6 ms·

I'm curious about something, would most of the people who are aghast at this be as aghast at it if this had flagged someone who was racist, sexist, transphobic,

by Aloha 7y ago

I'm curious about something, would most of the people who are aghast at this be as aghast at it if this had flagged someone who was racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic? I would be, but I wonder if I'm in the minority or not. This pilfering of your digital history is on the order of what's needed to get a security clearance - where it's at least somewhat justified. There is no case where I can see this being justified for normal employment.

coldtea 7y ago
No, it's OK if it happens to "bad" people. People who have bad opinions should not of course have jobs. They should die on the streets, as untouchables... Of course this holds as long as "the good side" has the power to make companies fire people for their tweets. If and when conservatives get this power (like e.g. they did in the Hoover or McCarthy era), this practice would be wrong again, and it should all be about "freedom of speech" and right to work, etc. /s
- komali2 7y ago
  "Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?
  - javagram 7y ago
    > doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality [. . .] didn't think you should be allowed to exist Words like "racist" or "transphobic" go well beyond that - what you are describing is someone advocating for outright Nazism and the execution / capital punishment of anyone they don't like. I think most of us would be uncomfortable working with someone who is trying to have us literally killed. For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. Even though this position might be considered normal by 50% or more of society it still gets an "-phobic" and advocates would try to have such a person fired, even if they tried to accommodate by e.g. referring patients to another doctor or so on. Look at the case of Brendan Eich who donated to a referendum that won, it was supported by more than 50% of his state's voters - he was still forced to resign his job and leave despite his record of treating coworkers fairly, giving them benefits despite not being married, etc. I think when people worry about this they are less worried about the literal Nazis (richard spencer types, who are an incredibly small minority even today) and more about the people who may be 10, 20, 30%, even 40% of society. If you are seeking to attack such a large number of people that's a recipe for trouble.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. You are leaving out the important bit: The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position--i.e., where the actual motivation for the refusal is their personal dislike of giving trans people the opportunity to transition according to their own wishes rather than genuine concern for the patient.
      - javagram 7y ago
        > The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position Well, I don't think we are going to solve this in the comments section, but my impression is that is not true. Trans-friendly doctors who have a long history of working in the field and helping suffering individuals transition have been accused of being transphobic, while advocates for aggressive medical treatment openly admit they don't have scientific evidence backing their treatments (use of puberty blockers in young children, for instance, is off-label and I'm unaware of any studies done with control groups that compare therapy vs drugs for treating this in children). E.g. https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-r... Where this will eventually land in terms of the science isn't clear to me but what is clear is that the use of the term "transphobe" has increased dramatically. I've also seen it applied to those who state they wouldn't be interested in dating or having sex with a transitioned person, which is far from wishing them to not be human or not exist. I think it's very reasonable to want to avoid people who are openly racist or problematic in the workplace but expanding definitions of "phobic" and "ism" is concerning and I'd wonder how such algorithmic tools would judge where the lines are.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    That's a very extreme interpretation of "racist" ? (It's a sliding scale, remember?)
  - calimac 7y ago
    Gaslight much? Take a class in logic and reasoning at your nearest community college.
  - thaeli 7y ago
    I do work with people who don't think I should be allowed to exist. But they're required to be polite to me at work, and to use my pronouns, and as long as they do that no lines have been crossed.
