Jump to content

Racist Twitter user jailed for 56 days (England)


Lil Bit Special

Recommended Posts

In reading this post it seems to me we are in agreement on far more aspects of the issue than It initially seemed. #1. and most important: I do not think you are an idiot nor did i intend the statement to imply that I had such an opinion of you. You always struck me as someone who tends to look behind the curtain rather than taking the sensationalism at face value. The idiocy lies in the "outrage" fueled by a misinformed media looking for attention. I think its sad that the days of real "news" and real reporters seem to be over and dead. #2. regarding context of John Gotti or Suge knight. Ideally we could look into each incident and assaign a level of threat to each offender. That would be biased in the eyes of the law. Laws are imperfect and therefore have to be blanketed, generalized rules of government. There really isn't a better way. Gotti has the same rights as the Pope, Suge Knight, and my grandma. So everyone follows or offends according the rule of law. Common sense plays no part. #3. The law was broken. It should have been addressed then and there. There is question that others overheard verbal threats. Perhaps that is what spurred the arrest. i cna't judge that. It does seem a bit rediculous though. So i agree with you on that point. Common sense would say he was gesturing and venting because he was pissed at the treatment the court was giving his kid. He goes home after blowing off steam. The end of it. Maybe a talking to or a removal from the copurt would have been more appropriate. But he probably pissed somebody off. Which is why they took it further. That's unprofessional, in my opinion. But i'm just guessing. #4 Outside of this specific incident, people are losing their right to free speech in alarming ways. There is a report of a Brit jailed for making obnoxious tweets. The PC police in this country are far more dangerous than the real cops or any guns they might carry. There is a pervasive fear against speaking your mind or saying the unpopular thing. And having entire communities condemn you for it publicly. DeNiro's recent joke comes to mind. Sad that we can't think and speak freely as we once did.

I agree with all this, but your #4 really takes the cake. What people dont understand is that when you begin to lock people up over twitter/facebook comments its not just about what the person wrote over those social networks, it actually give those social networks enormous powers.

There's a quote by Mark Zuckerburg, here it is: "Facebook may be the greatest tool for population control, ever created". And he's absolutely correct. I've seen relationships whether friends or intimate relationships go down the drain because of activities on facebook. You hear about the CIA having no need for certain parts of its agency duties because of how sites like facebook organizes/compartmentalizes information on people and most importantly people give this info willingly. Some may say thats just conpiracy theories, but the head of the agency has spoken publicly on the subject. Its not like im telling secrets here lol.

I've been on interviews where employers wanted to check my facebook page as a background check and were completely amazed at the fact that I didnt have one.

What makes me laugh, especially given that im typically the one that wears the aluminum hats lol, is how people talk about their privacy and how it needs to be respected yet they put any and everything on the net.

I can just pick a random facebook account of someone that I dont know and I can find out their full name, their picture, the general living location, their friends/family with general locale and pics of them as well etc. People dont realize how valuable such info is and more importantly, how that destroys your privacy WILLINGLY. So you damn right the PC police is more dangerous, there's profit to be made and control to be wielded.

I dont have time to argue with friends that I dont have on my "top friends list" or I didnt hit the "like" button or something stupid like that. This is what I see when I look around. How in the world did "I" end up with the aluminum hat??? :winking0001:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... this is where they get locked, isn't it?

usually. But Villian and I have been flicking boogers at each for years. There is no real animosity. I think we share a mutual respect that allows us to disagree and debate civilly. The mods don't have to worry about our occasional head-butting. We generally work it out and aren't obnoxious about disagreeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

usually. But Villian and I have been flicking boogers at each for years. There is no real animosity. I think we share a mutual respect that allows us to disagree and debate civilly. The mods don't have to worry about our occasional head-butting. We generally work it out and aren't obnoxious about disagreeing.
i noticed :)

Now there you go lying to Cindy. You know damn well that I can get quite obnoxious when I disagree. lmao!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now there you go lying to Cindy. You know damn well that I can get quite obnoxious when I disagree. lmao!

yes but you settled out of court and that's always good to see.

and 40 posts for civility and derailment.

nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on interviews where employers wanted to check my facebook page as a background check and were completely amazed at the fact that I didnt have one.

Just meant you didn't even get to the stage where they want your password. :)

I heard the latest gimmick Zuckerberg and co are trying to push is, if someone hasn't got a Facebook account, it's because they've obviously got something to hide...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just meant you didn't even get to the stage where they want your password. :)

I heard the latest gimmick Zuckerberg and co are trying to push is, if someone hasn't got a Facebook account, it's because they've obviously got something to hide...

Zucker is right. I have plenty to hide....whatever I think should be private. There's nothing wrong with that yet privacy has been demonized for the past decade, or thats when I started to notice atleast.

