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

Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 597 posts

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#221

Post by secondcoming »

paperwasp42 wrote: post #22
D13Fd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't know why people use "post what you're thinking" style social media at all at this point. With employers being so sensitive, how can the cost/benefit analysis ever really result in a determination that it's a good idea to be active on Twitter/Facebook (or Gab, Parler, TheDonald.win, etc.)? Maybe that's part of what makes things get so extreme on those sites. The most reasonable people know enough not…

I have literally seen NYT bestselling authors talk about how they're super excited to publicly heckle an author at his next book signing. And join in on conversations promoting burning his book. His crime? Writing a female character who goes on the run, has limited food, and trains in martial arts--which leads to her losing weight. This was, apparently, fat-shaming and deeply sexist. The authors involved in these thr…

> Twitter is super safe if you're on the far left

For now. There is a deliberate tactic on the left to become more and more extreme. A sentiment expressed today that's totally fine may not be fine tomorrow. It will be used against you. The left will turn on itself once it has made Conservatism illegal.

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#222

Post by vidarh »

sneak wrote: post #77
hertzrat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media accounts are not credentials, and that requirement is bogus for 99% of jobs unless your job is social media publicity

Forget about credentials, hiring someone is a risk and you basically go into it as an employer flying blind. I request social media links (not passwords, just profile links) from everyone I'm considering hiring, because any/all information I can use to winnow potentially problem hires out before I make an offer is extremely valuable to me. You can tell a lot about a person from their social media profiles and posts.

This sounds like a recipe for discrimination claims.

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#223

Post by MagnumOpus »

sto_hristo wrote: post #175

Being canceled for what you write, think, your opinions... That is a major part of life in any communist regime. Difference being that in communism it's the state that does the monitoring and canceling, while here - the people themselves.

So it is not like communism at all you mean?

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#224

Post by CountDrewku »

walrus01 wrote: post #126

Conservatives getting upset about the results of a Free Market.

Liberals promoting monopolistic capitalism and bigotry. Cognitive dissonance much?

Btw Conservatives promote less government not zero government interference. I think you’re confusing it with hardcore libertarianism.

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#225

Post by arp242 »

forgingahead wrote: post #113
tptacek wrote: post #63

Just a reminder that Newsweek ceased publication back in 2013, and the rights to its brand were purchased by an odd Christian sect, somewhat along the lines of The Washington Times and the Reunification Church. The new "Newsweek" capitalizes on the brand reputation of the old one, but has no connections to it; a good thing to do with Newsweek pieces is to check the byline and look up what their background is.

Honest question - it's obvious how you identify politically by all your posts here, but what has your comment got to do with the story? If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?

> If it's a false story, say it. If it's not - what exactly are you saying with your comment?

Right now it's not entirely clear what all the facts are. Perhaps she really was just fired for having an account, or perhaps she posted some things that were less-than-savoury. I think the chance that a Conservative publication would do any diligence at getting at the facts of the matter is essentially zero.

A few years ago a Conservative publication had an article that they had "proof" that Conservative accounts were banned more frequently on Twitter, based on "analysis" of the data. It took me a bit of effort to find the data, and it included shining examples of Conservatism such as the American Nazi Party. Yes, literally, the American fucking Nazi Party. It included a list of a whole bunch of other similarly minded people; I wrote down a list here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quillette#Banning_Neo-Nazis_is...

This is a very marked example, but there have been many examples where all nuance or details were left out because it was more convenient.

This is the kind of playing field we're dealing with.

Now, I'm not saying that you should trust other publications blindly – trusting anything blindly would be foolish – but trust is not binary, and generally speaking I would trust other sources more on this topic. A Conservative publication on topics like these without details are, unfortunately, not proof of anything right now and carry very little trust.

So, do I know it's a false story? No. Do I know it's a true story? Also no. Essentially a story like this is useless outside of being a lead for further investigation.

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#226

Post by thu2111 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #192
closeparen wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because I am very confident you are acting in bad faith. Why is it notable? Because “Some rioters crashed a van through a gas station and I called the police” being a “view” that will “harm the business” is a novel take. I understand the logic behind it. I also know that the most fervent believers in that logic understand it is provocative and radical relative to the mainstream.