    - wayneftw 7y ago
      If my personal issues demanded that people use special pronouns around me in order to protect my own self identity, I think that I would eventually be more self-conscious about the fact that the majority of people in my office are now most likely making fun of me behind my back and calling me whatever they want when I'm not around... Don't people just avoid using pronouns altogether for you though if they feel so opposed to it? Seems like a pretty simple workaround. What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway?
      - wolfgang42 7y ago
        I don’t even know where to start with this comment, so I’ll single out a bit of it: > What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway? Ummm… exist? Do their job? “Hey, I was talking to thaeli, and %s said that I should ask you about…”
      - mplanchard 7y ago
        This comment feels remarkably uncharitable and unkind. Many of us are perfectly happy to refer to people by their chosen pronouns without making fun of them behind their backs. Hopefully the poster you were replying to works in an office where people are not as childish and inconsiderate as you assume they would be.
      - maest 7y ago
        Why would people make fun of them behind their back?
        wayneftw 7y ago
        Because this is generally a topic of ridicule? You don't have to look very far - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots... >Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist? First, why would you use a huge strawman as an argument? There are tons of ways to think X group should do something different, or do or not do something, or that they're not saints, or that they go about Y in the wrong way, without thinking "they should not be allowed to exist". But still people are called out for all kinds of tame stuff (e.g. saying only biological women should compete in women's sports, for example), called out to be fired, etc. Second, yes, I might not want to work with people who don't think I should exist, but I also don't want to have them fired for not wanting me to exist. There are many coworkers I had throughout my career I myself wished didn't existed (idiotic bosses), but I wouldn't want to get their fired, cause them pain etc. And if they wish me not to exist, that's their thing. Even if they show it, e.g. with passive aggressiveness, etc (which happens all too often in the workplace just because two people don't like each other, compete for the same position, have different styles, one is jealous of the other, etc. - race/sex etc is hardly the most common cause of this). Point being, I'm not some God to dictate who deserves to have work or not. Nor do their families, kids, etc deserve to suffer because I am "hurt" of their opinions. And even less so, their personal opinions, outside of work. If they behave unprofessionally at work to me or anyone else, sure, have them fired.
    - unlinked_dll 7y ago
      Most bigots don't realize they're bigots. But ostracizing them from professional society exasperates the victim complex inherent to bigotry.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >Most bigots don't realize they're bigots Yes. In that regard they are exactly alike most holier than thou types!
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Thinking that anyone disagreeing with my opinions want certain people exterminated is not healthy. There are not genocidal maniacs behind every tweet that annoys us. My best guess is that it's a form of Motivated Reasoning for "striking back first" at these imagined monsters.
    - jlg23 7y ago
      Death to all fatalists!
  - wolco 7y ago
    I'm from Canada and this opinion seems extreme and would result in the opposite effect. Not allowing someone to work would make them open their own business. They would hire like minded people. They would push some mainstream businesses into bankrupcy. Sounds like a recipe for more racism. Like you are doubling down. In Canada we would work with the person and tell people to leave your opinions at home. Magically opinions change quickly when you get to know one another. It is hard to hold on to such views when the reality is so different.
- darkwizard42 7y ago
  I don't think holding racist, homophobic, or sexist views would be considered "bad opinions". They are likely going to limit your effectiveness in the workplace, so yeah seems fine to screen for that.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    The US had been full of racisst, homophobic, and sexist people much more in the past and it didn't hurt their "effectiveness in the workplace", to the point that the US was the #1 economy in the world. So, maybe personal opinions of that nature are not related to being a good developer or a good car mechanic or hair dresser. Second, what's a offensive (e.g. homophobic, sexist, etc) is quite an arbitrary thing these days, with all kinds of things that would perfectly fine for a leftist Democrat to say in 1990 or 2000 or 2010 being considered as such in 2020, and things getting weirder by the minute.
