I took his article and the analogies to point out that these studies must get approval before engaging subjects. He also states that the law requires explicit p

I took his article and the analogies to point out that these studies must get approval before engaging subjects. He also states that the law requires explicit permission unless it is on or using company property. Idk the legal requirements, but I thin, to underscore my previous point (and how I interpreted zsfa) that the issue is in how counterparties agree and the obligations they owe to one another. I also find myself agreeing that it would be difficult to charchterize snarky. Although, I suspect that they say snarky but mean using racial slurs and other threatening language. Clearly, saying horrible things to people is not positive but free speech is more important. I find in super reasonable that someone with a tagged Riot employee un shouting racial epithets gets fired. However, a private personal account without explicit consent should probably enjoy the expectation of privacy. super complicated issue, however, I believe many people would look at this differently if it came out that every employee was told, signed paperwork, and was aware that it would be company policy to monitor and enforce known etiquette with known repetcussions edit: also there have been studies that show people behave differently when watched. It seems reasonable simply telling everyone about this policy would bring about the desired results.