6 ms·

When opposing a state on such topics you can refer to the Constitution, freedom of opinion and speech. I am afraid of large powerful private companies - now an

When opposing a state on such topics you can refer to the Constitution, freedom of opinion and speech. I am afraid of large powerful private companies - now and even more in future. They can fire you, reject providing services that are essential to function in a modern society - if your position on some topics is different from theirs. Now you cannot refer to the freedom of opinion - it is a private entity and they are free to decide whether they want to cancel or fire you.

Waterluvian 5y ago
One of the problems with modern society is that too many people see these services as essential. When it comes to utilities, I absolutely agree. But not a specific email provider or social media site or video site, etc.
- skohan 5y ago
  I would argue for certain career paths, not having access to Twitter essentially makes one non-competitive. Also my friend went to a university where the official communication for course-work happened through Facebook. I'm not sure how someone without access to Facebook would be able to participate in that program.
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    Which career paths? I imagine "not getting banned from Twitter" is an important skill to have for any job that requires twitter. That's absurd and a failure on the university's part. What country was this in.
    - skohan 5y ago
      > Which career paths? I imagine "not getting banned from Twitter" is an important skill to have for any job that requires twitter. Well this is moving the goal-posts isn't it? The comment I responded to said that the effect of being denied access to a certain social media platform is overstated. I would argue for media professionals it's basically a requirement. > That's absurd and a failure on the university's part. What country was this in. This was a masters program in Germany
      - chriswarbo 5y ago
        > This was a masters program in Germany Witholding access to course materials, unless a student enters a contract/relationship with a third-party (Facebook or otherwise), is coersion. I would certainly kick up a fuss: start politely with those running the course (who probably didn't give it much thought); go up the chain as necessary. At each step, make sure the focus remains on the coersion: the University is retroactively adding terms (e.g. whatever is in Facebook's policies) to the contracts agreed during enrollment. It is threatening to impose penalties (e.g. lost marks) on those who don't accept such unilateral changes. Do not allow the issue to get derailed into tangential concerns, especially money (e.g. price of the service, or provision of equipment/connections, etc.). Those things could be solved by signing a cheque; but would not address the real problem. If concrete reasons is really needed, there are a bunch to choose from that aren't easily solved (and are not under the University's control): for Facebook/Meta there are a whole bunch, from real name requirements, privacy concerns, non-consentual psychology experiments, etc. Personally I would just say I find the company, their products and their business practices unethical. (I had a similar experience when my Physics course tried to make me use Microsoft Excel)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
      Personally, I think getting banned from various technology communities can be a badge of honour. Obviously not just crude flaming, but going counter to the narrative. If I find myself agreeing with the average Redditor or Twitter user (god-forbid a blue check!) it’s usually a sign that something is missing from my thought process and I should shake things up a little.
      - skohan 5y ago
        Are you sure you're not being contrarian for its own sake? There are times to go against the grain, but surely the consensus must be correct a lot of the time right? Can it really be the case that most people are wrong most of the time?
- Forge36 5y ago
  Two of these are similar to a mailing address. If I move I need to a dozen different websites and services with my mailing address. Since it's not often I don't remember to track where this needs to happen. If I was forced to change my email address, I might not be able to recover some accounts. Some don't support changing username (which is my email). I don't want to count the number of websites I'd need to update.
- cosmodisk 5y ago
  Our daughter started going to a kindergarten across road. Guess how all the communication happens? In a private Facebook group. My wife has an account,while I deleted mine like almost 10 years ago. It's not very hard to extrapolate from such a simple example to the point where restricted access to such services can make life very difficult to individuals.
  - codingdave 5y ago
