Several years ago there were protests in Anaheim over some police incident. If you go about a mile north east of Disneyland, it’s a rough area. Anyway the protests started around that area and made their way towards Disneyland. Anaheim PD came out in paramilitary showmanship. It literally looked like PD was about to go to war with all of those armored vehicles PDs bought after the last Middle East invasion. They had sharpshooters on the roof too. They were trying to keep the protestors from stepping foot onto the Disneyland property. So yes, it’s common to defend the hand that feeds you and it’s no surprise FB has Menlo Park PD on speed dial.
I'd be the first to condemn police brutality but for the expensive property they have in the police department's jurisdiction, Facebook paying what amounts to elective taxes in order to improve security seems totally reasonable.
As someone who does not use Facebook and considers it deeply flawed, nothing presented in the article should cause alarm and it only seems like a misguided attempt to discredit the company.
Kinda agree. In the end police will bend backwards to protect business activity. So in a way it makes sense to protect a business with tens of thousands of employees, but FB shouldn't be setting the PD agenda.
Police departments exist to protect property. Every wealthy individual or large business sets the PD's agenda by design.
In order for less-wealthy people to effect the agenda, they can vote or protest but these are significantly less direct than the influence that property ownership provides.
I'm not saying this is good but that it's just the way it is.
I wish the article provided an analysis of different models for maintaining order but the article seems more about causing outrage than finding a solution.
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 25.6 ms ] threadAs someone who does not use Facebook and considers it deeply flawed, nothing presented in the article should cause alarm and it only seems like a misguided attempt to discredit the company.
In order for less-wealthy people to effect the agenda, they can vote or protest but these are significantly less direct than the influence that property ownership provides.
I'm not saying this is good but that it's just the way it is.
I wish the article provided an analysis of different models for maintaining order but the article seems more about causing outrage than finding a solution.