• alphacyberranger
    link
    English
    409 months ago

    This is the same as “HR cares about the company, not the employees”

    • JustinHanaganOP
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Exactly. FTA:

      "Trust and safety” departments are kinda like “Human Resources” departments. They exist to help the company avoid expensive lawsuits and expensive PR blunders. These departments, I assume, are comprised of good-hearted people who care deeply about their work and the well being of others. But they are fighting a battle that the companies do not actually want to end.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        19 months ago

        FYI “comprised of” is not a thing; you mean “composed of”. The correct way to use “comprise,” if you’re interested, is like “the United States comprises fifty states”. Technically you should mention DC and the various US territories etc as well, since comprise should indicate all of the parts.

  • @multicolorKnight
    link
    English
    389 months ago

    Everything in a corporation exists to benefit the corporation.

  • @crystalmerchant
    link
    English
    27
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Trust and Safety? Is this the new buzzword for HR, a la People Empowerment?

    • @fubo
      link
      English
      199 months ago

      No, it’s more like “policy enforcement”.

      Ostensibly it means “if our policy forbids Nazis, then you can trust us that there won’t be Nazis engaging with your content on our site.”

      But really, the policy doesn’t forbid Nazis.

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      69 months ago

      At my previous company the department went through various names over the years, ending up as “People Experience” when we parted ways.

      I think Trust and Safety would probably be for an analogous department focused on the users, not the employees.

  • Ada
    link
    fedilink
    English
    179 months ago

    It’s hard to think the author’s concern is too genuine given that they’re publishing on Substack

    • JustinHanaganOP
      link
      fedilink
      16
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      When I switched to Substack it was just a Mailchimp alternative (I don’t think Mailchimp moderates what they send out either). They were a service, not a platform. But since then Substack has added a lot of social elements. And now that I’ve been made aware of their stance, I’m planning my exit ASAP.

      • Ada
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -21
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Sure, but that doesn’t let you off the hook for using them. You’re on a site that empowers people who want people like me dead. It’s hard to think you’re too concerned about my rights as a worker, when you’re not terribly interesting in defending my human rights

        • @MellowSnow
          link
          English
          159 months ago

          OP literally said they’re gonna stop using it, “now that they’ve been made aware of their stance.” Wtf more do you want? You want people to be omniscient? To know something before they know it? I don’t understand how you’re holding someone accountable for a lack of knowledge. That’s asinine.

          • Ada
            link
            fedilink
            English
            79 months ago

            I’m not sure whether I missed that or it was edited, but either way, I didn’t see it when I posted.

            Mea culpa if I missed it

            • @MellowSnow
              link
              English
              49 months ago

              Ahh, that makes a lot more sense.

        • @CrayonRosary
          link
          English
          89 months ago

          So you not understand what “I’m planning my exit ASAP” means?

  • bean
    link
    English
    129 months ago

    Why users are always the ones screwed?

    • @fubo
      link
      English
      14
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      A “user” is anyone who walks through the public park and picks up a gadget that someone else left there.

      They poke at it for a while, not knowing who built it or who dropped it in the park. It does some cool stuff.

      Sometimes they can wiggle it and it makes colors that their friends enjoy. Maybe someone built this thing just to be a fun toy to play with?

      They put it in their pants pocket and walk on.

      Once in a while, the thing they picked up in the park just spontaneously catches fire and burns their pants off, leaving them naked in the middle of the town square and really embarrassed.

      But usually, a “user” can mess around with technology crap and not get burned.

      Until, y’know, they do.

      And then it’s supposed to be their fault.


      Hey, thing-builders: If the thing you built hurts people, you should fix that. “They picked it up, it’s okay if it burns their pants off” is not a good excuse.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        09 months ago

        While I agree with your premise, people also need to be aware that some random thing they started fiddling with can be problematic, and should maybe do some basic research on what they’re fiddling with. We absolutely need to hold creators responsible for their creations, but this also shouldn’t absolve people of using their brains and thinking critically.

        • gregorum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Then it should at least come with a warning label, and perhaps, with the ability to block children from picking it up or playing with it.

          Those who create dangerous things have a duty to warn others of their potential dangers before leaving them haphazardly about.

      • @Sorgan71
        link
        English
        -39 months ago

        I think its morally acceptable to make products designed to hurt the user and other people.