20 ms·
The biggest surprise to me was: “administration officials told some U.S. government employees that DOGE is using AI to surveil at least one federal agency’s com
by threecheese 1y ago
The biggest surprise to me was: “administration officials told some U.S. government employees that DOGE is using AI to surveil at least one federal agency’s communications for hostility to President Trump and his agenda”.
I understand that there’s no expectation of privacy at work (especially in govt), and everything you write is “on the record”; however an employer monitoring comms for what’s essentially thoughtcrime is heinous. Isn’t disagreement healthy?
- erulabs 1y agoYes but it's worth understanding the executive branch (which according to this administration includes all federal agencies), in its constitutional form, is more or less just an extension of the president. Conceptually they all "perform at the pleasure of" the person of the president. The "balance" and "disagreement" can happen outside of the executive, in the legislative or judicial branches. Definitely not how I would run an organization (even a military organization), but it's not _conceptually_ wrong. If you were a general and you had lieutenants expressing "hostility to" your agenda, would you keep them on? Again, I'd probably say yes up to a limit, but it's not outside of a generals purview to concern themselves with this.
- threecheese 1y agoFair, and valid. I suppose in the case of a normal organization, leadership’s constraint is keeping enough good employees to be commercially viable. If your goal is to reduce the size and scope of your organization no matter the impact, that constraint is irrelevant.