Zuckerberg is smart, but he doesnt come off as trust worthy to me. As a businessman he's done some awesome things. First off he's been able to value facebook at about 100 billion which if you ask me is totally over valued, but even if it isnt, if FB start off valued that high then whats the point of buying the stock? What is the potential that they will double their market cap? Its crazy. What could facebook possibly do that it hasnt already done that would double its market cap? Not saying that they wont come up with some things here and there, but im not risking my money on it.

Lastly, and this is actually the smart thing on Zuck's part but very bad for the shareholders. He will maintain 56% of the voting shares in the company, meaning that anyone who buys shares will only get exposure to price action or "risk", yet have absolutely no say so in what the company does though they hold shares of it. He will always make the final decision. Whats the point of being a share holder then because you're basically just giving them venture captial to burn through.

Facebook stock just on those two reasons wouldnt interest me, and I grew out of the social network thing after myspace. Just seen it for what it was I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Gaiman tweeted this... I think that's the right verb... and I think it's on topic. or at least I didn't drive the train off the tracks this time.

raganwald's posterous

me my books my code @raganwald

« Back to posts

Viewed 709857 times

April 2, 2012 I hereby (fictionally) resign

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you very much for honouring me with the position of Director of Software Development. I value your trust and have enjoyed my first two months on the job immensely. You have a world-class team and are executing on a daring vision. It pains me to tell you this, however I am forced to resign my position as Director and from here on, I must cheer your team from a distance.

The situation is simple. As you doubtless recall, the new COO has issued a new set of employment contracts. The legalities of arm-twisting employees into signing a new employment contract when they already had a contract with the firm is her responsibility, I’ll just have to trust her when she says we can fire anyone without notice if they refuse to agree.

One of the new terms is that every prospective new hire allow their manager to “shoulder surf” as they browse their Facebook or better still, to voluntarily log their manager into their Facebook account. If I recall correctly, she claims that we have the obligation to do a “background check” on prospective hires. I’m extremely vague on the correlation between faux-promiscuous sex or drinking and employee performance, but as she is a seasoned veteran, I have to trust her when she says that things like this overrule my judgment as to who is and who isn’t fit to be a programmer in our employ.

I was willing to go along with things and see how they panned out. But today something went seriously wrong. I have been interviewing senior hires for the crucial tech lead position on the Fizz Buzz team, and while several walked out in a huff when I asked them to let me look at their Facebook, one young lady smiled and said I could help myself. She logged into her Facebook as I requested, and as I followed the COO’s instructions to scan her timeline and friends list looking for evidence of moral turpitude, I became aware she was writing something on her iPad.

“Taking notes?” I asked politely.

“No,” she smiled, “Emailing a human rights lawyer I know.” To say that the tension in the room could be cut with a knife would be understatement of the highest order. “Oh?” I asked. I waited, and as I am an expert in out-waiting people, she eventually cracked and explained herself.

“If you are surfing my Facebook, you could reasonably be expected to discover that I am a Lesbian. Since discrimination against me on this basis is illegal in Ontario, I am just preparing myself for the possibility that you might refuse to hire me and instead hire someone who is a heterosexual but less qualified in any way. Likewise, if you do hire me, I might need to have your employment contracts disclosed to ensure you aren’t paying me less than any male and/or heterosexual colleagues with equivalent responsibilities and experience.”

I got her out of the room as quickly as possible. The next few interviews were a blur, I was shaken. And then it happened again. This time, I found myself talking to a young man fresh out of University about a development position. After allowing me to surf his Facebook, he asked me how I felt about parenting. As a parent, it was easy to say I liked the idea. Then he dropped the bombshell.

His partner was expecting, and shortly after being hired he would be taking six months of parental leave as required by Ontario law. I told him that he should not have discussed this matter with me. “Oh normally I wouldn’t, but since you’re looking through my Facebook, you know that already. Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?”

What could I say? I guess we have another hire whether he’s qualified or not. Here’s the bottom line: My ability to select the best candidates for our positions has been irreparably compromised by looking into their private lives. I’ve been “tainted” by knowledge of their sexual orientation, illnesses, religion, political affiliations, and other factors that expose us to anti-discrimination legislation. We can't even claim that the employee improperly disclosed these matters to us, as we are the ones initiating the investigation of their private doings

Worse, I cannot manage these people once they're hired. I would be diffident about censuring them or passing them over for advancement for fear of incurring a lawsuit that would be a distraction to our business and damaging to our reputation as fair employers.

Therefore, please consider this my formal resignation. The COO does not tell me how to write software, so I will not tell her how to set HR standards, but I suggest that you review this policy and ask whether it is truly in the company’s interest to indiscriminately dig through a candidates’ private life. Either that, or we should move to a jurisdiction where we have zero exposure to legal consequences for discrimination.

