3 ms·
That's not consent. It's a one-sided condition of employment. Consent would imply a meeting of the minds and a way for each employee to negotiate, or opt-out wi
by ryandrake 2mo ago
That's not consent. It's a one-sided condition of employment. Consent would imply a meeting of the minds and a way for each employee to negotiate, or opt-out without losing employment.
It's like saying I consent to my phone company's 200 page long terms and conditions.
Corporate America has a very fucked up definition of consent, and they seem to have spread that definition broadly.
- prepend 2mo agoIt’s legal consent. It’s the version that matters if you’re trying to limit what your employer can do with everything you write at work. And sufficient to allow anything in the US, and many other countries. I disagree with this and think it’s a bad thing. If I founded a company, I would explicitly disallow this and make communications private and not resellable. But it exists, sadly.