If you were to make a general rule, it's saying if you want employment then don't say anything online, period. So it is in fact depriving any employee the right to speak about things publicly all the time. It's like putting a muzzle on a dog so he does not bark. If that's not slavery I don't know what is.
As for right to employment, well how far can you push it. And how does that not violate white privilege principles or corporate privilege principles. We have a corporate class which holds most of the wealth and if you say anything you will lose the right to make a living. That smacks of privilege, in fact white privilege.
Only the corporate class may speak. It's not sound in any way.
What are corporate values? The only thing you are legitimately saying to your employer is you pay me and I do the work and we both make money. That is all. Anything more than that infringes on your personal rights outside of your employment, as these comments are my own. The fact that we have the reach of corporations way outside of work in public life is not right in my opinion, it's akin to slavery. This corporation employs people with these sorts of thoughts??? That does not really register in my mind as any sort of sound reasoning for dismissal, for having the wrong thoughts and saying them in public.
Exactly. Especially when your actions are your own right to say what you think. It's akin to blasphemy and the problem is that the doctrine that you are violating has not been taught to anyone for them to even know that you are not allowed to say that.
Consequences arising from communication outside of work would make you liable to your corporation all of the time. Most of the arguments I see here are people should just know these things they are common sense, and that they have not seen any extreme examples, only things I personally believe are wrong so it's all good. Further some people here have claimed that they would actively work to get people fired that don't share their opinions and their opinions are discriminatory. Though their heart is in the right place, they don't live in the real world where people are raised in religions and cultures which actively promote those ideas. Therefore, they may believe their ideas to be right or generally acceptable. Holding people liable for "correct" ideas in an ever changing democracy is not sane. It's insane, you must be very dogmatic and authoritarian to believe these things just like the people who would work to get gay people fired for being gay, it's the other side of that same coin. It's wrong and I am happy to take all the down votes in order to state that point.
As for assholes being a protected class, it's called right to religious freedom. It's a human right. And many religions teach a lot of things that modern left who would use this sort of tool to power their way into winning. Which then will lead to the right seeking political solutions in the form of their own extreme power grabs.
My point is that if someone hacks and steals all the data on your social media site then they can expose random people by doing analysis on the site's data and make individuals lose their job. Whether that is something good or bad depends on your point of view. Should the consequences of having opinions against mainstream views and venting about them in public make you liable for those views to your employer? Sometimes the venting is honestly stating your feeling about the subject which causes gasps, the firing of the recent Mandalorian star comes to mind.
With cancel culture security of all personal and public communication is now a matter of making a living. Especially in this domain. This is a fact, if you wish it censored you are a liar.
Except when some humans which at the time were more backwards than the leaders of the world tried, they were simply shut down using propaganda and force. So as to deem what they were attempting to do completely feeble... mostly due to them being against this secular religion. It was in many ways a religious war in idealized secular terms. Therefore I would argue that no actual attempt has been made, because the power structure likes it this way. Their secular religious clergy does well for themselves in it and they don't want revolutions to change it. Not that it can't be done. No one has been allowed to actually try in good faith.
Average citizen of only your country belonging to the majority, I guess that's what you mean, because the content of the news these days could be very dangerous if you are not a citizen of the country doing the reporting. And if you belong to a minority from a country or an ethnicity that is not favoured it could be even more biased against people's perception of you as a person.
> The truth is an ideal and when we pursue that ideal, things go well. When we stop pursuing it, we get "post-journalism".
My response to that is that this idea is subterfuge for resolving complicating political problems with propaganda rather than by proper system design. We are in this situation, because propaganda has lost its power over the masses after 100 years. We need better ways to resolve problems that appealing to ideals while a select elite push their agenda on the people who accept it unquestioningly. In many ways our methods of dealing with this has been akin to religion, which also appeals to religious ideals to gloss over real issues and silence them.
Yes I know the difference, I was making a point, you can still know what you are saying but not say everything that needs to be said in order to fit the definition, in fact I am arguing that if you are telling a story, and not writing a book, you can't fit that definition.
Okay, in grey areas there is even more room for telling partial truths. If something objective as a number can lead to a valid disagreement, then what hope do we have for complicated political issues. To me in the end it breaks down into complicated power relations.
