41–50 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone across the spectrum does it. It's a way of reinforcing the power of a particular political camp. There's a way to fix that though, make it very difficult to fire people. Then companies will need to be incredibly clear about what conditions they're choosing to terminate under.
The United Kingdom is not a state in the United States.
Remember this is “keeping files on posts that criticise education policies” — tracking political dissenters who don’t like the government’s policies but have done nothing wrong or illegal. While we’re off focusing on encryption debates and the online safety bill, the UK government isn’t waiting around. Just what is “accredited technology”? As defined in that bill, and how much does encryption play a role when monitor…
Meanwhile, when groups of activists surveil dissenters/wrongthinkers on social media, actively make lists of them and try to get them fired or worse for their speech/thoughts, many still defend that as 'perfectly reasonable consequences of unacceptable speech'
No middle ground is possible.
it is critical for national security and public order to monitor the activity of subversive elements. These 'teaching assistants' may well be spies for foreign governments or unwitting pawns manipulated by those governments. As a democracy, UK government represents the will of the people. The government and the people are one
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone across the spectrum does it. It's a way of reinforcing the power of a particular political camp. There's a way to fix that though, make it very difficult to fire people. Then companies will need to be incredibly clear about what conditions they're choosing to terminate under.
>make every state a right to work state instead of at will In the US, "right-to-work state" likely refers to the opposite of what you mean. It's "right to not join a union and not pay dues".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile, when groups of activists surveil dissenters/wrongthinkers on social media, actively make lists of them and try to get them fired or worse for their speech/thoughts, many still defend that as 'perfectly reasonable consequences of unacceptable speech'
This is the government doing it, which is clearly wrong because they are supposed to be protecting your speech rights. If someone robs a corner gas station, you think “dang that’s a shame”. If the military robs a gas station, you think “umm wtf?”
Having your human rights violated is not like stubbing your toe.
> Cases have also surfaced of the Department attempting to silence voices critical of government policy. Early years specialists Ruth Swailes and Aaron Bradbury have previously faced attempts from the Department to cancel their conference due to their earlier critiques. Similarly, Dr. Mine Conkbayir, a renowned early childhood author, was allegedly threatened with funding withdrawal for a conference she was scheduled to keynote, due to her criticisms. As she recounts, the Department also attempted to curtail her talk duration and verify her speech contents, pulling the strings of academic dialogue.
... People here seem to think all this creepy data is just getting shipped into a box, rather than being deliberately acted upon.
But it's very clear that is not the case. The reality is far more disturbing. We're looking at primary school teachers suffering in their career (!!!) for the 'crime' of criticising policy. That's insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone across the spectrum does it. It's a way of reinforcing the power of a particular political camp. There's a way to fix that though, make it very difficult to fire people. Then companies will need to be incredibly clear about what conditions they're choosing to terminate under.
>make every state a right to work state instead of at will In the US, "right-to-work state" likely refers to the opposite of what you mean. It's "right to not join a union and not pay dues".
Wrongthink must be stamped out! Seriously, what kind of dystopia are UK politicians trying to create? Also, that's a lot of tax money that could, I dunno, be used to improve the schools?
Simple FOI request to find out how much the program is costing. I doubt it’s cheap.
> In 2020, the openDemocracy website published a report on the FOI Clearing House. The report described the Clearing House as "Orwellian" and found that it requires government departments to send it requests that are potentially sensitive or too expensive to answer. The report also found that the Clearing House sometimes requires departments to provide it with drafts of responses to FOI requests for vetting. According to the report, government ministers were hindering FOI requests in "disturbing" ways and the number of FOI requests granted by departments had decreased. The Cabinet Office said the Clearing House was designed to "ensur[e] there is a standard approach across government in the way we consider and respond to requests".
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/24/orwellian-g...