551–560 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The job of execs/middle managers seems to often be dual parenting: 1) coordinate the capable well-parented employees below them, and 2) pander to the usefully myopic spoiled brats above.
I would personally met the most spoiled brats dealing with big tech employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s funny as I see this argument from people who at the same time excuse Snowden for publicly exposing government surveillance overreach when he had similar tools (disclosure to relevant authorities) available to him.
Legitimate whistleblowing has rules. I doubt publishing a book counts as whistleblowing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we going to ignore how Zuckerberg dines with the president, donated a $1M to his inauguration fund, put Trump allies in high positions at Meta, loosened the moderation rules in Trump's favour, and got appointed to the president's Science and Tech Council only a few days ago? If you are that deeply intertwined you can't claim ignorance and innocense on the inconvenient stuff - like the Iran War. If you want to sta…
Before Zuckerberg loosened the moderation rules in Trump's favor he tightened them in favor of anti-Trump forces (and even using the terms "loosened" and "tightened" is assuming a frame that online speech that politically-benefits Trump in some way is inherently more worthy of moderation than speech that politically-harms Trump, which is itself an object-level political stance). It's probably a mistake to characteriz…
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/facebook-confirm...
Joel Kaplan was hired as the VP of global policy at Facebook in 2014, and he was hired for DEI reasons, i.e., specifically because he was Republican.
Before his role in the GWB White House, he participated in the Brooks Brothers riot that stopped the Florida vote recount in 2000.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/img-src-images-joelk...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m certain that if these clauses were banned, exactly zero contracts that would otherwise have been agreed would be abandoned. They are completely one sided, and superfluous to the goals of the contract.
> superfluous to the goals of the contract. How so? The goal of these companies is generally to exercise the maximum possible control over what employees do and say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, a contract can’t supersede laws like those that protect whistleblowers. (I think this is part of how Harvey Weinstein was prosecuted because his NDAs were found invalid) The author didnt disclose any illegal activities in her book. And she didnt claim whistleblower status.
… Have you read the book? _Plenty_ of illegal stuff there.
Lots of things I’d like to be illegal. Or I wished were illegal.
What did you read that was illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it was a severance agreement. She accepted a sum of money for agreeing to not disparage. You don't see anything wrong with someone knowingly accepting these funds, and then turning around and immediately violating the agreement by writing a book (making even more money in the process)? If it's about whistleblowing and doing the right thing, why not just refuse the money?
There should be a statute of limitations on this stuff. Otherwise we’ll see things like chemical plant employees who signed such an agreement keeping stories of dumping to their deathbeds.
Disclosing illegal activities cannot be silenced by these agreements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that was more about trying, in a dumb way, to make the pregnant woman not work all night than sexual harassment. The author was 8 months pregnant and was going to stay up for 12 hours doing stuff. This seemed more like a commanding boss trying to stop a workaholic from working.
Demanding that she sleep next to her on her bed does not sound like trying to stop a workaholic from working. It sounds creepy as hell.
Were it me, I would give up my spot as it’s just weird to ask a coworker to sleep in the same bed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would personally met the most spoiled brats dealing with big tech employees.
If this were true and you were their manager you would not have to deal with it. You could coach or remove them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a strange outlook. How often do you still get shocked that a politician lied? Do you cultivate the surprise effect by fear of feeling complicit if your reaction instead is "what else is new?"
when people do disgusting things, it's okay to be disgusted - saying "what else is new?" is nearly "this does not disgust me" which is essentially condoning it. not being shocked because it reinforces a negative stereotype you'd already assumed is not the same as dismissing it as uninteresting/expected behavior
That's an amazing stretch.