Abused to harass coworkers. Abused to punish employees "off the books" by harassing them, wasting their time, intimidating them. Abused to harass "undesirables" to try to drive them out and make them quit. In short: office politics. You don't have to be a whistleblower or a threat; you just have to have someone who doesn't like you and is high up enough to make your life miserable. And once again, I don't think these guidelines, IF APPLIED PROPERLY, are bad or off base. I think most of us on TD are rigtfully pissed that this is what theyare focusingnon INSTEAD OF creating any sort of process or protections for actual whistleblowers. It shows where their priorities lie.
They are making the same mistake that so many people on the internet make: freedom of speech does not mean you can compel a platform to host your speech. Voicemail inboxes are NOT a public location. Wish we could get a class-action lawsuit going for harassment... alas.
William Braunfeld (profile), 24 May 2017 @ 10:41am
Re: Re:
"If you spend your time building a machine that can be used to blow you up, you have little to bitch about when someone makes it go 'pop' in your face."
...how in the world does THIS logic follow? Do I also have little to bitch about if I get punched in the face because, hey, it's my fault for having a face? You don't even qualify that it's a machine that -only- can be used to blow you up. Try detonating some warheads on a military base and then telling them "your fault for making warheads that could explode on your base," see how well that goes for ya.
William Braunfeld (profile), 24 May 2017 @ 10:38am
Re: How naive of you
To be fair, people were saying the same of Wheeler, until... y'know, the activism *worked.* And as was said in a previous TD article, while we may not be able to change Pai's mind or the FCC's current lumbering course, these comments are important to prove that the majority of Americans support Net Neutrality when this is brought in front of a court where Pai has to argue for why he's changing the rules again.
William Braunfeld (profile), 24 May 2017 @ 10:33am
Deep breaths, maestro.
This sort of response rarely if ever solves anything, and the brief pleasure being this sarcastic gives isn't worth the inevitable 20-comment-deep argument.
I did say I didn't disagree :p However, the reason why most TDians find this so rank is because there aren't any whistleblower protections, and there don't like like there are ever gonna BE any. I'm not saying this particular program is where they should be investigated; I'm saying that this program looks even worse IN LIGHT OF the current circumstances vis-a-vis whistleblowing. As for your comment about the purpose of these guidelines: those things may not be their "purpose," but it's a decent bet they'll be abused in that manner.
William Braunfeld (profile), 23 May 2017 @ 12:22pm
Re: Re: Re:
Ooookay, I've been holding onto this for a while, but this seems as good a place as any to let the rant flow.
You are NOT JUST VOTING for president. This is the part people do not seem to get.
Bernie Sanders pushed the Democratic party further to the left this election, because he had a surprising amount of support, and the other Democrats needed to shift left to try and get those voters on their side. This is important - even vital! - to the democratic process.
The parties pay attention to who you vote for. They pay attention to what you support. The reason our parties have stagnated this much is that the Presidential race is, essentially, a duopoly right now; and it's entirely because of this sort of viewpoint, because of strategic voting. If enough people voted for third parties, or voted No Confidence (as I did; trying to write independents off as "special snowflakes" demonstrates far more about you than it does about independents), or otherwise voiced their displeasure, then while we'd still end up with a D or R in office THIS ELECTION, the parties would take note and adjust themselves to fit into the demands of the populace.
Remember: THEY WANT US TO VOTE FOR THEM. No, we can't change the two-party system for the next election, or the one after, or maybe even the one after; but if we think about the future, about the country in 20 years (five elections down the line), about the country our children will inherit, the country our grandchildren will live in; in short, if we stop saying OH GOD TRUMP/CLINTON WILL RUIN THE COUNTRY and recognize that they get four years and life will continue past that point (presuming nobody starts tossing nukes around like candy), then the REAL strategy should be to try to shift and mold the parties into what WE want them to be; not to limit ourselves to what the PARTIES want US to be. You say voting independent is worse than staying home. I say voting the party line is why we're in this god-damn mess to begin with.
William Braunfeld (profile), 23 May 2017 @ 12:15pm
Re: Re:
I actually 100% agree with you, here. Good reminder that you should always view comments the community has hidden, and that even people you normally wildly disagree with can have good points.
William Braunfeld (profile), 23 May 2017 @ 12:05pm
"...allegedly by The Community..."
