undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmc322mo ago0 comments

There has to be some nuance. Companies are known to either rent of sometimes own housing for personnel who travel to other offices. Universities typically own housing as well. So maybe it’s something like it can’t be one of the main businesses of the corp to buy up residential housing as an investment tool.

0 comments

impendia2mo ago

I agree in principle, but companies (and individual very rich people) are amazingly inventive when it comes to finding loopholes in the "nuance".

JoshTriplett2mo ago

I mean, the ideal amount of nuance is to not ban this in the first place"; right now we're talking about damage control for particularly critical subsets of uses.

> Universities typically own housing as well.

I'd expect that argument to carry negative weight with the folks trying to do this, given the hate they have for universities in general, and the love of privatization.

OGEnthusiast2mo ago

> critical subsets of uses

I don't consider rich people trying to hide their identity to be "critical" at all. Maybe having their address public will be a way to force them to act with consideration of the community instead of just themselves for once while they hide in some anonymous mansion.

JoshTriplett2mo ago

> rich people

What part of "people at risk of doxing" made you jump to "rich people" rather than, for instance, "people in groups commonly attacked"?

> force them to act with consideration of the community

By doing what, precisely? "Have you tried not being (commonly attacked group here)?"

1 more reply

psunavy032mo ago

So basically you're subtly encouraging violence and intimidation, and want that to be easier than trying to find someone's "anonymous mansion."

yrxuthst2mo ago

Rich people aren't the only ones that want to hide their address. Stalking/DV victims can use this too, or even just a regular person that prefers privacy.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

impendia2mo ago

I agree in principle, but companies (and individual very rich people) are amazingly inventive when it comes to finding loopholes in the "nuance".

JoshTriplett2mo ago

I mean, the ideal amount of nuance is to not ban this in the first place"; right now we're talking about damage control for particularly critical subsets of uses.

> Universities typically own housing as well.

I'd expect that argument to carry negative weight with the folks trying to do this, given the hate they have for universities in general, and the love of privatization.

OGEnthusiast2mo ago

> critical subsets of uses

JoshTriplett2mo ago

> rich people

What part of "people at risk of doxing" made you jump to "rich people" rather than, for instance, "people in groups commonly attacked"?

> force them to act with consideration of the community

By doing what, precisely? "Have you tried not being (commonly attacked group here)?"

1 more reply

psunavy032mo ago

So basically you're subtly encouraging violence and intimidation, and want that to be easier than trying to find someone's "anonymous mansion."

yrxuthst2mo ago

Rich people aren't the only ones that want to hide their address. Stalking/DV victims can use this too, or even just a regular person that prefers privacy.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse