191–200 of 241 posts
Some of those tweets that the article quotes sound like something straight out of the Onion. People are asking these social media companies to put themselves in an impossible position.
What is their end goal here? I certainly don’t want Mark Zuckerberg or any of his employees making decisions on what is considered newsworthy, especially on really important stuff like this. Even if you don’t personally like what is being said, the fact that it _is_ being said - and who is saying it - is an important point for people to know. The next time, it may be your own opinions that they’ll censor: Facebook ha…
Isn't the context also important for people to know? Like, if the President of the United States is saying something that's factually incorrect and might cause people e.g. not to register to vote (because they expect every Californian will be getting a ballot), is that context not also significant? Or, hypothetically -- but really if you think at this point that this is a stretch, come on -- if Trump claims without e…
We need to think real hard about what we want in 5 years and beyond from now... not just what we want now. Breaching the divide of platform and publisher for anything beyond light moderation to keep the platform usable, no matter how well intentioned, is bound to have a devastating result on future political expression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the context also important for people to know? Like, if the President of the United States is saying something that's factually incorrect and might cause people e.g. not to register to vote (because they expect every Californian will be getting a ballot), is that context not also significant? Or, hypothetically -- but really if you think at this point that this is a stretch, come on -- if Trump claims without e…
Facebook should provide the platform and stop there. When they act as publishers and start editorialising or adding "platform opinions" to the user generated content, they can rightly be asked why they endorse everything else on their site that isn't "edited" or "added to". We need to think real hard about what we want in 5 years and beyond from now... not just what we want now. Breaching the divide of platform and p…
Call it what you like; we're not coping very well with unrestricted dissemination of disinformation. Folks have gamed it at the highest levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This viewpoint always seemed silly to me. Actors have a union, yet the variation between highest paid actors and low paid actors is in the hundreds of millions.
The highest performing teachers in a state with teacher unionization is paid the same as the lowest performing teacher who is totally incompetent. This rewards ineptitude, punishes high performance and punishes children. The worst thing about unions is protecting low performers, though.
Unions fight for what their members want them to fight for. Some unions fight for things i wouldn't want. Some unions fight for things that i would want in some jobs but not in the tech industry. It doesn't follow that just because one union did X all unions would do X.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of layers here; I’ll do my best to unpack things as I see them. First, violence by police is always worse than violence by civilians, full stop. They took an oath to protect and serve their communities in a job they knew could be dangerous, so they are obligated to go above and beyond in preventing violence and deescalating conflict. If necessary, they must be willing to suffer physical trauma in orde…
Police and politicians are not supposed to be involved in decisions of whether to prosecute crimes, so the fact you lay guilt on them for not prosecuting is puzzling. Prosecutors are supposed to be making those decisions on behalf of the state or federal government. The police did everything in their power (immediately firing them). It's up to prosecutors to do the rest. Do you think police generally support what hap…
I do believe police generally support what happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unions are also the reason why most other industrial countries have mandatory holidays, sick leave, parental leave and so on.
That's not a very good argument in this case because the average Silicon Valley tech worker has a better take home salary than a programmer in those countries even after accounting for education/childcare and insurance costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A union leads to exactly what its members want it to lead to. It's a democratic entity.
That's not necessarily a given. To be fair we also technically live in a democracy with a democratic process. Many would argue that the views of the majority are not reflected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can they make hundreds of thousands in total compensation?
this explains everything. you can stage a walk out in a meeting but you’re still on zuckerbergs payroll. and if 50% of the us based engineers quit based on some social principles there’s thousands of engineers ready to fill those spots around the world for a fraction of the price. covid has shown remote work works. unionizing and making the US more costly to work with will only accelerate how “remote” these jobs can…
Plenty of bodies to replace those who leave, for sure, but they're not about to start hiring random offshore types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not necessarily a given. To be fair we also technically live in a democracy with a democratic process. Many would argue that the views of the majority are not reflected.
Are you saying that the views of the majority are better represented in dictatorships?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do teachers wield massive political power?
Teachers unions are very influential - especially in state and local elections (ex. described here as "political juggernauts" https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/02/14/are-teachers-u... )
They're fairly strong in Canadian provinces.