They aren't 'Tweets' anymore. They are Xcretes.
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
269 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
39448 readers
238 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Except when they're used in court as evidence, then they're called "xzibits"
Yo dawg we heard you like evidence
Xcrements.
fired employees that criticized him on twitter
I hope one of those employees sues him. And asks him publicly to pay their legal fees.
I am surprised that nobody has sued the former president for those paying out when he said the same thing.
He’s fishing for fascists.
Dude was forced to buy Twitter because he couldn't stop his big mouth. Seems he hasn't learned. Lmao.
We make our employees sign a form when they're hired stating that they will not mention our company or any of its employees on social media in a negative way. It's standard practice. Any company big enough to have its own lawyer(s), they will advise them to do that because it can help prevent serious legal Issues.
We make our employees sign a form when they're hired stating that they will not mention our company or any of its employees on social media in a negative way. It's standard practice
The NLRB ruled that non-disparagement clauses are not enforceable
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/27/labor-board-says-non-disparagement-clauses-are-unlawful
It's a clear violation of the first amendment... Also, referring to the company you work for as "we" while talking about firing another employee is cringe as fuck.
It has literally nothing to do with the first amendment.
The first amendment gives you zero protections from anyone but the government. All other entities are entitled to respond to your speech however the fuck they want.
@conciselyverbose
No, they need to do so within existing law and ideally also social norms. It's not ok for Bob to go after you with a rifle just because you said you don't like his hairstyle. That he can fire you for the same is atrocious.
@Moonrise2473 @Karlos_Cantana @prole
It's not ok for Bob to go after you with a rifle because threatening someone with a weapon is illegal by itself. Firing someone is not
Going after you with a rifle is illegal in its own right. The first amendment is not a factor in any way.
Firing you for it is unambiguously and unconditionally legal, unless you're in a state that has other limitations on your ability to terminate employees.
There is no scenario you can contrive where a non-government employer firing an employee for speech can be connected to the first amendment in any way. The first amendment can only possibly be relevant to the government.
Oh ok... So I guess that means the National Labor Relations Act is unconstitutional (it's not, it was upheld by SCOTUS in the 30s), because it explicitly prevents employers from firing or otherwise retaliating against employees for discussing salary.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages
Or do you think an employer should be allowed to fire someone for that?
Maybe don't give this current Supreme Court any ideas given their blatant disregard for stare decisis/precedence, and Chevron deference..
This is a bad faith argument through and through. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this.
You should work on your reading comprehension. None of this has any relationship to the first amendment.
The First Amendment protects the right to organize in addition to free speech. The NLRB (and the Wagner Act, the law that gives us the right to discuss wages, as well as unionize, without retaliation) have a storied history of being challenged on first amendment grounds.
People have tried arguing that an employer's first amendment rights are violated by a law that prevents them from firing someone for any reason they want. The government codifying what an employer can and can't fire an employee for is directly related to the first amendment.
Any time you're talking about protected speech, or the right to organizing, its directly related to the first amendment. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.
Since it's abundantly clear that you've never actually read the 1st amendment, let me help you out:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As you can see, employment disputes are not part of the 1st amendment. As you can also see, it restricts establishing a state religion, exercising your religion, protects you from prosecution when peacefully assembling and when you are giving the government the finger.
I suggest reading through the Constitution and it's amendments. It's not a long read.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The first amendment only applies to the government. Any person telling you that it can under any circumstance be applied to the relationship between an employer and employee is a piece of shit lying to you. It's not in any way ambiguous.
The government regulating employment law is not connected to the first amendment in any way.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Even if I hadn't agreed to this it would be a no brainer. If you found your friend talking shit about you they wouldn't be your friend anymore, why would an employer react any different?
I don't know what kind of friends you have, but your employer is not your friend, nor your family.
They are there to exploit your labour for profit, and will only ever defend themselves, never you.
(this isn't to say I agree with musk or anything, fuck him and anything he does, and fuck the bigots, they deserve consequences to their actions, but the idea that anyone would defend their boss like they would defend a friend makes me sad and angry and massively frustrated. Those contracts Karlos mentioned are 100% ass covering by a company that is more concerned with its reputation than it is with its employees, which when you consider we live in capitalism is to be expected, but it still seems to escape so so many people - 99% of employers don't give two shits about you, including, and maybe especially, those who are really good at convincing you that they value "loyalty")
I didn't say I think I'm friends with my company but to expect consequences when you get caught talking shit.
expect consequences when you get caught talking shit.
Sure, to a point.
Ever wonder why they never fire the bigot before they go public? The bigots I've met in life have really sucked at keeping their mask on, do you really think their employers (and fellow employees) were oblivious? Or was it only when there was publicity involved and the company feared for their own reputation, rather than the safety of their other employees, that they do something about it?
Yet if you tweet "my boss sucks", it probably won't go viral or get any publicity, but your employer can just as easily fire you for "talking shit" that literally didn't cause harm to anyone.
You specified:
If you found your friend talking shit about you
Meaning if the company found you talking shit about it, and the fact that you think your employer can and should have that level of control over your thoughts and actions is actually terrifying.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Does that extend to employer review websites like GlassDoor?
Ive defended these musk posts in the past, but sorry... This story has nothing at all to do with technology.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Does Trump's "Will be wild!" tweet count? He got impeached and now has 4 felony counts in relation to that one... I'm sure he'd LOVE to stick someone else with the bill for it...
What will people do? Sue him to provide the promised legal funds they need to sue their employers?
Musk fighting at-will employment now. How socialist of him. /s
Yeah, this has nothing to do with technology. It's a useless article anyway, because it doesn't seem to actually say what his tweet said...
Technology doesn't exist in a void, and pretending it does is how we get Wernher von Brauns.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not sure how this relate to "Technology".
Under his tweet a lot of “verified” (=right wing) accounts plauded this and asked to fight employers who fired employees for having written something homophobic
Any examples of that?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›