    This is exactly why public schools have accessibility requirements for any of their communications. Take it to the school board, and if they do not help, take it to a lawyer. The only way corporations will take control of our society is if we let them. I am continually amazed by how much people let corporations and attorneys bully them. There is this pervasive attitude that they control everything and it is dangerous to fight back. If that attitude continues to prevail, then yes - that is when we will have serious problems.
    - Loughla 5y ago
      >This is exactly why public schools have accessibility requirements for any of their communications. I am not sure you have an accessibility case regarding a facebook group. It is accessible for individuals with disabilities, via the use of electronic aides such as screen readers. Accessibility does not mean, "I get whatever I want whenever I want." It means, "I can access this without my disability impeding that." Not having facebook is not a disability. I'm very, very confused by what you're saying.
      - codingdave 5y ago
        I was thinking of people without any connection at all - homeless families who have no mobile phones or internet connection. Those communications aren't about disability, just simple lack of access. But that is missing the forest for the trees - the specifics of this anecdote are one small point. Standing up for yourself is the bigger point. I could be 100% wrong about the accessibility in schools, but that doesn't change my larger wish - that we would all stand up and push back when we see problems... not just dismissively say, "well, we'd never win that fight, so don't even try."
- zivkovicp 5y ago
  I guess it depends. A lot of people who sell crafts and bespoke items will probably rely on access to various marketplaces and payment processors; and arguably the social media platforms could be considered essential for marketing. Drivers and people working delivery gigs would rely on their own platforms like Uber or Deliveroo, etc. For personal use, I would be inclined to agree with you; many of the platforms are more of a nuisance than anything else.
playing_colours 5y ago
The problem with private for-profit companies is that they fundamentally cannot play a role of moral or political beacons, by the purpose and mechanisms that ensure their existence and success. We have a lot of examples in history when the institutions that are designed to be moral guides bend their principles to the ruling ideology: Catholic Church in Nazi Germany, Orthodox Church in Soviet & Putin Russia. I think large companies tend to eagerly adopt any moral principles that bring them more customer, attracts more employees, helps to get government contracts, and avoid lawsuits.
- chasd00 5y ago
  It gets worse. The vaccine mandates really put a spotlight on this. The politicians know a law mandating a vaccine is a non-starter so they delegate to private industry and encourage corporate policy like either get a shot or be fired, your “choice”. Very clever in an evil sort of way.
  - markvdb 5y ago
    > The politicians know a law mandating a vaccine is a non-starter A vaccine mandate is a non-starter only in the current poisonous US political environment. There is historical precedent for vaccine mandates in the US: polio. What else are reasonably careful policy makers to do if a very vocal minority has the ability to block any progress?
- salex89 5y ago
  Not sure what are you referring by "Orthodox Church in Soviet (Russia)". The state's stance towards it was a mish-mash of violent and liberal times. But church and, more importantly, practicing religion was oppressed at almost all times. I'm from another, smaller, communist country and the attitude towards religion changed hyper-locally. My mom and dad are from different parts of the country, yet almost neighbouring, but my mom's family could practice religion freely, while my dad's were being jailed for it.
- markvdb 5y ago
  While your premise sounds sound, not all of your examples do. As an example, you might be positively surprised about the role of some of the catholic clergy in Nazi Germany and outside of it. Which was something completely different from the catholic hierarchy at the papal level, but I digress...
netcan 5y ago
It's increasingly hard to tell one from the other. The mechanism here appears to be (the article itself is light on facts) a contract, same as would be with a private entity. The entity on the other end of the contract could be private, public or mixed. The rule/clause may originate in a contract between this entity and a 3rd party, or the entity's interpretation/implementation of a regulatory framework. In regulated industries, the last version is ubiquitous. A bank, casino or whatnot will have a "compliance" function. There will be "regulatory/compliance" requirements, rules and clauses. It's never clear whether these are government rules, private policies, etc.

