Readit News logoReadit News
wfo commented on Guide to Slack import and export tools   get.slack.help/hc/en-us/a... · Posted by u/larrik
cechmaster · 8 years ago
I think you're mixing up the way businesses run and how society should run. Two different things.
wfo · 8 years ago
Businesses are society, we are forced to spent the vast majority of our waking life under the thumb of one so we should absolutely decide how we want that life to go.
wfo commented on Guide to Slack import and export tools   get.slack.help/hc/en-us/a... · Posted by u/larrik
chrischen · 8 years ago
Totalitarian surveilance? While you’re at removing that from the workplace don’t forget to instigate democratic revolution in your company as well.
wfo · 8 years ago
Well yes, this is a good idea, democratization of the workplace and worker co-ops generally promote better quality of life for employees and the surrounding community, less exploitation, less corruption, more justice and similar or better efficiency as the normal dictatorial corporate model.
wfo commented on Guide to Slack import and export tools   get.slack.help/hc/en-us/a... · Posted by u/larrik
dsacco · 8 years ago
> And workplaces are socio-political contexts

They're not governments, they're companies.

> monitoring channels that even just imply privacy, regardless of whether they take place in the workplace (or in academia, or at home) is a violation of personal rights

It isn't, unless your definition of "personal rights" includes "things I personally want which are neither codified in, nor protected by, laws."

wfo · 8 years ago
>They're not governments, they're companies.

You're right, it's important to note they are more powerful and exercise more control over the lives of their employees than many governments, though employees often have the same opportunity to leave their company as they do their government (none).

>It isn't, unless your definition of "personal rights" includes "things I personally want which are neither codified in, nor protected by, laws."

Yes that's literally exactly what personal rights always means. Legal rights are legal rights, personal rights are a conception of what the person who uses the term wants or believes rights to be.

wfo commented on Zuckerberg summoned to House Of Commons inquiry   bbc.co.uk/news/uk-4347476... · Posted by u/sjcsjc
diego_moita · 8 years ago
And a very crappy, stupid movie, b.t.w.

It is just a rehash of an old Hollywood cliché: "college is just sex and booze":

* A bus full of hot girls arriving to be used for sex

* A programming competition where the crowd cheers at each line of coded Python. The coders drink a shot to commemorate. Hint: try to program under alcohol influence.

* The hero hacks one site in one night when drunk and in 2 hours it crashes the network

* All nerds are socially inept and incapable of getting girlfriends but still Zuck has smart psychological insights about what the site needs to succeed.

* Teenagers outsmarting experienced lawyers with witty responses.

* Sex, booze and testosterone is what drives every man.

Really?

wfo · 8 years ago
Did we even see the same movie? We're talking about the social network, right? The movie lauded nearly universally, winning and nominated for all sorts of awards (including best picture!) by every organization in every category? The movie regularly voted as one of the best films of the last 18 years?

I don't recognize a single one of your bullet points as being about my experience of the movie. The whole conceit was that a brilliant technical expert's unexpected success pushes him into a world he is not emotionally or socially prepared to handle, and ultimately his arrogance and hubris leaves him alone and unhappy as he pushes away the people in his life one by one, ending SPOILER ALERT

beautifully with him quietly desperately refreshing his ex's facebook page alone, starting to recognize how much he regrets everything that he has lost in his pursuit for wealth and power...

Most of the movie isn't about college, or sex, or booze. If you had to could you have broken a site from that era in 2 hours? I'd be shocked if you couldn't. Lots of these sites would die when they get a little too much traffic. Some sites still do today. Security was an afterthought back then. Zuck had a girlfriend, and his friends do just fine. The lawyers are dealing with so much wealth and power in the hands of people who are so young and emotionally immature and they handle it exactly how I'd expect them to.

Zuck in the movie is driven by a lust for wealth and power, which is a universal theme in basically every story in human history.

Deleted Comment

wfo commented on China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains   reuters.com/article/us-ch... · Posted by u/samaysharma
jsonne · 8 years ago
China is doing this explicitly, but the West has been doing this implicitly for a while. Doxxing people with the "wrong" opinion and emailing their employers, friends, etc. I pretty regularly see if on Facebook where someone says something and their post or a screenshot of their post is shared hundreds of thousands of times with test that says "make this person famous". To be clear people should be called out for bigoted speech. An internet lynch mob though solves nothing and just creates a forever alienated group of people outside of society with little to no stake in the future. We all, as in humanity, could use understanding the nuance of stopping bad behavior while also forgiving people for their pasts. I don't have all the answers, but I guess I wrote this as it's just a generally worrying trend I see with the internet overall.
wfo · 8 years ago
The problem in both cases is a capricious and whimsical ultrapowerful organization with the ability to destroy a person's life for any reason with no repercussions. In China, it's the state, in the US it's in the private sector, in the form of your employer.

On the one hand, I would certainly like to know, for example, if the person I trust to teach my children in a public school is explicitly posting on the Internet about how she uses her position to indoctrinate children into extremist white nationalist ideology, Nazism and hate groups, and the "Internet lynch mob" did a great service by exposing this woman [1] -- there is no universe in which she should be allowed to be a teacher.

On the other hand, I think such firings should always be "for cause" with some kind of due process. We need to take away the ultimate power employers have to fire their employees, and make them go through some negotiation, process, discussion before they do so -- like through a union, who is obligated to stand up for wronged employees for example. If someone is failing to perform, provide evidence. If someone's publicly stated values are incompatible with the values of the business, prove it and let them respond. Either that, or we need a strong enough social safety net so that employment is optional for all people.

[1] https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/03/05/flor...

wfo commented on New Orleans ends its relationship with tech firm Palantir   nola.com/crime/index.ssf/... · Posted by u/dsr12
tptacek · 8 years ago
The problematic policy in "stop and frisk" is the stopping and frisking, not the prediction.
wfo · 8 years ago
I think most opponents of stop and frisk disagree with you: it's both. Police routinely "predict" that black and brown people are criminals, and stop and frisk allows them to act on these predictions without evidence. I think the argument here is that systems like Palantir quickly and easily become a technological proxy for these "predictions" and makes permanent the biases and racism used to create the data sets that drive them.

If NYPD set up patrols on wall street to stop and frisk bankers on their way home from work searching for cocaine or evidence of fraud it would be a very different issue.

Deleted Comment

wfo commented on Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet   newyorker.com/magazine/20... · Posted by u/smacktoward
slayed0 · 8 years ago
You're mixing beliefs with tactics/behavior. The behavior you described is "toxic" no matter what your beliefs are. I agree that the lack of repercussions and social feedback online lead to an increase in people acting like this and it is a problem for pretty much all public forums. However, it is neither constructive, nor is it truthful, in my opinion, to attach this behavior to a single group, side, or set of beliefs. All you'll end up doing is driving moderates of said group further to the extremes. You can call out ideas you think are bad and you can call out behavior you think is bad, but "other-ing" an entire group based on the worst actions at the fringes of their membership just isn't going to change any minds. It only widens the divide.

Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group.

wfo · 8 years ago
>Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group.

I'm glad you added this, I agree with you in general. I'm not interested in "other-ing" right-wing people, Republicans, moderates, conservatives, but I'm very interested in "other-ing", e.g. neo-nazis or Klan members. I am not worried about neo-nazis becoming more extreme (? is this possible?) and I also am not willing to let their sensibilities or concern for their feelings dictate any part of my or society's behavior.

Deleted Comment

u/wfo

KarmaCake day3058September 12, 2011View Original