3 ms·

Ok. I look forward to your support when Elon starts tweeting the names of individual employees he wants to cut.

by liontwist 2y ago

drewbeck 2y ago
He’s already done that
- liontwist 2y ago
  And I think that’s bad. This individual thinks it’s holding public servants accountable.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    The issue isn’t whether or not their names are public. The issue is that Elon Musk is highlighting them specifically in a negative way that will lead to very predictable, very personal, very negative outcomes without any recourse.
    - sulam 2y ago
      Is that different when Wired does it?
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        So, to be clear, I do think "who people in government are and what they do" is appropriately public record. But yes, there is a difference between media reporting on what high-level government officials are doing and government (or quasi-government) officials singling out low level employees for ridicule. It's the difference between punching up and punching down. But this is not among the worst things Musk is doing, and if it were a right-wing magazine doing reporting on employees in the federal government rather than someone using their role within the government itself to do it, I might find it distasteful but would have no real qualms about it.
      - dghlsakjg 2y ago
        It depends if you think there's a difference between a self-formed likely illegal group, doing likely illegal things for ideological purposes getting reported on by a reputable news source, and a civil servant who has been doing their assigned job getting picked on personally and publicly by one of the most powerful people in America who owns the media site he is using to attack them. I see those as different in reality. We can argue that semantically they can get twisted around as the same thing (government employees getting publicly named in a critical way), but that ignores extremely relevant real-world circumstances.
mattnewton 2y ago
I think this is a false equivalence. Announcing to the world that you are being fired is different from stating that you work somewhere.
sanderjd 2y ago
I mean, I don't want to claim to be an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure who works for the government and what they do is public record. I do think it's bad to "doxx" people in the sense of sharing their addresses and phone numbers. But that's not what the article we're discussing does. This article simply strikes me as normal reporting that is no different than "Treasury Secretary Bessent has hired so and so as an undersecretary for such and such, and this is what so and so has done and said in the past". These people seem to be working essentially at that undersecretary level. We always know who such people are, and we should.

Ok. I look forward to your support when Elon starts tweeting the names of individual employees he wants to cut.

drewbeck 2y ago

He’s already done that

liontwist 2y ago
And I think that’s bad. This individual thinks it’s holding public servants accountable.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  The issue isn’t whether or not their names are public. The issue is that Elon Musk is highlighting them specifically in a negative way that will lead to very predictable, very personal, very negative outcomes without any recourse.
  - sulam 2y ago
    Is that different when Wired does it?
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      So, to be clear, I do think "who people in government are and what they do" is appropriately public record. But yes, there is a difference between media reporting on what high-level government officials are doing and government (or quasi-government) officials singling out low level employees for ridicule. It's the difference between punching up and punching down. But this is not among the worst things Musk is doing, and if it were a right-wing magazine doing reporting on employees in the federal government rather than someone using their role within the government itself to do it, I might find it distasteful but would have no real qualms about it.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      It depends if you think there's a difference between a self-formed likely illegal group, doing likely illegal things for ideological purposes getting reported on by a reputable news source, and a civil servant who has been doing their assigned job getting picked on personally and publicly by one of the most powerful people in America who owns the media site he is using to attack them. I see those as different in reality. We can argue that semantically they can get twisted around as the same thing (government employees getting publicly named in a critical way), but that ignores extremely relevant real-world circumstances.

mattnewton 2y ago

I think this is a false equivalence. Announcing to the world that you are being fired is different from stating that you work somewhere.

sanderjd 2y ago

I mean, I don't want to claim to be an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure who works for the government and what they do is public record. I do think it's bad to "doxx" people in the sense of sharing their addresses and phone numbers. But that's not what the article we're discussing does. This article simply strikes me as normal reporting that is no different than "Treasury Secretary Bessent has hired so and so as an undersecretary for such and such, and this is what so and so has done and said in the past". These people seem to be working essentially at that undersecretary level. We always know who such people are, and we should.