Yours very truly,

Reginald Scott Braithwaite

(disclaimer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Gaiman tweeted this... I think that's the right verb... and I think it's on topic. or at least I didn't drive the train off the tracks this time.

raganwald's posterous

me my books my code @raganwald

« Back to posts

Viewed 709857 times

April 2, 2012 I hereby (fictionally) resign

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you very much for honouring me with the position of Director of Software Development. I value your trust and have enjoyed my first two months on the job immensely. You have a world-class team and are executing on a daring vision. It pains me to tell you this, however I am forced to resign my position as Director and from here on, I must cheer your team from a distance.

The situation is simple. As you doubtless recall, the new COO has issued a new set of employment contracts. The legalities of arm-twisting employees into signing a new employment contract when they already had a contract with the firm is her responsibility, I’ll just have to trust her when she says we can fire anyone without notice if they refuse to agree.

One of the new terms is that every prospective new hire allow their manager to “shoulder surf” as they browse their Facebook or better still, to voluntarily log their manager into their Facebook account. If I recall correctly, she claims that we have the obligation to do a “background check” on prospective hires. I’m extremely vague on the correlation between faux-promiscuous sex or drinking and employee performance, but as she is a seasoned veteran, I have to trust her when she says that things like this overrule my judgment as to who is and who isn’t fit to be a programmer in our employ.

I was willing to go along with things and see how they panned out. But today something went seriously wrong. I have been interviewing senior hires for the crucial tech lead position on the Fizz Buzz team, and while several walked out in a huff when I asked them to let me look at their Facebook, one young lady smiled and said I could help myself. She logged into her Facebook as I requested, and as I followed the COO’s instructions to scan her timeline and friends list looking for evidence of moral turpitude, I became aware she was writing something on her iPad.

“Taking notes?” I asked politely.

“No,” she smiled, “Emailing a human rights lawyer I know.” To say that the tension in the room could be cut with a knife would be understatement of the highest order. “Oh?” I asked. I waited, and as I am an expert in out-waiting people, she eventually cracked and explained herself.

“If you are surfing my Facebook, you could reasonably be expected to discover that I am a Lesbian. Since discrimination against me on this basis is illegal in Ontario, I am just preparing myself for the possibility that you might refuse to hire me and instead hire someone who is a heterosexual but less qualified in any way. Likewise, if you do hire me, I might need to have your employment contracts disclosed to ensure you aren’t paying me less than any male and/or heterosexual colleagues with equivalent responsibilities and experience.”

I got her out of the room as quickly as possible. The next few interviews were a blur, I was shaken. And then it happened again. This time, I found myself talking to a young man fresh out of University about a development position. After allowing me to surf his Facebook, he asked me how I felt about parenting. As a parent, it was easy to say I liked the idea. Then he dropped the bombshell.

His partner was expecting, and shortly after being hired he would be taking six months of parental leave as required by Ontario law. I told him that he should not have discussed this matter with me. “Oh normally I wouldn’t, but since you’re looking through my Facebook, you know that already. Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?”

What could I say? I guess we have another hire whether he’s qualified or not. Here’s the bottom line: My ability to select the best candidates for our positions has been irreparably compromised by looking into their private lives. I’ve been “tainted” by knowledge of their sexual orientation, illnesses, religion, political affiliations, and other factors that expose us to anti-discrimination legislation. We can't even claim that the employee improperly disclosed these matters to us, as we are the ones initiating the investigation of their private doings

Worse, I cannot manage these people once they're hired. I would be diffident about censuring them or passing them over for advancement for fear of incurring a lawsuit that would be a distraction to our business and damaging to our reputation as fair employers.

Therefore, please consider this my formal resignation. The COO does not tell me how to write software, so I will not tell her how to set HR standards, but I suggest that you review this policy and ask whether it is truly in the company’s interest to indiscriminately dig through a candidates’ private life. Either that, or we should move to a jurisdiction where we have zero exposure to legal consequences for discrimination.

Yours very truly,

Reginald Scott Braithwaite

(disclaimer)

Reginald Scott Braithwaite did the right thing, though it wouldnt have took me a few interviews and common sense statements from interviewees to realize how crazy that is.

Then again I have to say that im a bit on the fence about things like this. It all boils down to people exposing themselves publicly then using "discrimination" as a tool. If I were to find something out about someone I couldnt un-know it afterwards. This is the problem with people putting particular info on these type of sites overall. If you dont have such a public account with info that someone could consider compromising you wouldnt have to worry about discrimination. It doesnt mean that its right (in the viewers eyes), but I also feel that if someone built a company they should hire who they want, for as long as everyone has the opportunity to either build a business or be an employee of one. Regulations in many ways causes instability with creating a businesses, minimum wage is an example, but thats a completely different story.

