Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 121 posts

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#81

Post by yellowapple »

ghaff wrote: post #52
bonoboTP wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason, a lot of people consider it a problem only when the consequence is brought on you by the government. Somehow corporations are seen as naturally good, from whom protection is not needed. Only the government is seen as a potential source of tyranny or oppression. How long will this be justifiable, with the rapid gain in power by corporations?

>problem only when the consequence is brought on you by the government It's not that corporations (or individuals) are seen as being naturally good. But they don't have the power to imprison you or silence you by force and, in fact, would be committing a crime by doing so. They have some civil remedies for stealing trade secrets or breaching NDAs. Certainly major corporations have a lot of power. But it is still a fu…

> But they don't have the power to imprison you or silence you by force

The ability to fire you and give scathing negative references to any prospective future employers (thus in turn eradicating one's ability to participate in a market-driven economy/society) is just as severe of a penalty, and imposing that penalty for the purposes of silencing political dissent is just as reprehensible. We're (hopefully) critical of that having happened in retrospect during the era of McCarthyism and Red Scares; why should we be expected to accept that as "okay" now?

And that's all even without the ability to lobby politicians to make laws in their benefit / at your expense.

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#82

Post by yellowapple »

favorited wrote: post #70
inthenewsaklj wrote: post #9

> Cathay Pacific CEO Rupert Hogg stepped down after one of the airline’s pilots was found to have taken part in the protests. Wow, that is crazy.

They asked him for a list of employees who participated, and he sent them a list with 1 name: his own. Resigned immediately after. It was a badass move.

Badass move from a badass man with a badass name.

I can't seem to find any indication that it actually happened, though. You happen to have a source? I'd love to read more about the badass that is The Hogg.

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#83

Post by andrekandre »

claudeganon wrote: post #60
hprotagonist wrote: post #2

In two words: bite me. there aren't too many things that i'm a raving aboslutist about, but the freedom of political speech is one of them. If my employer attempts to step on my neck for saying things about china that china doesn't like, on my time, and my personal accounts, their next contact from me will be from an ACLU lawyer.

While I agree with your general sentiment, free speech absolutism is meaningless in employment settings without something like militant labor organizing to defend it. It’s not protected in many cases and they can always just fire you and exhaust your resources in any resulting legal battle. If you had a union on the other hand, it could stipulate protection of this kind of speech as part of the employment contract an…

> While I agree with your general sentiment, free speech absolutism is meaningless in employment settings without something like militant labor organizing to defend it.

couldn’t that also be accomplished though employee ownership? e.g. without the militancy?

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#84

Post by AnimalMuppet »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #73
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the deal is that the Chinese are much more hypersensitive than the Russians. The Chinese seem to have a deep inferiority complex about their country (a couple centuries of being over-run by foreigners can do that to you), and they are responding by aggressively trying to shut down any criticism whatsoever of China. But strong nations don't need to do that. Weak nations do. Russia is actually stronger than Chi…

That's what your brain tells you. Is it reality? A better explanation: China is much more unstable than Russia, and revolution is a much more dangerous and consequential threat.

That's an interesting take on it. I wonder if you're right. (And I'm torn as to whether to hope that you're right, or to fear that you are.)

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#85

Post by favorited »

yellowapple wrote: post #82
favorited wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They asked him for a list of employees who participated, and he sent them a list with 1 name: his own. Resigned immediately after. It was a badass move.

Badass move from a badass man with a badass name. I can't seem to find any indication that it actually happened, though. You happen to have a source? I'd love to read more about the badass that is The Hogg.

https://www.newsweek.com/cathay-ceo-refused-name-hong-kong-p...

https://www.ibtimes.com/cathay-pacific-ceo-praised-not-givin...

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#86

Post by ethbro »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #80
chimi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia jails critics and worse on a frequent basis. From the Gulags to Pussy Riot to this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/06/russian-parlia... > The law, which critics say is reminiscent of Soviet-era legislation used to target political dissidents, stipulates fines of up to 100,000 roubles (£1,155) for “indecent” online posts that demonstrate a “blatant disrespect for society, the country, Russia’s offic…

Sure they do. They don't do as much to exert international pressure, though. Perhaps I should have said that, while China and Russia are both very concerned about their image inside the country (showing that they have some fear of their own population, perhaps), China is much touchier about its image outside the country.

The difference is Russia (the country) is poor. While China is not.

Russia's GDP is about 2017USD$ 1.7 T.

China's is 2017USD$ 12.2 T.

Companies traditionally aren't in the habit of doing favors for inconsequential entities. And for non-energy multinationals, Russia is generally more trouble than it's worth.

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#87

Post by zepto »

yellowapple wrote: post #81
ghaff wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>problem only when the consequence is brought on you by the government It's not that corporations (or individuals) are seen as being naturally good. But they don't have the power to imprison you or silence you by force and, in fact, would be committing a crime by doing so. They have some civil remedies for stealing trade secrets or breaching NDAs. Certainly major corporations have a lot of power. But it is still a fu…

> But they don't have the power to imprison you or silence you by force The ability to fire you and give scathing negative references to any prospective future employers (thus in turn eradicating one's ability to participate in a market-driven economy/society) is just as severe of a penalty, and imposing that penalty for the purposes of silencing political dissent is just as reprehensible. We're (hopefully) critical…

Being fired is not as severe as imprisonment.

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#88

Post by claudeganon »

andrekandre wrote: post #83
claudeganon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with your general sentiment, free speech absolutism is meaningless in employment settings without something like militant labor organizing to defend it. It’s not protected in many cases and they can always just fire you and exhaust your resources in any resulting legal battle. If you had a union on the other hand, it could stipulate protection of this kind of speech as part of the employment contract an…

> While I agree with your general sentiment, free speech absolutism is meaningless in employment settings without something like militant labor organizing to defend it. couldn’t that also be accomplished though employee ownership? e.g. without the militancy?

Absolutely! Co-ops are a great way to enshrine these protections as well.

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#89

Post by NotSammyHagar »

ethbro wrote: post #86
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure they do. They don't do as much to exert international pressure, though. Perhaps I should have said that, while China and Russia are both very concerned about their image inside the country (showing that they have some fear of their own population, perhaps), China is much touchier about its image outside the country.

The difference is Russia (the country) is poor . While China is not. Russia's GDP is about 2017USD$ 1.7 T. China's is 2017USD$ 12.2 T. Companies traditionally aren't in the habit of doing favors for inconsequential entities. And for non-energy multinationals, Russia is generally more trouble than it's worth.

China pop is 1.417 bil, Russia's population is 144 million.

GDP/person: China $8,609, Russia $11,805. It's complicated to compare these two countries. China has a much larger economy so they have a bigger pool of money to spend, but then they have less per person. But both countries have huge poor groups.

Re: US workers may have to change social media use as firms adapt to China's rules

#90

Post by thereare5lights »

hprotagonist wrote: post #72
thereare5lights wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, political speech is not protected against employer discrimination.

I'm pretty sure that this is going to get you sued into oblivion: 1. I work for private company X. 2. X tells me to vote for Y, says that Y is awesome, supports Y, donates to Y. (pick any of these) 3. I campaign for and vote for Z. 4. I am fired because i voted for Z. Any outcome in which X is not crushed into little pieces is so incredibly far off the deep end from what the values of who we are as a country are that…

My point is that I am not aware of any legislation (at least on the federal level) that is widely accepted to protect political speech even in the example you bring up.

Many people assume that gay and transgendered people are protected from employer discrimination but that is also currently being adjudicated.

Post reply on HN