Waterluvian 5y ago

One of the problems with modern society is that too many people see these services as essential. When it comes to utilities, I absolutely agree. But not a specific email provider or social media site or video site, etc.

skohan 5y ago
I would argue for certain career paths, not having access to Twitter essentially makes one non-competitive. Also my friend went to a university where the official communication for course-work happened through Facebook. I'm not sure how someone without access to Facebook would be able to participate in that program.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  Which career paths? I imagine "not getting banned from Twitter" is an important skill to have for any job that requires twitter. That's absurd and a failure on the university's part. What country was this in.
  - skohan 5y ago
    > Which career paths? I imagine "not getting banned from Twitter" is an important skill to have for any job that requires twitter. Well this is moving the goal-posts isn't it? The comment I responded to said that the effect of being denied access to a certain social media platform is overstated. I would argue for media professionals it's basically a requirement. > That's absurd and a failure on the university's part. What country was this in. This was a masters program in Germany
    - chriswarbo 5y ago
      > This was a masters program in Germany Witholding access to course materials, unless a student enters a contract/relationship with a third-party (Facebook or otherwise), is coersion. I would certainly kick up a fuss: start politely with those running the course (who probably didn't give it much thought); go up the chain as necessary. At each step, make sure the focus remains on the coersion: the University is retroactively adding terms (e.g. whatever is in Facebook's policies) to the contracts agreed during enrollment. It is threatening to impose penalties (e.g. lost marks) on those who don't accept such unilateral changes. Do not allow the issue to get derailed into tangential concerns, especially money (e.g. price of the service, or provision of equipment/connections, etc.). Those things could be solved by signing a cheque; but would not address the real problem. If concrete reasons is really needed, there are a bunch to choose from that aren't easily solved (and are not under the University's control): for Facebook/Meta there are a whole bunch, from real name requirements, privacy concerns, non-consentual psychology experiments, etc. Personally I would just say I find the company, their products and their business practices unethical. (I had a similar experience when my Physics course tried to make me use Microsoft Excel)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
    Personally, I think getting banned from various technology communities can be a badge of honour. Obviously not just crude flaming, but going counter to the narrative. If I find myself agreeing with the average Redditor or Twitter user (god-forbid a blue check!) it’s usually a sign that something is missing from my thought process and I should shake things up a little.
    - skohan 5y ago
      Are you sure you're not being contrarian for its own sake? There are times to go against the grain, but surely the consensus must be correct a lot of the time right? Can it really be the case that most people are wrong most of the time?
Forge36 5y ago
Two of these are similar to a mailing address. If I move I need to a dozen different websites and services with my mailing address. Since it's not often I don't remember to track where this needs to happen. If I was forced to change my email address, I might not be able to recover some accounts. Some don't support changing username (which is my email). I don't want to count the number of websites I'd need to update.
cosmodisk 5y ago
Our daughter started going to a kindergarten across road. Guess how all the communication happens? In a private Facebook group. My wife has an account,while I deleted mine like almost 10 years ago. It's not very hard to extrapolate from such a simple example to the point where restricted access to such services can make life very difficult to individuals.
- codingdave 5y ago
  This is exactly why public schools have accessibility requirements for any of their communications. Take it to the school board, and if they do not help, take it to a lawyer. The only way corporations will take control of our society is if we let them. I am continually amazed by how much people let corporations and attorneys bully them. There is this pervasive attitude that they control everything and it is dangerous to fight back. If that attitude continues to prevail, then yes - that is when we will have serious problems.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    >This is exactly why public schools have accessibility requirements for any of their communications. I am not sure you have an accessibility case regarding a facebook group. It is accessible for individuals with disabilities, via the use of electronic aides such as screen readers. Accessibility does not mean, "I get whatever I want whenever I want." It means, "I can access this without my disability impeding that." Not having facebook is not a disability. I'm very, very confused by what you're saying.
    - codingdave 5y ago
      I was thinking of people without any connection at all - homeless families who have no mobile phones or internet connection. Those communications aren't about disability, just simple lack of access. But that is missing the forest for the trees - the specifics of this anecdote are one small point. Standing up for yourself is the bigger point. I could be 100% wrong about the accessibility in schools, but that doesn't change my larger wish - that we would all stand up and push back when we see problems... not just dismissively say, "well, we'd never win that fight, so don't even try."
zivkovicp 5y ago
I guess it depends. A lot of people who sell crafts and bespoke items will probably rely on access to various marketplaces and payment processors; and arguably the social media platforms could be considered essential for marketing. Drivers and people working delivery gigs would rely on their own platforms like Uber or Deliveroo, etc. For personal use, I would be inclined to agree with you; many of the platforms are more of a nuisance than anything else.

playing_colours 5y ago

The problem with private for-profit companies is that they fundamentally cannot play a role of moral or political beacons, by the purpose and mechanisms that ensure their existence and success. We have a lot of examples in history when the institutions that are designed to be moral guides bend their principles to the ruling ideology: Catholic Church in Nazi Germany, Orthodox Church in Soviet & Putin Russia. I think large companies tend to eagerly adopt any moral principles that bring them more customer, attracts more employees, helps to get government contracts, and avoid lawsuits.

chasd00 5y ago
It gets worse. The vaccine mandates really put a spotlight on this. The politicians know a law mandating a vaccine is a non-starter so they delegate to private industry and encourage corporate policy like either get a shot or be fired, your “choice”. Very clever in an evil sort of way.
- markvdb 5y ago
  > The politicians know a law mandating a vaccine is a non-starter A vaccine mandate is a non-starter only in the current poisonous US political environment. There is historical precedent for vaccine mandates in the US: polio. What else are reasonably careful policy makers to do if a very vocal minority has the ability to block any progress?
salex89 5y ago
Not sure what are you referring by "Orthodox Church in Soviet (Russia)". The state's stance towards it was a mish-mash of violent and liberal times. But church and, more importantly, practicing religion was oppressed at almost all times. I'm from another, smaller, communist country and the attitude towards religion changed hyper-locally. My mom and dad are from different parts of the country, yet almost neighbouring, but my mom's family could practice religion freely, while my dad's were being jailed for it.
markvdb 5y ago
While your premise sounds sound, not all of your examples do. As an example, you might be positively surprised about the role of some of the catholic clergy in Nazi Germany and outside of it. Which was something completely different from the catholic hierarchy at the papal level, but I digress...

netcan 5y ago

It's increasingly hard to tell one from the other. The mechanism here appears to be (the article itself is light on facts) a contract, same as would be with a private entity. The entity on the other end of the contract could be private, public or mixed. The rule/clause may originate in a contract between this entity and a 3rd party, or the entity's interpretation/implementation of a regulatory framework. In regulated industries, the last version is ubiquitous. A bank, casino or whatnot will have a "compliance" function. There will be "regulatory/compliance" requirements, rules and clauses. It's never clear whether these are government rules, private policies, etc.