My overall thought is that businesses should be able to request whatever they like from a potential candidate without being threatened with lawyers but regulations should be moved out of the way to give potential employee(s) the opportunity to say "no" to places that they feel are asking for too much and know that there other businesses out there that they can interview for that may not be so intrusive or for them to start something themselves. Thats true freemarket imo. On the flipside, individuals need to respect their personal/private life as such. If you're a lesbian then thats your business, but if a business owner thinks thats an abomination they have a right not to want to associate themselves with something that they may not support. There's nothing wrong with that. Thats like me being able to sue someone via affirmative action because im black. Thats f'ing ridiculous imo. I'd rather have regulations removed so I could create the opportunity to succeed/fail on my own merit instead of worrying about interviewing for a company who may not like my skin color or facebook page, when in all reality I feel that if they are that retarded to pick employees over such stupid things then they're designed to fail in the first place. Allow me to compete with them to speed up that process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Gaiman tweeted this... I think that's the right verb... and I think it's on topic. or at least I didn't drive the train off the tracks this time.

raganwald's posterous

me my books my code @raganwald

« Back to posts

Viewed 709857 times

April 2, 2012 I hereby (fictionally) resign

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you very much for honouring me with the position of Director of Software Development. I value your trust and have enjoyed my first two months on the job immensely. You have a world-class team and are executing on a daring vision. It pains me to tell you this, however I am forced to resign my position as Director and from here on, I must cheer your team from a distance.

The situation is simple. As you doubtless recall, the new COO has issued a new set of employment contracts. The legalities of arm-twisting employees into signing a new employment contract when they already had a contract with the firm is her responsibility, I’ll just have to trust her when she says we can fire anyone without notice if they refuse to agree.

One of the new terms is that every prospective new hire allow their manager to “shoulder surf” as they browse their Facebook or better still, to voluntarily log their manager into their Facebook account. If I recall correctly, she claims that we have the obligation to do a “background check” on prospective hires. I’m extremely vague on the correlation between faux-promiscuous sex or drinking and employee performance, but as she is a seasoned veteran, I have to trust her when she says that things like this overrule my judgment as to who is and who isn’t fit to be a programmer in our employ.

I was willing to go along with things and see how they panned out. But today something went seriously wrong. I have been interviewing senior hires for the crucial tech lead position on the Fizz Buzz team, and while several walked out in a huff when I asked them to let me look at their Facebook, one young lady smiled and said I could help myself. She logged into her Facebook as I requested, and as I followed the COO’s instructions to scan her timeline and friends list looking for evidence of moral turpitude, I became aware she was writing something on her iPad.

“Taking notes?” I asked politely.

“No,” she smiled, “Emailing a human rights lawyer I know.” To say that the tension in the room could be cut with a knife would be understatement of the highest order. “Oh?” I asked. I waited, and as I am an expert in out-waiting people, she eventually cracked and explained herself.

“If you are surfing my Facebook, you could reasonably be expected to discover that I am a Lesbian. Since discrimination against me on this basis is illegal in Ontario, I am just preparing myself for the possibility that you might refuse to hire me and instead hire someone who is a heterosexual but less qualified in any way. Likewise, if you do hire me, I might need to have your employment contracts disclosed to ensure you aren’t paying me less than any male and/or heterosexual colleagues with equivalent responsibilities and experience.”

I got her out of the room as quickly as possible. The next few interviews were a blur, I was shaken. And then it happened again. This time, I found myself talking to a young man fresh out of University about a development position. After allowing me to surf his Facebook, he asked me how I felt about parenting. As a parent, it was easy to say I liked the idea. Then he dropped the bombshell.

His partner was expecting, and shortly after being hired he would be taking six months of parental leave as required by Ontario law. I told him that he should not have discussed this matter with me. “Oh normally I wouldn’t, but since you’re looking through my Facebook, you know that already. Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?”

What could I say? I guess we have another hire whether he’s qualified or not. Here’s the bottom line: My ability to select the best candidates for our positions has been irreparably compromised by looking into their private lives. I’ve been “tainted” by knowledge of their sexual orientation, illnesses, religion, political affiliations, and other factors that expose us to anti-discrimination legislation. We can't even claim that the employee improperly disclosed these matters to us, as we are the ones initiating the investigation of their private doings

Worse, I cannot manage these people once they're hired. I would be diffident about censuring them or passing them over for advancement for fear of incurring a lawsuit that would be a distraction to our business and damaging to our reputation as fair employers.

Therefore, please consider this my formal resignation. The COO does not tell me how to write software, so I will not tell her how to set HR standards, but I suggest that you review this policy and ask whether it is truly in the company’s interest to indiscriminately dig through a candidates’ private life. Either that, or we should move to a jurisdiction where we have zero exposure to legal consequences for discrimination.

Yours very truly,

Reginald Scott Braithwaite

(disclaimer)

why would someone take a job and then leave for 6 months? Kind of a dick move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...