaurant found a post (in support/critical) of Trump or one of his policies. The restaurant would be completely within its rights to do so, even if it seems a stupid and pointless business decision to cut clientele in half.
I have a friend that just got kicked out of his apartment, because his landlord learned that he has a very different political leaning. To answer the inevitable questions, he was on a month-to-month lease, and his landlord is a cop, so yeah, he’s screwed.
He’s also very politically outspoken on social media. I have suggested, to no avail, that he tone it down. This may do the trick.
There’s a price to be paid for being on stage, all the time. I wonder how many people have lost (or failed to get) jobs, because of stuff they’ve posted on LinkedIn (or here). I know a couple of teachers lost jobs, because they posted pictures of themselves, on vacation, with drinks in their hands.
I agree. I think the teachers losing their jobs was ridiculous.
To be fair, though, this chap is just a bit left of Mao Zhedong. He posts shit on Facebook, like ACAB. He thought that because he has his rantings restricted to friends-only, they will somehow stay sequestered.
I wonder what lesson the friend learned from this, probably that it reinforces their opinions on cops rather than learning to tone it down as you said. People don't understand that the internet is forever, don't post things you don't want people seeing.
// There’s a price to be paid for being on stage, all the time
No, there's a price to be paid for espousing values outside of the Overton Window - and there always will be in the absence of continuously exercised civil rights.
The last time there was this level of collective punishment and erosion of civil rights (with self-policing sycophants pleading for clemency with the abusers) it was known as McCarthyism. Given that McCarthy’s chief counsel, Roy Cohn, was Trump’s core mentor and lodestone on the American Real Politik, it's easy to chart the ideological fingerprints across the decades.
Clay Risen’s book 'Red Scare' represents a comprehensive overview of the many mechanisms of repression that made the Red Scare possible - from executive orders and congressional-committee hearings to conservative control of vital media outlets - all of which can be directly mapped to the actions of the current cabinet.
//I wonder how many people have lost (or failed to get) jobs, because of stuff they’ve posted on LinkedIn (or here). I know a couple of teachers lost jobs, because they posted pictures of themselves, on vacation, with drinks in their hands.
It starts with the public 'admissions', the low-hanging fruit. Then you get the private investigators leaning on soft-sources for anything that can use as dirt or parallel construction.
The FBI had the Responsibilities Program - where they would share information with PTAs and local school boards. You know: ‘This teacher has a background that’s kind of suspect,’ ‘Here’s a list of books that you want to remove from your library.’
How long until the photo used as grounds-for-termination contains a same-sex couple, or a possible illegal immigrant, or Jerome Powell?
So you’re imagining an unlikely, stupid, and pointless future to justify disliking a well-meaning, positive, friendly present?
I don’t get it. Is the slippery slope that irresistible? Like should I be opposed to all good things in reality because jt is possible to imagine someone pointlessly doing a strange riff on them that I wouldn’t like?