    - chillwaves 7y ago
      If keeping racists around was so good for business, then business culture would not have drastically changed in the last 50 or 60 years. As far as US being #1 economy, that generally happens when the rest of the developed world is in rubble (post WWII). Men being sexist and racist was not necessarily a contributor. Another trend was more people smoked cigarettes. Do you thinking smoking cigarettes means a more effective business?
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >If keeping racists around was so good for business Nobody said it was "good". What was said, to quote, is: "So, maybe personal opinions of that nature are not related to being a good developer or a good car mechanic or hair dresser" -- in other words, that it was not really a contributor (pro or con). >Another trend was more people smoked cigarettes. Do you thinking smoking cigarettes means a more effective business? No, but I do think whether an employee smoked or not said nothing about how good they are at their job.
- blahbhthrow3748 7y ago
  Right, there's no objective morality, any action anyone takes is their right because freedom. It's equally bad when anyone says anything bad because... reasons.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    Non sequitur?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Right, there's no objective morality No, there's not. The universe doesn't care about morals. Societies build their morality. It changes in time and place. If you lived in 1840s South you'd statistically be a racist. If you lived in a tribe you'd have their morality. >any action anyone takes is their right because freedom If there's no morality, then any action anyone takes is neither right, nor wrong. But for a given morality (e.g. 2020 US morality) an action can be right or wrong, or something in between (as morality is complicated, not black and white -- e.g. a murder of someone to steal them, or a murder of a someone who tried to rape you is not equally bad, even though it's equally murder). >It's equally bad when anyone says anything bad because... reasons. That doesn't parse.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  On the other hand, if said views effect their ability to work cohesively in a professional environment, having someone like that in your office opens you up to significant liability. It's very easy to make a case that workplace discrimination happened, or that a hostile work environment was fostered, when there are public discriminatory tweets by the perpetrator that corroborate with the incidents. It's equally difficult to claim ignorance as an employer when they are, again, public.
danso 7y ago
I don't think the hypothetical people you refer to would be against flagging people for bigoted behavior/speech. In fact, I personally don't see an issue with manually doing a Twitter advanced search to see if someone – especially for a public-facing role – has tweeted outright slurs; I specify "manually" to insinuate that context is important when assessing this. I think people's main issues with this specific software/practice are: 1. It evaluates Liked tweets – if you believe tweets to have too little context to be accurate signals of how a potential employee would behave, liking a tweet contains even less context. 2. Any service that provides data via widescale scraping and auto classifying can and will eventually be reduced to an "authoritative" score.
FilterSweep 7y ago
I’d rather they check my tweets than my pee (unless visibly intoxicated at work) But, it’s still Orwellian and presents a sinister forced blend of personal and professional life
wolco 7y ago
I would be in thoery but I'm not aghast at all. This is a great opportunity to remind people that the hacker in hackernews needs to shine. Start creating your fake profile now. Start preparing to game your online profile to navigate this new normal.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  Years ahead of you.
itronitron 7y ago
Pilfering digital-social-media history is not on the order of what's needed for a security clearance.
- Aloha 7y ago
  Interviews with your neighbors, friends and family are however. This is just a low cost means of doing it, while very nearly as invasive.

