3 ms·

"On this platform". That's not circulating grievances/politics on a company's internal channels. How are we confusing these two?

by jeswin 3y ago

dralley 3y ago
First of all, let's dispense with the notion that "on twitter" actually matters, given the man is so petty that he canceled a dude's Tesla order over a tweet that criticized him. Anyway: "grievances/politics" It came out that he paid a $250,000 settlement for a sexual harassment suit and he decided to respond to this by making jokes on twitter, quote: “Hi Chad, long time no see! Fine, if you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.” Can we not act like this is "politics"? This is about the basic decency people should expect from any employer.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  Wow, that Twitter quote is crazy. Can you imagine any other CEO (or C-suite) for a major corp writing the same thing? They would be instantly fired. You see it on Wall Street frequently for much less, and at all ranks of employees. After many costly sexual harassment lawsuits against Wall Street banks, the culture has changed significantly in the last 20 years.
karpatic 3y ago
Intentionally is my guess.
llbeansandrice 3y ago
It’s not confusion it’s a comparison. The other commenter is trying to highlight Musk’s cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, he wants to support “free speech” on his platform (being able to say what you want _publicly_ and not get fired). On the other, his employees are getting fired for things they are saying internally. Obviously less of a moral crime, but one speech he is okay with squashing because it’s criticism of him. So given these two situations, what is Musk’s definition of “free speech”? A value he claims to hold very dearly and earnestly, but also tramples if it’s speech he doesn’t like.
Veserv 3y ago
Because literally every company in existence would think that employees publicly airing their grievances about their employer on Twitter is strictly less of a problem than on the company's internal channels. If you think people should be legally protected for anything they say publicly on Twitter, then you should also believe they should be legally protected for anything they say in company internal channels. Anything else is incoherent.

"On this platform". That's not circulating grievances/politics on a company's internal channels. How are we confusing these two?

by jeswin 3y ago

"On this platform". That's not circulating grievances/politics on a company's internal channels. How are we confusing these two?

dralley 3y ago

First of all, let's dispense with the notion that "on twitter" actually matters, given the man is so petty that he canceled a dude's Tesla order over a tweet that criticized him. Anyway: "grievances/politics" It came out that he paid a $250,000 settlement for a sexual harassment suit and he decided to respond to this by making jokes on twitter, quote: “Hi Chad, long time no see! Fine, if you touch my wiener, you can have a horse.” Can we not act like this is "politics"? This is about the basic decency people should expect from any employer.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2037 3y ago
Wow, that Twitter quote is crazy. Can you imagine any other CEO (or C-suite) for a major corp writing the same thing? They would be instantly fired. You see it on Wall Street frequently for much less, and at all ranks of employees. After many costly sexual harassment lawsuits against Wall Street banks, the culture has changed significantly in the last 20 years.

karpatic 3y ago

Intentionally is my guess.

llbeansandrice 3y ago

It’s not confusion it’s a comparison. The other commenter is trying to highlight Musk’s cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, he wants to support “free speech” on his platform (being able to say what you want _publicly_ and not get fired). On the other, his employees are getting fired for things they are saying internally. Obviously less of a moral crime, but one speech he is okay with squashing because it’s criticism of him. So given these two situations, what is Musk’s definition of “free speech”? A value he claims to hold very dearly and earnestly, but also tramples if it’s speech he doesn’t like.

Veserv 3y ago

Because literally every company in existence would think that employees publicly airing their grievances about their employer on Twitter is strictly less of a problem than on the company's internal channels. If you think people should be legally protected for anything they say publicly on Twitter, then you should also believe they should be legally protected for anything they say in company internal channels. Anything else is incoherent.