5 ms·

> Those who run small businesses find it nearly impossible to walk away from Facebook, Instagram, Yelp, Etsy, even Amazon. Employers often mandate that their wo

> Those who run small businesses find it nearly impossible to walk away from Facebook, Instagram, Yelp, Etsy, even Amazon. Employers often mandate that their workers use certain apps or systems like Zoom, Slack, and Google Docs. “It is only the hyper-privileged who are now saying, ‘I’m not going to give my kids this,’ or, ‘I’m not on social media,’” says Rumman Chowdhury, a data scientist at Accenture. “You actually have to be so comfortable in your privilege that you can opt out of things.” What an absolutely absurd thing to say. In the context of small business owners, your Facebook/Instagram/Yelp presence is no different than that of a "hyper-privileged" company, sans the advertising budget and amount of staffers who work on it. In the context of your employer, enterprise software like Google Docs and Slack are (ostensibly) different than their consumer counterparts, in terms of analytics, data collection, and advertising. Further, the "hyper-privileged" middle- and upper-managers at tech companies are far more likely to use these forms of enterprise software than the under-privileged classes in America. In the context of personal life, you are under absolutely no obligation, regardless of social caste, to join Instagram or Facebook and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. There is a certain class of media, of which I count Vox as a preeminent example, which constantly use hyperbole and socially-charged arguments in contexts where it doesn't fit or make sense.

emosupportfi 7y ago
I agree that this probably could have been phrased in a slightly less charged way, but the truth of the matter is that these companies have such a large market share that a small business can't really afford to ignore those platforms, as it gives them an opportunity to reach far more customers than they could under more general marketing approaches. Whereas, larger companies may very well have the brand recognition to lean away from those platforms and comfortably absorb the lost potential business. It's that ability to survive that is being described as "privilege". Part of a pretty terrible linguistic shift around the idea of businesses as distinct individuals. And as a final note, what you're zeroing in on is a quote from Rumman Chowdhury, so it's probably not Rose Eveleth's words (The Vox Reporter), though she did absolutely choose to include them.
blotter_paper 7y ago
> In the context of personal life, you are under absolutely no obligation, regardless of social caste, to join Instagram or Facebook and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. I've had an employer require me to make a facebook account. They let me use a fake name, but it seems like that decision was made during hiring by my immediate manager. Upper management only allowed it to continue because it was agreed upon during hiring. If I were required to use my real name, it would be impossible to stop actual acquaintances from seeing my profile. You're not obligated to work for a specific company, of course, but saying "nobody is obligated to clean toilets regardless of social class" would seem ignorant of the reality of working class life.
- anovikov 7y ago
  Why would employer require anyone to make a facebook account? Also if you make one but never post anything on it, how does it help the employer with whatever their goals may be?
  - Impossible 7y ago
    Facebook is an employer that has a legitimate reason to require that you have a Facebook account.
    - jogjayr 7y ago
      It never came up when I interviewed there :-) and I doubt it's why I didn't get the offer.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    They were advertising products via facebook posts. They did check in on the account periodically to see if posts were being made.
    - anovikov 7y ago
      Ah then it's normal, like an employee is supposed to participate in company's marketing efforts in that way. I see no problem with it, as long this is a part of the job and written in contract, i.e. something he's getting paid for. It's not like they wanted me to make a Facebook account to keep tabs on my private life.
esotericn 7y ago
I strongly disagree with the shoehorning of the term "privilege" into basically every situation that involves any level of inequality, but I think the idea is vaguely sound. I don't use Facebook, or LinkedIn, or whatever else. I can do that because: a) I have enough personal wealth that I am comfortable with working for reasons other than money. This is distinct from simply being able to afford it at a minimal level. b) I have a level of self confidence, hard won, that allows me to stand up to people and say no. This might mean, for example, interrupting a conversation at a bureaucratic firm about how "all X are required to do Y"; or just not doing it; if I think it's wrong. I don't agree with calling it privilege - it's more like a personality trait, or perhaps even a talent or skill, because it's developed rather than bestowed. But not everyone is in that sort of situation. A checkout worker, for the most part, just does what the boss says. Regardless of the actual personal power they have, that's just "how it works" out in the real world. Society is not full of hyper individualistic people. If it were, it would look radically different, if it even functioned.
- laurex 7y ago
  To me there's an apt comparison between data-sucking, attention-sucking technology and sugar. It's healthy to minimise consumption of them, and harder to do when your decision-making brain reserves are taxed by anxiety, social pressure, and lack of good available alternatives.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  You think being wealthy enough to not need to work, isn’t a privilege, it’s a talent or personality trait??? Edit for the -1 downvote: being able to interrupt a meeting to refuse to do some work, because you have enough personal resources that the negative social, financial or reputation consequences won't harm you, is "A special advantage, immunity, permission, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual". It is a privilege, held by very few people.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    It's not a binary thing. Being born in a developed country in a relatively stable home environment is a privilege. Having the above as a baseline, and being born with a particular set of talents and personality can propel a person far higher than that. I dislike the use of the term 'privilege' when used in the context of any form of success because it is, as you point out, tautological.
mpalczewski 7y ago
From their about page "Vox explains the news." So they tell you how you are supposed to think. Smells like propaganda to me.
lacker 7y ago
Oh no, my employer might mandate that I use Zoom! If that's your biggest complaint about your job, you have a pretty nice job.

