3 ms·
> but the other side of that is that moderate users will be able to move between communities at-will Nope. Banning users for simply being members of certain ot
by p-e-w 3y ago
> but the other side of that is that moderate users will be able to move between communities at-will
Nope. Banning users for simply being members of certain other communities has been a thing for quite a while now.
- RandomLensman 3y agoNothing new. That existed before social media and the internet, too. Ban people from certain jobs because the communities they associated with.
- mananaysiempre 3y ago(Illegal in many countries post the rise of social democracy, for what it’s worth—the US being a notable exception.)
- RandomLensman 3y agoNot really true for Germany during the cold war, pretty sure that wasn't the only example. Just think about things like security clearances.
- mananaysiempre 3y agoFrance specifically lists political affiliation among protected categories, while post-socialist countries flat out prohibit hiring decisions on anything unrelated to the ability to perform the job (and arguing “cultural fit” qualifies would be a difficult proposition, were the rejected hire to actually go to court). Governments may be allowed to be more discriminatory for national security reasons, and AFAICT security clearances are in part a backdoor to get this to be permissible in private employment as well. (Of course, it’s a different story if the political organization in question is actually banned, but in most civilized places that’s a very high bar—I’d argue that’s one of the qualifications of the moniker, even.)
- RandomLensman 3y agoNot to forget: Government is also a large employer, not just the private sector.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ericd 3y agoSorry, I don't know much about these, but how does anyone know what other communities you're part of? Is it difficult to have per-community pseudonyms?