by Aloha 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago

No, it's OK if it happens to "bad" people. People who have bad opinions should not of course have jobs. They should die on the streets, as untouchables... Of course this holds as long as "the good side" has the power to make companies fire people for their tweets. If and when conservatives get this power (like e.g. they did in the Hoover or McCarthy era), this practice would be wrong again, and it should all be about "freedom of speech" and right to work, etc. /s

komali2 7y ago
"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?
- javagram 7y ago
  > doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality [. . .] didn't think you should be allowed to exist Words like "racist" or "transphobic" go well beyond that - what you are describing is someone advocating for outright Nazism and the execution / capital punishment of anyone they don't like. I think most of us would be uncomfortable working with someone who is trying to have us literally killed. For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. Even though this position might be considered normal by 50% or more of society it still gets an "-phobic" and advocates would try to have such a person fired, even if they tried to accommodate by e.g. referring patients to another doctor or so on. Look at the case of Brendan Eich who donated to a referendum that won, it was supported by more than 50% of his state's voters - he was still forced to resign his job and leave despite his record of treating coworkers fairly, giving them benefits despite not being married, etc. I think when people worry about this they are less worried about the literal Nazis (richard spencer types, who are an incredibly small minority even today) and more about the people who may be 10, 20, 30%, even 40% of society. If you are seeking to attack such a large number of people that's a recipe for trouble.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. You are leaving out the important bit: The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position--i.e., where the actual motivation for the refusal is their personal dislike of giving trans people the opportunity to transition according to their own wishes rather than genuine concern for the patient.
    - javagram 7y ago
      > The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position Well, I don't think we are going to solve this in the comments section, but my impression is that is not true. Trans-friendly doctors who have a long history of working in the field and helping suffering individuals transition have been accused of being transphobic, while advocates for aggressive medical treatment openly admit they don't have scientific evidence backing their treatments (use of puberty blockers in young children, for instance, is off-label and I'm unaware of any studies done with control groups that compare therapy vs drugs for treating this in children). E.g. https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-r... Where this will eventually land in terms of the science isn't clear to me but what is clear is that the use of the term "transphobe" has increased dramatically. I've also seen it applied to those who state they wouldn't be interested in dating or having sex with a transitioned person, which is far from wishing them to not be human or not exist. I think it's very reasonable to want to avoid people who are openly racist or problematic in the workplace but expanding definitions of "phobic" and "ism" is concerning and I'd wonder how such algorithmic tools would judge where the lines are.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  That's a very extreme interpretation of "racist" ? (It's a sliding scale, remember?)
- calimac 7y ago
  Gaslight much? Take a class in logic and reasoning at your nearest community college.
- thaeli 7y ago
  I do work with people who don't think I should be allowed to exist. But they're required to be polite to me at work, and to use my pronouns, and as long as they do that no lines have been crossed.
  - wayneftw 7y ago
    If my personal issues demanded that people use special pronouns around me in order to protect my own self identity, I think that I would eventually be more self-conscious about the fact that the majority of people in my office are now most likely making fun of me behind my back and calling me whatever they want when I'm not around... Don't people just avoid using pronouns altogether for you though if they feel so opposed to it? Seems like a pretty simple workaround. What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway?
    - wolfgang42 7y ago
      I don’t even know where to start with this comment, so I’ll single out a bit of it: > What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway? Ummm… exist? Do their job? “Hey, I was talking to thaeli, and %s said that I should ask you about…”
    - mplanchard 7y ago
      This comment feels remarkably uncharitable and unkind. Many of us are perfectly happy to refer to people by their chosen pronouns without making fun of them behind their backs. Hopefully the poster you were replying to works in an office where people are not as childish and inconsiderate as you assume they would be.
    - maest 7y ago
      Why would people make fun of them behind their back?
      - wayneftw 7y ago
        Because this is generally a topic of ridicule? You don't have to look very far - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 7y ago
  >"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots... >Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist? First, why would you use a huge strawman as an argument? There are tons of ways to think X group should do something different, or do or not do something, or that they're not saints, or that they go about Y in the wrong way, without thinking "they should not be allowed to exist". But still people are called out for all kinds of tame stuff (e.g. saying only biological women should compete in women's sports, for example), called out to be fired, etc. Second, yes, I might not want to work with people who don't think I should exist, but I also don't want to have them fired for not wanting me to exist. There are many coworkers I had throughout my career I myself wished didn't existed (idiotic bosses), but I wouldn't want to get their fired, cause them pain etc. And if they wish me not to exist, that's their thing. Even if they show it, e.g. with passive aggressiveness, etc (which happens all too often in the workplace just because two people don't like each other, compete for the same position, have different styles, one is jealous of the other, etc. - race/sex etc is hardly the most common cause of this). Point being, I'm not some God to dictate who deserves to have work or not. Nor do their families, kids, etc deserve to suffer because I am "hurt" of their opinions. And even less so, their personal opinions, outside of work. If they behave unprofessionally at work to me or anyone else, sure, have them fired.