Since you seem to be curious whether or not the community is actually hiding your comments, perhaps we should all announce under your post here when we have flagged it, that way you know there is actually a consensus among the community that your comments add nothing to the discourse, being little more than either trolling or a shocking amount of egotistical entitlement.
You have, at present, at least two flags on your comment; mine and Thad's. I encourage others who flag your comment to inform you as such, as well.
William Braunfeld (profile), 23 May 2017 @ 11:59am
Re: Those criteria look more-or-less legit to me...
I don't disagree with you, actually. I think the main concern should be more focused on them not having guidelines or programs to protect whistleblowers from retaliation; while these criteria seem somewhat reasonable (with the caveat that I believe everyone watching each other like hawks is bad for *any* business or organization), I think what TD's more concerned about is that they're unilateral, with no protections built in for whistleblowers (or normal employees who just happen to meet criteria on the list). Another issue becomes, of course, who decides what is too much alcohol? Who decides what is a "good reason" to visit a foreign country? Who decides what constitutes "odd hours"? This is liable to result in a lot of false alarms because these sort of policies make people hyper-sensitive to any deviation from what they, personally, consider 'the norm.'
William Braunfeld (profile), 17 May 2017 @ 11:44pm
Re: Re: Re:
So, wait... they're against net neutrality, BUT they don't care about the outcome?
Actually, I guess that makes a certain amount of sense; after all, there's no way this is actually going to change Pai's mind, so all those comments might as well be pissing into the wind, huh?
Somehow, I doubt you'd be singing the same tune if the comments were overwhelmingly anti-NN. The "survey" was open to everyone. If the anti-NN side couldn't be bothered to respond (as opposed to the issue being mostly non-partisan, which I fully believe), then perhaps they should have motivated themselves; especially since they already knew what was coming based on the LAST TIME we did this. And no, we didn't have a free and open internet before nor even *after* net neutrality; remember "zero rating"?
I don't understand why you think this is "contrived." Please tell me what is wrong about a pundit speaking to his audience encouraging then to speak out about an issue? He isn't bribing them, he isn't threatening them, just explaining why he feels this is a bad thing and how you can help if you agree. Hell, I'm sure plenty of the ANTI-neutrality comments were a result of his episode shining light on the issue, too. Where, in all of this, was something done wrong?
On the post: FBI Insider Threat Program Documents Show How Little It Takes To Be Branded A Threat To The Agency
Re: "Abused" to do what though?
You don't have to be a whistleblower or a threat; you just have to have someone who doesn't like you and is high up enough to make your life miserable.
And once again, I don't think these guidelines, IF APPLIED PROPERLY, are bad or off base. I think most of us on TD are rigtfully pissed that this is what theyare focusingnon INSTEAD OF creating any sort of process or protections for actual whistleblowers. It shows where their priorities lie.
On the post: If Net Neutrality Dies, Comcast Can Just Block A Protest Site Instead Of Sending A Bogus Cease-And-Desist
Re: Re: Re:
Nearly everyone in positions of power in America, for example.
On the post: RNC, Chamber Of Commerce Want Robocallers To Be Able To Spam Your Voicemail Without Your Phone Ringing
Re: Re: How about no?
Wish we could get a class-action lawsuit going for harassment... alas.
On the post: The FCC Doesn't Care That Somebody's Spamming Its Net Neutrality Proceeding With Fraudulent Comments
Re: Re:
...how in the world does THIS logic follow? Do I also have little to bitch about if I get punched in the face because, hey, it's my fault for having a face?
You don't even qualify that it's a machine that -only- can be used to blow you up. Try detonating some warheads on a military base and then telling them "your fault for making warheads that could explode on your base," see how well that goes for ya.
On the post: The FCC Doesn't Care That Somebody's Spamming Its Net Neutrality Proceeding With Fraudulent Comments
Re: How naive of you
And as was said in a previous TD article, while we may not be able to change Pai's mind or the FCC's current lumbering course, these comments are important to prove that the majority of Americans support Net Neutrality when this is brought in front of a court where Pai has to argue for why he's changing the rules again.
On the post: Trademark Has Come To This: Tinder Opposes Dating App With Only One Lonely Dude On Its Dating Roster
Deep breaths, maestro.
