837
CEO of UnitedHealthcare fatally shot outside of NYC hotel, source says
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
837 points (100.0% liked)
News
23608 readers
3216 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Being happy and calling for it are different
thin line. many people got sent to jail in England for celebrating too enthusiastically online during the anti-immigrant riots. the internet today isn't the same as the internet 15 years ago
the rules aren't because the mods care very much. the rules are so than the website doesn't get taken down and/or the owners/maintainers aren't subject to serious legal penalties
The only thing I ever saw about people online being sent to jail were these two .
So if you consider that 'too enthusiastic' I uh... have a different definition of that.
there were 6 arrests for social media crimes, including the one for the woman who actually kicked off the protests by sharing a fake name about the kid who attacked the concert
but that's beyond the point. let's look at the comment for Kay, one that you mentioned, that caught a sentence of 38 months
that's the portion that says he "called for hotels to be set alight"
see, to my interpretation he was saying "i would not care if they set fire to the hotels". in the US, this would be very strongly covered under free speech. why? because it's an opinion. in the US you can say "I believe that [xyz] should happen" and that is a belief. an opinion- something that cannot be censored. in the UK, not so much. but even in the US, you could be held legally responsible in some way depending on the interpretation of the law
and likewise, the platform hosting that controversial speech can face legal consequences. from serious fines to potentially even criminal charges depending on the enthusiasm of the government. (governments that are getting progressively more authoritarian and trigger-happy the world over)
the point I was trying to convey is that a website like this instance of Lemmy or any other must follow rules in order to stay out of legal hot water. how can you fault them for that?
if you believe this is not the correct thing to do, then you can pay money to host a website and then you can put your ass in front of the ringer to handle potential legal consequences for not doing your part to stop it. i don't fault the mods in the slightest.
just for reference though, let's compare and contrast the comment that got Kay arrested and put in jail and then some comments in this thread
a lot of comments in this thread are being deleted, let me see if i can catch some before they are deleted
using the same level of scrutiny, each one of these comments could justify a sentence in the ballpark of 38 months like what happened with Kay
this is what i mean. the internet today is changing and social media admins need to change with the times or the hammer of the law can screw them. users here spamming about mod abuse do not fully understand
He also said "every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel (in Leeds)", then he took his posts and:
He didn't just go to jail for a couple posts, he made a bunch of them and then after being warned they were illegal forwarded them to the police.
This guy is a dangerous if moronic racist, and really only has himself to blame.
You're talking about being 'silenced' as if it's being done by some monolithic organization; it's not a government action, they can make whatever rules they want. You are free to make your own instance with your own rules.
That is an assertion that I highly doubt and I while at first glance your comment seems well enough thought out, I actually don't see a lot to support the assertions made.
You are advocating for literally "Obeying in advance" to authoritarian regimes on a left leaning decentralized social media network.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/obeying-in-advance
You're making a good case for free speech absolutism.
Depends on where you live. There's a very similar case in Germany from 2 years ago compared to what's going on now.
In Germany a cop was murdered and someone posted on Facebook: "Not a single second of silence for these creatures."
The courts have ruled that even "liking" a comment/post like that could be a crime.
https://winfuture.de/news,131418.html
I don't speak German, but it sounds like what happened is that a lawyer pointed out that liking that post could be illegal under new laws, and is trying to get it struck down. So yes 'could' is carrying a lot of weight in this case.
And to be clear I'm as left as possible and anti-authoritarian, I just fail to see how being a massive racist and calling for people to be killed (and how to hide your identity, in posts following it) and then forwarding those messages to the police is somehow a Big Brother situation.
Name a lemmy instance that was taken down because people expressed happiness at corporate shill executions. Heck, name any shut down by a government entity for anything.
Spare me, they're being way more liberal with comments on Bluesky and they are far bigger than Lemmy.
You and the mods just want to protect rich people from group consensus about them being terrible.
Your paranoia about a slippery slop to violence is very transparent.
Bluesky has ~~better~~ lawyers.
England stands only with authoritarian governments with wrong think.
Being happy and celebrating are not so different.
Enjoying action against evil is not wrong.
But it may violate the TOS here.
Not all TOS are good, or lead to a better world.
Not all action against evil leads to a better world.
But all inaction against evil leads to a worse world. Therefore all action against evil has a greater chance of making a better world than doing nothing.
That doesn't follow.
Evil often takes action against another evil, and the result is often a worse world. See: Bibi vs Hamas.
It flows, you just don’t comprehend because you’re happy with “organizing” and “awareness.” Which, gestures widely is not working.
Goodbye
Whatever you're doing gestures wildly is also not working.
Me specifically? I’m doing nothing. You aren’t doing anything either.
The person in question is a hero, imo.
We obviously disagree.
Goodbye.
The person in question has not improved anything. Tomorrow UHC will reject claims just as it did yesterday.
You’ve made your position on change very clear.
Killing someone doesn't change an organization.
The only change here will be an unexpected promotion for the person who will continue the former CEO's work. Maybe they are celebrating with you.
Looks like there is plenty of opportunity for making the world a better place.
That's pretty much what the IDF says whenever they kill a member of Hamas.
Personally I don't want to be in their company.
Of course you don’t. You want to be the ceo of a health insurance company.
Clever. But no. No more than you want to see Gazans die.
I certainly don’t want that. But, inaction is compliance.
If the IDF had not responded to 10/6 by invading Gaza, would that would likewise signal their "compliance"?
I think we are comparing apples to oranges. If you want to focus on US corporate corruption, I’m game.
CEOs die all the time, it never affects the profit-seeking of large corporations.
CEOs in the US are not shot down all the time.
Why would UHC shareholders care about the cause of death?
Why would anyone want to be the CEO of the corrupt company if those CEOs start getting killed more often for their bad behavior?
If we’re just going to answer questions with more questions, we can just skip this part we will never agree.
Lots of people are willing to take jobs with a significant risk of being shot, including drug dealers, mercenaries, and bodyguards.
They usually do it for the money, and it's usually much less money than the CEO of UHC.
You got a solution?
Possibly, depending on how you define the problem.
Many healthcare related problems have been addressed to varying degrees in the EU, so I think that is often a good place to look for solutions.
So, you don’t. Got it. Please get out of the way.
Get out of the way of vigilantes? No thanks. They don't have a solution either.