3 ms·

Any abusive practices with broad aversion in population. I would have to think of all the examples. I know there are things many don't want Facebook to be doing

by mrobot 7y ago

Any abusive practices with broad aversion in population. I would have to think of all the examples. I know there are things many don't want Facebook to be doing. Someone below said this: `e.g. "want facebook to stop listening in on your conversations? FB Local 404 did that for you" or "Sick of Instacart stealing your shoppers' tips? So is the Instacart Developers' Guild" and so on.`

thu2111 7y ago
I don't know who Instacart are but Facebook don't listen in on your conversations, do they? WhatsApp has end to end encryption and FB Messenger is getting it. I asked for examples because this sort of wafer thin anti-corporate virtue signalling is insufficient to convince me to pick a fight with my own employer in 'solidarity'. Like most of the population I don't worry about Facebook or Google invading my privacy, instead I enjoy their free services. If they did something I really hated I'd just stop using them: there are other search engines and Facebook isn't especially critical. I already use it much less than I used to. Nothing they're doing justifies being labelled as abusive, let alone taking explicit action.
Kalium 7y ago
This sounds like a list of disputes I would like my union to stay out of. A union representing me has one job: to look after the working conditions and compensation of myself and my colleagues. All this other stuff is a series of distractions. I could have sworn I pointed to this exact behavior as an anti-pattern just a few comments ago, and was told not to worry because democracy. Given how readily this particular goal cropped up again, I suddenly find myself less than completely reassured. I suddenly find myself wondering, once again, if the people who want me to join a union actually care what I want or just want power.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zbyte64 7y ago
  If you have colleagues that have children, would advancing paternity leave also represent the interests of the group? If you have colleagues that are diabetic, would advancing policies for cheaper insulin not represent the interests of the group? Maybe the answer is no, but for those colleagues who are have more complicated needs the answer might be yes. Lastly, if a union doesn't at least represent a re-balance of power then it is ineffectual.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    When I have colleagues that have children, I would expect our union to negotiate for parental leave policies. I might expect some minor amount of support to go towards encouraging local politicians to advance that item, but it should be little more than an endorsement of the idea. When I have colleagues who suffer from diabetes, I would expect our union to ensure excellent health care is provided as part of the contract. I would not expect our union to try to involve itself in something drastically removed from its core competency like how research is managed and pharmaceuticals are regulated. I would certainly not want our union to expend resources on the matter - there are guaranteed to be more substantive matters closer to home that would benefit from those same resources. You're absolutely right. A union can, should, and must represent a rebalancing of power. It's just perhaps possible that it's not appropriate for this rebalancing to extend into every possible sphere. This is doubly true in a context of limited resources.

by mrobot 7y ago

thu2111 7y ago

I don't know who Instacart are but Facebook don't listen in on your conversations, do they? WhatsApp has end to end encryption and FB Messenger is getting it. I asked for examples because this sort of wafer thin anti-corporate virtue signalling is insufficient to convince me to pick a fight with my own employer in 'solidarity'. Like most of the population I don't worry about Facebook or Google invading my privacy, instead I enjoy their free services. If they did something I really hated I'd just stop using them: there are other search engines and Facebook isn't especially critical. I already use it much less than I used to. Nothing they're doing justifies being labelled as abusive, let alone taking explicit action.

Kalium 7y ago

This sounds like a list of disputes I would like my union to stay out of. A union representing me has one job: to look after the working conditions and compensation of myself and my colleagues. All this other stuff is a series of distractions. I could have sworn I pointed to this exact behavior as an anti-pattern just a few comments ago, and was told not to worry because democracy. Given how readily this particular goal cropped up again, I suddenly find myself less than completely reassured. I suddenly find myself wondering, once again, if the people who want me to join a union actually care what I want or just want power.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zbyte64 7y ago
If you have colleagues that have children, would advancing paternity leave also represent the interests of the group? If you have colleagues that are diabetic, would advancing policies for cheaper insulin not represent the interests of the group? Maybe the answer is no, but for those colleagues who are have more complicated needs the answer might be yes. Lastly, if a union doesn't at least represent a re-balance of power then it is ineffectual.
- Kalium 7y ago
  When I have colleagues that have children, I would expect our union to negotiate for parental leave policies. I might expect some minor amount of support to go towards encouraging local politicians to advance that item, but it should be little more than an endorsement of the idea. When I have colleagues who suffer from diabetes, I would expect our union to ensure excellent health care is provided as part of the contract. I would not expect our union to try to involve itself in something drastically removed from its core competency like how research is managed and pharmaceuticals are regulated. I would certainly not want our union to expend resources on the matter - there are guaranteed to be more substantive matters closer to home that would benefit from those same resources. You're absolutely right. A union can, should, and must represent a rebalancing of power. It's just perhaps possible that it's not appropriate for this rebalancing to extend into every possible sphere. This is doubly true in a context of limited resources.