On the post: If Net Neutrality Dies, Comcast Can Just Block A Protest Site Instead Of Sending A Bogus Cease-And-Desist
Re: Re: Re: No worries
On the post: Trademark Has Come To This: Tinder Opposes Dating App With Only One Lonely Dude On Its Dating Roster
On the post: FBI Insider Threat Program Documents Show How Little It Takes To Be Branded A Threat To The Agency
You misunderstand my response!
As for your comment about the purpose of these guidelines: those things may not be their "purpose," but it's a decent bet they'll be abused in that manner.
On the post: FCC Guards 'Manhandle' Reporter Just For Asking Questions At Net Neutrality Vote
Re: Re: Re:
You are NOT JUST VOTING for president.
This is the part people do not seem to get.
Bernie Sanders pushed the Democratic party further to the left this election, because he had a surprising amount of support, and the other Democrats needed to shift left to try and get those voters on their side. This is important - even vital! - to the democratic process.
The parties pay attention to who you vote for. They pay attention to what you support. The reason our parties have stagnated this much is that the Presidential race is, essentially, a duopoly right now; and it's entirely because of this sort of viewpoint, because of strategic voting. If enough people voted for third parties, or voted No Confidence (as I did; trying to write independents off as "special snowflakes" demonstrates far more about you than it does about independents), or otherwise voiced their displeasure, then while we'd still end up with a D or R in office THIS ELECTION, the parties would take note and adjust themselves to fit into the demands of the populace.
Remember: THEY WANT US TO VOTE FOR THEM. No, we can't change the two-party system for the next election, or the one after, or maybe even the one after; but if we think about the future, about the country in 20 years (five elections down the line), about the country our children will inherit, the country our grandchildren will live in; in short, if we stop saying OH GOD TRUMP/CLINTON WILL RUIN THE COUNTRY and recognize that they get four years and life will continue past that point (presuming nobody starts tossing nukes around like candy), then the REAL strategy should be to try to shift and mold the parties into what WE want them to be; not to limit ourselves to what the PARTIES want US to be.
You say voting independent is worse than staying home.
I say voting the party line is why we're in this god-damn mess to begin with.
On the post: FCC Guards 'Manhandle' Reporter Just For Asking Questions At Net Neutrality Vote
Re: Re:
On the post: Cable Companies Refuse To Put Their Breathless Love Of Net Neutrality Down In Writing
"...allegedly by The Community..."
You have, at present, at least two flags on your comment; mine and Thad's. I encourage others who flag your comment to inform you as such, as well.
On the post: FBI Insider Threat Program Documents Show How Little It Takes To Be Branded A Threat To The Agency
Re: Those criteria look more-or-less legit to me...
Another issue becomes, of course, who decides what is too much alcohol? Who decides what is a "good reason" to visit a foreign country? Who decides what constitutes "odd hours"? This is liable to result in a lot of false alarms because these sort of policies make people hyper-sensitive to any deviation from what they, personally, consider 'the norm.'
On the post: It's Time For The FCC To Actually Listen: The Vast Majority Of FCC Commenters Support Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Many re:'s
On the post: It's Time For The FCC To Actually Listen: The Vast Majority Of FCC Commenters Support Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I guess that makes a certain amount of sense; after all, there's no way this is actually going to change Pai's mind, so all those comments might as well be pissing into the wind, huh?
On the post: Well, Duh: Facebook's System To Stop 'Fake News' Isn't Working -- Because Facebook Isn't The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Well, Duh: Facebook's System To Stop 'Fake News' Isn't Working -- Because Facebook Isn't The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It's Time For The FCC To Actually Listen: The Vast Majority Of FCC Commenters Support Net Neutrality
Re:
The "survey" was open to everyone. If the anti-NN side couldn't be bothered to respond (as opposed to the issue being mostly non-partisan, which I fully believe), then perhaps they should have motivated themselves; especially since they already knew what was coming based on the LAST TIME we did this.
And no, we didn't have a free and open internet before nor even *after* net neutrality; remember "zero rating"?
On the post: It's Time For The FCC To Actually Listen: The Vast Majority Of FCC Commenters Support Net Neutrality
Re: Re: What about the people AGAINST net neutrality?
Also, I think you Poe's Law'd pretty hard there. The post you replied to was clear satire.
On the post: It's Time For The FCC To Actually Listen: The Vast Majority Of FCC Commenters Support Net Neutrality
Many re:'s
Next >>