7 ms·

>"The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, January 25th, that one of our agents has been using the social media platforms

>"The Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency was distressed to discover this morning, January 25th, that one of our agents has been using the social media platforms Gab and Parler. We do not condone this activity, and we apologize to anyone who has been affected or offended by this" This honestly reads like satire. Why were they "distressed" by this and who could possibly be affected or offended by something so trivial?

redis_mlc 6y ago
> This honestly reads like satire. 20 years ago, it would have been satire, as the 1st Amendment was widely adopted and valued by the public even beyond govt. Since 2016, Marxism has infiltrated US society, most notably starting with Obama's identity politics during and after his election. https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/first-amendment https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/fi... > Why were they "distressed" Leftists are distressed when somebody disagrees with their narrative of that particular day [Dave Rubin.] Additionally, they're afraid of associating with somebody off narrative [Glenn Greenwald], for fear the Bolshevik Red Terror or Maoist Cultural Revolution will come for them too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution A topical example of the above is deplatforming and impeaching Trump before any investigation, despite none of his public statements causing the Capitol riot. (Pelosi actually declined to increase Capitol security before the rally, and one of the first people to enter the Capitol admitted to being BLM/antifa. Talk about inconvenient truths!)
vidarh 6y ago
These platforms are seen as far right and extremist by a lot of people. Whether or not that assessment is accurate, it will distress a lot of people who do agree with that assessment. Depending on the demographics of the authors they represent, it may well be a significant negative for their business to be associated with those platforms.
- vergessenmir 6y ago
  A lot of people being the media in the US that pushes the narrative to the extreme. You could make the argument ( perhaps weakly for Parler now) that they are right leaning social platforms that contain extremes. The same way Twitter is left leaning and contains left and right extremes. Companies in the states appear to wear their political allegiances as a badge of honour eliciting an us-or-them reaction. Left and Right ideologies often have wants which flip from side to side, generation to generation. It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct.
  - _kbh_ 6y ago
    > It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct. Isn't this a feature of at will employment?. I know there are some protected attributes, but I was under the impression you could be fired for pretty much anything outside of those protected attributes.
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    > It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct. You have zero idea what evidence there is and isn't. The evidence has not been revealed by those involved, and it certainly hasn't been published in this short article you just read. You just assumed that "she used two sites" was the absolute entirety of the story.
    - vergessenmir 6y ago
      The agency president tweeted in now-deleted tweets that Colleen was fired for using conservative platforms and that they do not condone this activity. Followed by an apology for any offence caused. If there was further evidence she did not feel the need to disclose further. However it does appear that mentioning the association was enough justification. Also the complaints that were aired didn't provide any further evidence other than the fact that she was on the platform. Again only providing the association as the source of the concern. How do we get from that to a very public firing over a space of a few hours? More evidence may come to light but there are several things very problematic about this.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> This honestly reads like satire. 20 years ago, it would have been satire, as the 1st Amendment was widely adopted and valued by the public even beyond govt. Since 2016, Marxism has infiltrated US society, most notably starting with Obama's identity politics during and after his election. https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/first-amendment https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/fi... > Why were they "distressed" Leftists are distressed when somebody disagrees with their narrative of that particular day [Dave Rubin.] Additionally, they're afraid of associating with somebody off narrative [Glenn Greenwald], for fear the Bolshevik Red Terror or Maoist Cultural Revolution will come for them too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution A topical example of the above is deplatforming and impeaching Trump before any investigation, despite none of his public statements causing the Capitol riot. (Pelosi actually declined to increase Capitol security before the rally, and one of the first people to enter the Capitol admitted to being BLM/antifa. Talk about inconvenient truths!)

vidarh 6y ago

These platforms are seen as far right and extremist by a lot of people. Whether or not that assessment is accurate, it will distress a lot of people who do agree with that assessment. Depending on the demographics of the authors they represent, it may well be a significant negative for their business to be associated with those platforms.

vergessenmir 6y ago
A lot of people being the media in the US that pushes the narrative to the extreme. You could make the argument ( perhaps weakly for Parler now) that they are right leaning social platforms that contain extremes. The same way Twitter is left leaning and contains left and right extremes. Companies in the states appear to wear their political allegiances as a badge of honour eliciting an us-or-them reaction. Left and Right ideologies often have wants which flip from side to side, generation to generation. It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct.
- _kbh_ 6y ago
  > It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct. Isn't this a feature of at will employment?. I know there are some protected attributes, but I was under the impression you could be fired for pretty much anything outside of those protected attributes.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  > It's worrying and baffling that someone's source of income can be severed when there has been no evidence of misconduct. You have zero idea what evidence there is and isn't. The evidence has not been revealed by those involved, and it certainly hasn't been published in this short article you just read. You just assumed that "she used two sites" was the absolute entirety of the story.
  - vergessenmir 6y ago
    The agency president tweeted in now-deleted tweets that Colleen was fired for using conservative platforms and that they do not condone this activity. Followed by an apology for any offence caused. If there was further evidence she did not feel the need to disclose further. However it does appear that mentioning the association was enough justification. Also the complaints that were aired didn't provide any further evidence other than the fact that she was on the platform. Again only providing the association as the source of the concern. How do we get from that to a very public firing over a space of a few hours? More evidence may come to light but there are several things very problematic about this.