It is a community that curates discussion based solely on technical discourse of technical subject matters. When the matter is subjective people lose their minds because the only moderation standard is "off topic, subjective discussion. Detach thread!"
The key here is UBI, Universal Health Care, or affordable private insurance is still talk.
Its a similar situation to those in London refusing to move out of the towers currently failing fire inspection code. The improvements won't be done and the city isn't going to replace the affordable housing. They'd rather live in a death trap than live on the streets.
The state of labor is bad, but you're not helping. It seems you're selling snake oil unless you've already got plans in the pipeline to transition your contractors to salaried with health insurance options once they meet certain criteria.
I really hope that (like Uber) you're just abusing the 1099 designation long enough that you get to an IPO. I can see this being fine for "moonlighting" but I truly hope this isn't the model of the future for all employment.
This has been my experience. I'll stick it out for 6mos, but if there is too much hazing, bro-culture, weird expectations, the power dynamics within teams are upside down (usually a hierarchy with project managers at the top and engineers at the bottom), no institutional memory, no 360's after projects, some weird hybrid of agile/kanban where you literally standup while the client shuffles priorities and deadlines daily and no sprint planning can effectively happen, everything is always an emergency, and there is little to no transparency then the bar is very very low to get the hell out and take my raise at a new company.
You know, I've been a huge proponent for a long time that this should be an integral component to institute in tandem with online voting. With as much focus as you find in politics on polling, data driven results, and analytics I can't help but believe that when politicians say, "America isn't ready for online voting" and hold up failed efforts at perfect security what they really mean is, "I don't know if the demographic shift that will result will benefit incumbents."
The law is designed to cover cases you might not immediately think of. Protecting men/women from "legal" harassing communication in the work place, protecting homosexual couples from discrimination, etc. eliminating such protections to stick it to nazis is, to put it mildly, naive
In making this argument to personal friends I have heard several times, "Well what about tow trucks? They have the right to enforce contracts on private property and they aren't officers of the law!?"
The answer is that there are existing federal statutes in place to allow this. They are controversial and often challenged. Tow truck drivers operate in a grey area of the law and are frequently found to be in violation of the law. I would hope that the BBC values their operating license more than my local tow company.
That's why I put in all my contracts that I may personally enforce fines and payment using the client's credit card info that I have incidentally acquired through managing their online services.
Its A) codified into a business contract, not the actions of a private individual B) the use of private metadata and C) the stipulation that BBC is the enforcement mechanism that is problematic here.
Otherwise the BBC would quickly find that when they are late paying the contractors who work on their website their credit cards mysteriously get charged for the services rendered.
The court treats the actions of individuals on a case by case basis. Your analogy breaks down when codified into a business contract. By stipulating a course of action that may cause real financial harm. Even if they were to stipulate fines or other remedies in response to perceived financial harm on their part the enforcement of such penalties is not their responsibility. They have taken enforcement powers away from the government.
Think of it like this: If I'm a web developer and I haven't received payment for my services I can withhold those services or even retain control of the product I am providing or use the courts to enforce the contract, but if I used the client's credit card info to enforce fines and pay myself I have broken the law regardless of whether I put it in the contract.
Funny, I've never heard of an Officer of the BBC. I've heard of an Officer of the law and an Officer of the court. They're generally responsible for enforcing penalties, fines, jail sentences, probation, sex offender lists, etc.
If you'd like to add, "tattling to your employer" to that list I suggest you talk to parliament. They get awfully upset when you try to "do things for them" via cellophane business contracts.
The courts and laws are established to determine appropriate action in such a case.
Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult.
The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech".
I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to jail. Such is the case here. The BBC just made themselves look like idiots for no enforceable reason.
So I may sell myself as an "Engineer" to a company, but not the government? What if I'm asked my occupation during jury duty? Do I have to say, "code monkey" instead of "Software Engineer"? Perhaps "Meat Popsicle"
He had me up until he dismissed fears of North Korea as a rational actor to be baseless. Just because they aren't "CRAZY" and won't nuke Japan for the hell of it doesn't mean I want them sitting on the UN security council.
Day 1: Kim Jong Un in a partnership with Iran has announced that Juche is compatible with Sharia law and in a joint effort propose to bring these brilliant strategies to Europe...