  - unlinked_dll 7y ago
    Most bigots don't realize they're bigots. But ostracizing them from professional society exasperates the victim complex inherent to bigotry.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Most bigots don't realize they're bigots Yes. In that regard they are exactly alike most holier than thou types!
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Thinking that anyone disagreeing with my opinions want certain people exterminated is not healthy. There are not genocidal maniacs behind every tweet that annoys us. My best guess is that it's a form of Motivated Reasoning for "striking back first" at these imagined monsters.
  - jlg23 7y ago
    Death to all fatalists!
- wolco 7y ago
  I'm from Canada and this opinion seems extreme and would result in the opposite effect. Not allowing someone to work would make them open their own business. They would hire like minded people. They would push some mainstream businesses into bankrupcy. Sounds like a recipe for more racism. Like you are doubling down. In Canada we would work with the person and tell people to leave your opinions at home. Magically opinions change quickly when you get to know one another. It is hard to hold on to such views when the reality is so different.
darkwizard42 7y ago
I don't think holding racist, homophobic, or sexist views would be considered "bad opinions". They are likely going to limit your effectiveness in the workplace, so yeah seems fine to screen for that.
- coldtea 7y ago
  The US had been full of racisst, homophobic, and sexist people much more in the past and it didn't hurt their "effectiveness in the workplace", to the point that the US was the #1 economy in the world. So, maybe personal opinions of that nature are not related to being a good developer or a good car mechanic or hair dresser. Second, what's a offensive (e.g. homophobic, sexist, etc) is quite an arbitrary thing these days, with all kinds of things that would perfectly fine for a leftist Democrat to say in 1990 or 2000 or 2010 being considered as such in 2020, and things getting weirder by the minute.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    If keeping racists around was so good for business, then business culture would not have drastically changed in the last 50 or 60 years. As far as US being #1 economy, that generally happens when the rest of the developed world is in rubble (post WWII). Men being sexist and racist was not necessarily a contributor. Another trend was more people smoked cigarettes. Do you thinking smoking cigarettes means a more effective business?
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >If keeping racists around was so good for business Nobody said it was "good". What was said, to quote, is: "So, maybe personal opinions of that nature are not related to being a good developer or a good car mechanic or hair dresser" -- in other words, that it was not really a contributor (pro or con). >Another trend was more people smoked cigarettes. Do you thinking smoking cigarettes means a more effective business? No, but I do think whether an employee smoked or not said nothing about how good they are at their job.
blahbhthrow3748 7y ago
Right, there's no objective morality, any action anyone takes is their right because freedom. It's equally bad when anyone says anything bad because... reasons.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Non sequitur?
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Right, there's no objective morality No, there's not. The universe doesn't care about morals. Societies build their morality. It changes in time and place. If you lived in 1840s South you'd statistically be a racist. If you lived in a tribe you'd have their morality. >any action anyone takes is their right because freedom If there's no morality, then any action anyone takes is neither right, nor wrong. But for a given morality (e.g. 2020 US morality) an action can be right or wrong, or something in between (as morality is complicated, not black and white -- e.g. a murder of someone to steal them, or a murder of a someone who tried to rape you is not equally bad, even though it's equally murder). >It's equally bad when anyone says anything bad because... reasons. That doesn't parse.
heavyset_go 7y ago
On the other hand, if said views effect their ability to work cohesively in a professional environment, having someone like that in your office opens you up to significant liability. It's very easy to make a case that workplace discrimination happened, or that a hostile work environment was fostered, when there are public discriminatory tweets by the perpetrator that corroborate with the incidents. It's equally difficult to claim ignorance as an employer when they are, again, public.

danso 7y ago

I don't think the hypothetical people you refer to would be against flagging people for bigoted behavior/speech. In fact, I personally don't see an issue with manually doing a Twitter advanced search to see if someone – especially for a public-facing role – has tweeted outright slurs; I specify "manually" to insinuate that context is important when assessing this. I think people's main issues with this specific software/practice are: 1. It evaluates Liked tweets – if you believe tweets to have too little context to be accurate signals of how a potential employee would behave, liking a tweet contains even less context. 2. Any service that provides data via widescale scraping and auto classifying can and will eventually be reduced to an "authoritative" score.

FilterSweep 7y ago

I’d rather they check my tweets than my pee (unless visibly intoxicated at work) But, it’s still Orwellian and presents a sinister forced blend of personal and professional life

wolco 7y ago

I would be in thoery but I'm not aghast at all. This is a great opportunity to remind people that the hacker in hackernews needs to shine. Start creating your fake profile now. Start preparing to game your online profile to navigate this new normal.

commandlinefan 7y ago
Years ahead of you.

itronitron 7y ago

Pilfering digital-social-media history is not on the order of what's needed for a security clearance.

Aloha 7y ago
Interviews with your neighbors, friends and family are however. This is just a low cost means of doing it, while very nearly as invasive.