emosupportfi 7y ago

I agree that this probably could have been phrased in a slightly less charged way, but the truth of the matter is that these companies have such a large market share that a small business can't really afford to ignore those platforms, as it gives them an opportunity to reach far more customers than they could under more general marketing approaches. Whereas, larger companies may very well have the brand recognition to lean away from those platforms and comfortably absorb the lost potential business. It's that ability to survive that is being described as "privilege". Part of a pretty terrible linguistic shift around the idea of businesses as distinct individuals. And as a final note, what you're zeroing in on is a quote from Rumman Chowdhury, so it's probably not Rose Eveleth's words (The Vox Reporter), though she did absolutely choose to include them.

blotter_paper 7y ago

> In the context of personal life, you are under absolutely no obligation, regardless of social caste, to join Instagram or Facebook and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. I've had an employer require me to make a facebook account. They let me use a fake name, but it seems like that decision was made during hiring by my immediate manager. Upper management only allowed it to continue because it was agreed upon during hiring. If I were required to use my real name, it would be impossible to stop actual acquaintances from seeing my profile. You're not obligated to work for a specific company, of course, but saying "nobody is obligated to clean toilets regardless of social class" would seem ignorant of the reality of working class life.

anovikov 7y ago
Why would employer require anyone to make a facebook account? Also if you make one but never post anything on it, how does it help the employer with whatever their goals may be?
- Impossible 7y ago
  Facebook is an employer that has a legitimate reason to require that you have a Facebook account.
  - jogjayr 7y ago
    It never came up when I interviewed there :-) and I doubt it's why I didn't get the offer.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  They were advertising products via facebook posts. They did check in on the account periodically to see if posts were being made.
  - anovikov 7y ago
    Ah then it's normal, like an employee is supposed to participate in company's marketing efforts in that way. I see no problem with it, as long this is a part of the job and written in contract, i.e. something he's getting paid for. It's not like they wanted me to make a Facebook account to keep tabs on my private life.

esotericn 7y ago

I strongly disagree with the shoehorning of the term "privilege" into basically every situation that involves any level of inequality, but I think the idea is vaguely sound. I don't use Facebook, or LinkedIn, or whatever else. I can do that because: a) I have enough personal wealth that I am comfortable with working for reasons other than money. This is distinct from simply being able to afford it at a minimal level. b) I have a level of self confidence, hard won, that allows me to stand up to people and say no. This might mean, for example, interrupting a conversation at a bureaucratic firm about how "all X are required to do Y"; or just not doing it; if I think it's wrong. I don't agree with calling it privilege - it's more like a personality trait, or perhaps even a talent or skill, because it's developed rather than bestowed. But not everyone is in that sort of situation. A checkout worker, for the most part, just does what the boss says. Regardless of the actual personal power they have, that's just "how it works" out in the real world. Society is not full of hyper individualistic people. If it were, it would look radically different, if it even functioned.

laurex 7y ago
To me there's an apt comparison between data-sucking, attention-sucking technology and sugar. It's healthy to minimise consumption of them, and harder to do when your decision-making brain reserves are taxed by anxiety, social pressure, and lack of good available alternatives.
jodrellblank 7y ago
You think being wealthy enough to not need to work, isn’t a privilege, it’s a talent or personality trait??? Edit for the -1 downvote: being able to interrupt a meeting to refuse to do some work, because you have enough personal resources that the negative social, financial or reputation consequences won't harm you, is "A special advantage, immunity, permission, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual". It is a privilege, held by very few people.
- esotericn 7y ago
  It's not a binary thing. Being born in a developed country in a relatively stable home environment is a privilege. Having the above as a baseline, and being born with a particular set of talents and personality can propel a person far higher than that. I dislike the use of the term 'privilege' when used in the context of any form of success because it is, as you point out, tautological.

mpalczewski 7y ago

From their about page "Vox explains the news." So they tell you how you are supposed to think. Smells like propaganda to me.

lacker 7y ago

Oh no, my employer might mandate that I use Zoom! If that's your biggest complaint about your job, you have a pretty nice job.