3 ms·

I agree, to a point. If an order were coming from the top, it would be happening many times a day. But it could also be that the overzealous staffers feel like

I agree, to a point. If an order were coming from the top, it would be happening many times a day. But it could also be that the overzealous staffers feel like they want to impress the higher ups. So it could well be happening bottom up. The administration certainly isn't jumping in to fix it when it happens. If so, that's something you need to take into account if you want to travel here. Many are going to boycott us entirely anyway, just because of how hostile the administration is to our erstwhile allies.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
If it were an express order from the top, it would easier to fight against. This is more of 'obeying in advance' where people in various positions get the vibe that they both can and should be doing this kind of thing and that not only will they get away with it, but may even be rewarded for it. This stage affects of the already willing participants. At later stages 'obeying in advance' will be done even by unwilling participants out of fear of retribution.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  > This is more of 'obeying in advance' where people in various positions get the vibe that they both can and should be doing this kind of thing Yeah like meta killing their DEI programs to suck up to Trump. I don't see a similar hatred of such programs here in Europe luckily. I work for an EU company that has a big footprint in Europe and they have no plans to reduce their inclusivity programs. I'm directly involved in those. And really, no they are not about quotas at all. It's all about being "colourblind", to remove inherent bias, exactly what the Trumpians claim to want.
  - dartos 2y ago
    > Yeah like meta killing their DEI programs to suck up to Trump. Or because Zuckerberg wanted to avoid “life in prison” Which may be worse, actually. https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/video/smr-trump-zuckerberg https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/video/smr-trump-zuck...
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      That's a totally unrelated issue. And just some grandstanding by Trump. Besides, Zuckerberg has more than enough money to evade US law if he needs to (and that's if Trump can manage to make such BS into law!). Even Snowden has successfully done that and he wasn't even rich. He's not really at risk of going "to prison for life".
      - jfengel 2y ago
        If Trump wanted to, he could simply send the marshals to arrest him. Zuckerberg has a lot of ability to evade, but it's not infinite. Trump probably was just grandstanding there. He makes hundreds of meaningless threats per day, to make it impossible to tell which ones he means to carry out. But they do cause fear, because you can never be 100% certain. And not even other oligarchs are safe.
- dartos 2y ago
  It very well may be. That’s why I’m going to wait to believe these stories until more time has passed. If these were just a blip come a few months, then they were a fluke. If it becomes a pattern… well it wouldn’t be surprising…
- enaaem 2y ago
  Generally speaking corruption and abuse by law enforcement never comes from the top. It will be stupid to be officially liable for it. What happens is that they look away.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    This particular administration doesn't appear to care about liability. They quite publicly dare other branches to do anything about it. Because of that I don't think this comes from the top. But doing so would be entirely in character.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago

If it were an express order from the top, it would easier to fight against. This is more of 'obeying in advance' where people in various positions get the vibe that they both can and should be doing this kind of thing and that not only will they get away with it, but may even be rewarded for it. This stage affects of the already willing participants. At later stages 'obeying in advance' will be done even by unwilling participants out of fear of retribution.

wkat4242 2y ago
> This is more of 'obeying in advance' where people in various positions get the vibe that they both can and should be doing this kind of thing Yeah like meta killing their DEI programs to suck up to Trump. I don't see a similar hatred of such programs here in Europe luckily. I work for an EU company that has a big footprint in Europe and they have no plans to reduce their inclusivity programs. I'm directly involved in those. And really, no they are not about quotas at all. It's all about being "colourblind", to remove inherent bias, exactly what the Trumpians claim to want.
- dartos 2y ago
  > Yeah like meta killing their DEI programs to suck up to Trump. Or because Zuckerberg wanted to avoid “life in prison” Which may be worse, actually. https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/video/smr-trump-zuckerberg https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/video/smr-trump-zuck...
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    That's a totally unrelated issue. And just some grandstanding by Trump. Besides, Zuckerberg has more than enough money to evade US law if he needs to (and that's if Trump can manage to make such BS into law!). Even Snowden has successfully done that and he wasn't even rich. He's not really at risk of going "to prison for life".
    - jfengel 2y ago
      If Trump wanted to, he could simply send the marshals to arrest him. Zuckerberg has a lot of ability to evade, but it's not infinite. Trump probably was just grandstanding there. He makes hundreds of meaningless threats per day, to make it impossible to tell which ones he means to carry out. But they do cause fear, because you can never be 100% certain. And not even other oligarchs are safe.
dartos 2y ago
It very well may be. That’s why I’m going to wait to believe these stories until more time has passed. If these were just a blip come a few months, then they were a fluke. If it becomes a pattern… well it wouldn’t be surprising…
enaaem 2y ago
Generally speaking corruption and abuse by law enforcement never comes from the top. It will be stupid to be officially liable for it. What happens is that they look away.
- jfengel 2y ago
  This particular administration doesn't appear to care about liability. They quite publicly dare other branches to do anything about it. Because of that I don't think this comes from the top. But doing so would be entirely in character.