It's not a novel take at all, people have been fired for random takes that blew into shitstorms countless of times. You seem to be confused about my post, I'm not passing any judgement here in the sense of approving with the firing, I'm saying, if you make a post on some political event and you create some sort of backlash, even if you didn't do anything wrong, but you're being perceived that way, your place of work…

The person in question wasn't fired for "random takes" but rather being seen in the vicinity of services that have been seen in the vicinity of people making decidedly non-random takes on political matters. And now she, perhaps correctly, believes she is the victim of religious and political persecution.

As for not being mass hysteria, from the outside looking in it's clearly exactly that. Firing someone because of a mobile app they have installed, when that app was briefly at the top of the app store, is ludicrous and wrong.

The US left appear to be descendeding into full bore anti-conservative hysteria. This is exceptionally dangerous because when the left has taken power in the past with that kind of mentality it ended up in bloodshed on massive scales. That must not happen to America.

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#227

Post by DetroitThrow »

jariel wrote: post #184
DetroitThrow wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be mass hysteria about the claimed "mass hysteria", at least when it relates to private business or individuals cutting ties with someone over their actions and statements as opposed to online harassment.

Over the perception of their actions, not their actual actions. Nobody anywhere would care a single bit were there not mass hysteria. Also it's not necessarily harassment to call out people if they are not doing their jobs. It's just very (almost pathetically) petty.

>Over the perception of their actions, not their actual actions.

Trying to discuss in good faith here so hopefully this doesn't garner venom: it doesn't feel novel to be fired or quit over public perception of actions or statements - all my corporate employers since the onset of social media have had disclaimers to not enter the public discourse in such a way that might cause negative publicity for them.

>Nobody anywhere would care a single bit were there not mass hysteria.

This is what my original comment was getting at: claims of 'mass hysteria' come off as something like a conspiracy against a specific group or unfairly targeted wrong-think, which feels like a much more exciting answer than the mundane reality. It seems hysterical in itself to not just assume we're in a politically polarized climate and certain topics of discourse easily earn you close friends and/or committed enemies - something that can make any group dynamic fall apart.

>Also it's not necessarily harassment to call out people if they are not doing their jobs. It's just very (almost pathetically) petty.

Entirely agree! I do think social media has had a tendency to allow people to indulge in their worst sides without much consequence in the case of doxxing and, well, harassment by mass-reaching out to personal lines of contact. That's really distinct in my eyes from filing a complaint to their public employer for the public perception of their public statements.

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#228

Post by esja »

_o0rc wrote: post #171
esja wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.

It may not have been clear from my comment, but it’s not an emotional benefit for me. And I don’t agree that it’s necessarily a net negative for the company. There are a lot of factors that impact a company’s overall performance.

If it’s not an emotional benefit, what are your rational grounds for this? You propose to exclude tens of millions of people because you believe their vote proves they have poor judgement. Yet you are displaying poor judgment by making this proposal.

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#229

Post by vergessenmir »

vidarh wrote: post #219
MrMember wrote: post #173

>"The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, January 25th, that one of our agents has been using the social media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologize to anyone who has been affected or offended by this" This honestly reads like satire. Why were they "distressed" by this and who could possibly be affected or offended by something so trivial?

These platforms are seen as far right and extremist by a lot of people. Whether or not that assessment is accurate, it will distress a lot of people who do agree with that assessment. Depending on the demographics of the authors they represent, it may well be a significant negative for their business to be associated with those platforms.

A lot of people being the media in the US that pushes the narrative to the extreme. You could make the argument ( perhaps weakly for Parler now) that they are right leaning social platforms that contain extremes. The same way Twitter is left leaning and contains left and right extremes.

Companies in the states appear to wear their political allegiances as a badge of honour eliciting an us-or-them reaction. Left and Right ideologies often have wants which flip from side to side, generation to generation.

It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct.

Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab

#230

Post by arp242 »

Proziam wrote: post #107
mhh__ wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of Republicans are the stereotype Parler user? If you were a rabid QAnon nut, why should I hire you? Saying republican is this context is just driving the wedge in too far.

The better question is what percentage of Parler users fit the stereotype ? Based on what I've seen and people I know who were active on Gab and Parler I would venture to say it's not nearly as high as people think. The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated.

I can't speak to Parler as I never checked it (and can't now), but I just checked the Gab homepage and I encountered anti-vaxx, anti-Catholicism, QAnon, and election fraud nonsense. This is just the frontpage: no cherry-picking. There is nothing outright illegal on the homepage, but it's also not a good look to be honest.

Aside: Gab is horrible technically speaking; Firefox uses my full CPU :-/

Post reply on HN