4 ms·

The latter third of the article is devoted to push-back. Nonetheless, as all writers understand, bias can be subtle [1] Let's start with the title. "Welcome t

The latter third of the article is devoted to push-back. Nonetheless, as all writers understand, bias can be subtle [1] Let's start with the title. "Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office" Does that not lend at least tacit assent by ambivalence, if not outright assent? Welcome? The next 750 words are given over to normalising the "lot's of valid reasons" to surveil workers, and lending value to an emerging surveillance industry. Thereafter 450 words describe the counterpoints, but frame this mainly as "dislike" and "feelings". Towards the end, the language does shift to a more humanistic tone, describing "snooping" and the "dangers" of over-zealous monitoring. Overall though, I found the article lacks mature analysis, presents an "as is" hot take, and spins in favour of employer intrusion on the basis of 19th century industrial justifications. Given the enormous impact of declining labour relations in an economically precarious era, and the currency of digital rights and surveillance in general, I am surprised The Economist did not attempt a more in-depth treatment of "boss-ware". It would be improved by actual productivity studies, the psychological literature on workplace surveillance, some modern ethical understanding of why this is unacceptable, and what the likely negative impact is going to be on, frankly dumb, companies that see this as legitimate. Because ultimately, this stuff is bad for business, for everybody's business except a few spyware companies. [1] Unlike my own polemical theatrics which I enjoy wearing up-front where you can be fully entertained.

peteradio 4y ago
I really enjoyed your theatrics, moist was a nice touch. Do you ever feel like an article can be written for its intentional expected negative backlash? What better way to do that then honestly present the frothy maw right up front for all to be disgusted?
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > Do you ever feel like an article can be written for its intentional expected negative backlash? What better way to do that then honestly present the frothy maw right up front for all to be disgusted? Interesting point Peter. Yes. Indeed, maybe I misjudge the author's sophistication (or how The Economist is playing it). But that tactic opens up great risk of being misinterpreted. At some point one needs to state an intent/position quite clearly. Someone in an earlier comment mentions sarcasm. I think to do what you're suggesting, at least for an Anglophone reader, would require that you coded your prose as sarcasm. I don't find that easy. While slipping occasionally, I honestly try to refrain from it, not just because it's "the lowest form of wit", or because it risks misunderstanding, but because it carries a "defensive" tone, and I very much prefer to go on the attack in my prose in accordance with Nietzsche's "If it's shaky, push it." Dostoyevsky said it best, that it's a "cry of pain". Sarcasm, he thought, is "usually the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded." First, how very apt in this context. Second, as with dealing with all bullies, better to walk right up and punch them on the nose. Lastly, despite my sometimes acrid tone, I'm really an optimist about fellow humans. Best to give people the benefit of the doubt to see things as they are. Respects.
noelsusman 4y ago
That title clearly has a negative tone. Nobody reads that title and has a positive reaction.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
> Does that not lend at least tacit assent by ambivalence, if not outright assent? Welcome? Not at all. It reads like pure sarcasm. > The next 750 words are given over to normalising the "lot's of valid reasons" to surveil workers, and lending value to an emerging surveillance industry This is a rhetoric device to underline that you understand the incentive of those employing it in preparation to offer a better alternative, e.g. actually capable management. Or just to explain why managers want to use it. An employer has of course the right to check your work to know why he is paying you. I firmly condemn management employing crapware like this, I think the developers offering these solutions are very likely shady characters. Defining a goal a worker has to reach is exactly what surveillance management isn't capable of. Employees will optimize the metric not the business goal and honestly I would help them cheat it in any way possible. > It would be improved by actual productivity studies, the psychological literature on workplace surveillance Not needed to reject it as an employee at all.

peteradio 4y ago

I really enjoyed your theatrics, moist was a nice touch. Do you ever feel like an article can be written for its intentional expected negative backlash? What better way to do that then honestly present the frothy maw right up front for all to be disgusted?

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> Do you ever feel like an article can be written for its intentional expected negative backlash? What better way to do that then honestly present the frothy maw right up front for all to be disgusted? Interesting point Peter. Yes. Indeed, maybe I misjudge the author's sophistication (or how The Economist is playing it). But that tactic opens up great risk of being misinterpreted. At some point one needs to state an intent/position quite clearly. Someone in an earlier comment mentions sarcasm. I think to do what you're suggesting, at least for an Anglophone reader, would require that you coded your prose as sarcasm. I don't find that easy. While slipping occasionally, I honestly try to refrain from it, not just because it's "the lowest form of wit", or because it risks misunderstanding, but because it carries a "defensive" tone, and I very much prefer to go on the attack in my prose in accordance with Nietzsche's "If it's shaky, push it." Dostoyevsky said it best, that it's a "cry of pain". Sarcasm, he thought, is "usually the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded." First, how very apt in this context. Second, as with dealing with all bullies, better to walk right up and punch them on the nose. Lastly, despite my sometimes acrid tone, I'm really an optimist about fellow humans. Best to give people the benefit of the doubt to see things as they are. Respects.

noelsusman 4y ago

That title clearly has a negative tone. Nobody reads that title and has a positive reaction.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

> Does that not lend at least tacit assent by ambivalence, if not outright assent? Welcome? Not at all. It reads like pure sarcasm. > The next 750 words are given over to normalising the "lot's of valid reasons" to surveil workers, and lending value to an emerging surveillance industry This is a rhetoric device to underline that you understand the incentive of those employing it in preparation to offer a better alternative, e.g. actually capable management. Or just to explain why managers want to use it. An employer has of course the right to check your work to know why he is paying you. I firmly condemn management employing crapware like this, I think the developers offering these solutions are very likely shady characters. Defining a goal a worker has to reach is exactly what surveillance management isn't capable of. Employees will optimize the metric not the business goal and honestly I would help them cheat it in any way possible. > It would be improved by actual productivity studies, the psychological literature on workplace surveillance Not needed to reject it as an employee at all.