We can tell whichever shade of grey that we want to tell that those who are listening to us what to hear in the frame and the rhetoric which appeals to them. Fox news is biased to tell the partial truth of a certain demographic which feels empowered by that rhetoric. If more people believe reality as told by Fox News it gives them more power within the system to get whatever they think it is that they want. Currently they are going after Cuomo, a democrat, in the sidebars there are criticisms of cancel culture.
> “If someone tells you that there is no truth, they are telling you not to believe them. So don’t” - Idr who this is a quote from.
Look at the number 9, now if I tell you that it's in fact the number 6 and you are looking at it wrong. Who are you going to believe. Now imagine it's something much much more complicated and there is no time to write out all the facts that would let us conclude that it could be a 9 or a 6. Am I lying to you by telling you it's a 6? Am I not lying by omission? How can you not lie without omission, if you have a limited amount of space to tell a story, any story. Where do you tell the truth. That is to say okay there is truth, but it's only partial and when it comes to reporting it's always partial and therefore not impartial and therefore not objective. Unless by objective you mean you have an objective or an agenda that you are trying to forward with the news, and that's your partial truth.
Philosophically even truth is an opinion. There is no such thing as truth, just a frame that you are objectively reporting from. Say you cover news about a certain group but don't cover news from another group. Or you report the facts only in the rhetoric of commonly held norms, like so and so nation committed atrocities, while our nation bombed insurgents backed by so and so and accidentally killed a bunch of children. You always report in frame even if done objectively, otherwise your journalism would be considered inflammatory and you would find yourself without a job. So yes there is pure propaganda, etc, but in general news is propaganda of stuff as they, whoever they may be, want you to know it.
If you want real news, then go to the country they are talking about and observe it for yourself. You will find things a lot more mundane than they are made out to be for the vast majority of people living there, until that passive propaganda gets them bombed or economic sanctions destroy their livelihoods. The justification of which is made in the objective reporting, even if journalists don't want to change they do so every time they report something. It's in the nature of the frame and the rhetoric they are writing from.
It would not be hard maybe a week or two of hacking to make such an interface on top of an object store if you were motivated. A simple php or python app with a time limited key stored in a db of some sort. There though are already open source free apps that do provide user management, etc. If you are looking for an ideal solution, but you have to pay for it with money or time.
Remote storage, redundancy, and portability. At $5/mo/tb. you can still access any of it anytime you want, you just pay for what you actually download.
If you use terabytes of storage on consumer oriented free or nearly free services you are going to get burned sooner or later. Switch to b2 or s3. Your data will be there for a much longer time. b2 costs $5/terabyte. If you don't access this stuff, it's probably at most $10 - $20/mo.
Society, current society also called capitalism, is designed not for greed but constant growth. When your goal is not satisfaction but constant growth and you already are a billion dollar company, then it makes you look at all the shady shit you can still do and get away with in order to grow. These companies don't need to grow, if anything they actually should be growing smaller and sustainable if we actually wanted to engineer towards goodness rather than money. The fact that the rich are getting richer while having absolutely no need for it says to me our prerogatives are wrong and our engineering about business is wrong. A lot of the common laws rules and norms around which business is built are insane.
That is to say that if the economy is a mirror of nature, then businesses should be engineered to die. Not to be a going concern forever. After a certain amount of profit is extracted and life is lived, into the grave they should go. Not just as a result of competition, but as a result of system design.
This would then lead to a more evolutionary world and better distribution of power and resources rather than continuous monopolizing and consolidation. Also a different mentality of you can't take it with you to the grave, rather than infinite mindset. It would be a cyclical mindset about finite things, not infinite things. Corporations want to be people, so engineer them like people and less like machines.
Umm a large crowd descended on the Capitol and people died as a result. There exist militia groups which saw this. The threat is credible and real. You are delusional to think otherwise. The US probably needs to mass arrest those people or break up their movements like they did other nationalist groups like the Black Panthers, who had similar agendas. And pass gun control laws to keep them from having arms with which they would threaten the government.
You could account for billions of years in terms of money. Where as destroying things in a thousand because that is our business horizon is much more likely, and actually it's more like a year or two from current business practices, maybe a decade for long term thinking. If our business horizon was a billion years, then all the money and economic wealth in the world and quality of life indicators, and jobs would be so minuscule as to be a rounding error.
As for right to employment, well how far can you push it. And how does that not violate white privilege principles or corporate privilege principles. We have a corporate class which holds most of the wealth and if you say anything you will lose the right to make a living. That smacks of privilege, in fact white privilege.
Only the corporate class may speak. It's not sound in any way.