I am surprised that of the pages and pages of comments that I have read (about 500+ comments), few discuss the potential implications of (a) having virtually all of a business's communication (not just the emails and such, but now also the meetings) potentially tracked and monitored, and (b) whether a remote workforce would be even less well equipped to identify/call-out improper corporate behaviour. Would the Google employees that called-out some of the surveillance projects, or the Uber employees that called out harassment exist remotely? And if they did, isn't it just so much easier to get rid of them? "Susan will not be joining the call today. She no longer works here". A scenario in which HQ gets to know everything while every individual is forced into need-to-know seems dystopian to me.
I don't know how much I think it would have an effect. Google employees didn't know about the surveillance projects because they found out on-site, they knew about them because Google chose to make them known. Plenty of companies keep secrets from their employees, and those secrets largely remain safe despite employees working on premises. And outside of Google, who had until recently a very open culture of critiquing decisions, almost all calling-out happened through non-company channels.
And is it really so much easier to get rid of them? Presumably they'll have the same legal protections they previously did, and having to be physically removed from the building isn't exactly a major limitation on firing.
unless you are being surveilled with a camera or sth, you can use anything to communicate (which you normally can't do in an office). And having more work opportunities readily available makes it easier to call-out and quit , no? You also don't need to conform to a physically concentrated groupthink. In many ways, remote work is better in all those terms
The financial times has a covid tracker with log vs linear, daily vs cumulative and absolute vs per capita toggles. I understand log scales and even so, changing these settings really makes me look at the data differently. For example - look at absolute daily data on a log scale and Brazil seems headed for destruction, overtaking the UK amd US. Look at cumulative per capita data on a linear scale and things don't seem so bad for Brazil, but Belgium looks like a disaster.
I have no idea - I'm not usually one to espouse political ideas unless wholly relevant to a topic at hand. It seems that a band of HN users are politically adverse - which is sad, since capital rules our lives and society, and merely ignoring its flaws does nothing to abate them.
While we are at it, lets tax the vacant hours of the unemployed - those evil speculators who are consipiring to restrict the supply of labor. That will encourage them to work and thereby be able to afford all that brand new housing!
some of the things we have had censored by fb (even after appealing)
1. illustrations of cupid on valentines day, genitals covered, for nudity.
2. illustrations of a (non sexually provocative) mouth when the logo of our product was a mouth.
3. illustrations (not photos) of people of various body types and ethnicities, not sexually provocative, showing skin but no genitals, nipples or buttocks, with flowers and boxes of chocolates, as a 'love comes in all shapes and sizes' valentines campaign.
4. essentially any image that might insinuate that a woman is capable of feeling pleasure.
5. a friend's ig project intended to promote education & wellness about women's bodies, in a non-sexual way (e.g. did you know that a clitoris has x thousand nerve endings?), with no images.
6. pixelated images on red backgrounds with a 'censored' stamp on them (put up after others were censored)
...
the list goes on and on, to the point where we have considered launching a website just to showcase the stuff fb (and other faangs) censor.
...
meanwhile ig is filled with essentially soft porn (not to mention images of guns together with bags of money, which in my value system is much worse).
...
so I, for one, am laughing my head off at all this. they more than had it coming.
> Facebook doesn't want these companies sending users' personal data to them without their knowledge.
Rubbish. If they didn't want the data, they wouldn't build & offer developers a first class analytics package for free, including analytics that don't require explicitly setting events (though not going as far as showing screen recording, which was the moral outrage of last week).
Having said that, When the screen recording thing broke, I wondered how long it would take for it to shift to analytics in general, especially those offered by Apple competitors. I'm no fan of FB, but given the consistent rhythm of the fb-scandal newscycle, and that all these scandals somehow end up with Apple wearing a white hat, I'm really starting to wonder what kind of offensive PR dark arts may be behind it.
note- strategic adversaries is a more appropriate term than competitors, and it is interesting how language used by nation states now fits the relation between companies so well.
I hve never been to China but in my experience american airport security and immigration is nasty as compared to other perfectly free and democratic countries.
In my experience, the absolute worst immigration and airport security is found in the US and the UK. I've never been so harassed, and i'm a US citizen and a generic looking white guy. Can't imagine how bad it would be if I wasn't.
I am surprised at how few of the comments here say - if parents and/or kids want to make non-sexual videos public, fine. If paedophiles are aroused by them nometheless, fine too (as long as they do so privately and don't harrass the kids). I don't know why one would presume to have a 'right not to incite arousal' in another. Personally, I'd choose paedophiles enjoying videos of my children over censorship by large american corporations any day.
