By using hate buzzwords these individuals lose any right to be heard. There are valid criticisms to be made about the excesses of political correctness, but those people are just too bigoted to...
By using hate buzzwords these individuals lose any right to be heard. There are valid criticisms to be made about the excesses of political correctness, but those people are just too bigoted to make any coherent points. It doesn’t help that many programmers seem to think that knowing algorithms makes them instant masters of every phenomenon in the universe.
"Seem to be"? These kinds of forums are toxic from the get-go, and a perfect example of the paradox of tolerance making "empower every individual" impossible. They only end up empowering the...
Blind’s mission statement says the platform was built to “empower every individual in the workplace” and “uplift voices that have been silenced.” But increasingly, the forums seem to be growing toxic, making some employees feel unwelcome or unsafe.
"Seem to be"? These kinds of forums are toxic from the get-go, and a perfect example of the paradox of tolerance making "empower every individual" impossible. They only end up empowering the assholes, as everyone else gets tired of their shit or is pushed out and finds another platform.
And here, specifically, they make workplace gossip both more aggressive - anonymity removing the fear of backlash, extending one's circle of "people I can make racist rants to without getting reported for it" - and less ephemeral. It's not just the small group of assholes ranting about their trans coworkers in a corner, not anymore. As Fong-Jones say, this is the equivalent of graffiti, there for all to see.
“If you think Google is a breeding ground for racism, microaggressions, and bigotry, there is no place that will be safe for you. You are a perpetual victim that needs mental help.”
Ironic, and not at all an example of the kind of behaviour that they deny being a problem in the first part of their message.
How can Google verify if something was coerced or consensual? It if was consensual, then who cares.
Spit vs Swallow?
Spit vs swallow vs gargle.
"Uplift voices that have been silenced", yes.
I'm really not sure what purpose Blind even serves in the first place. This article links to another article, about Blind allowing people in South Korea to "share their knowledge in the workplace without fear of reprimand or losing their job", but... It also says that it requires a company e-mail to sign up for it? How can this be considered anonymous, or any better than a non-company-specific anonymous chat, if an anonymous chat is even required?
As you said above, the outcome seems to have largely been amplifying the assholes, but I can still see the intent. Imagine there's a better, faster, cheaper way of doing something. There's also an...
I'm really not sure what purpose Blind even serves in the first place. This article links to another article, about Blind allowing people in South Korea to "share their knowledge in the workplace without fear of reprimand or losing their job"
As you said above, the outcome seems to have largely been amplifying the assholes, but I can still see the intent.
Imagine there's a better, faster, cheaper way of doing something. There's also an egotistical, self centered manager who sees that their personal budget would go down a few percent if it were implemented and blocks it, even though the employees and business as a whole would be much better off. A system like this gives anyone a chance to blow the whistle, and have others back them up, without taking personal risk.
I'm also not surprised it mentions Korea, where seniority and hierarchy are more important, and breaking them carries an even higher social/career risk even with a "good" boss.
It also says that it requires a company e-mail to sign up for it? How can this be considered anonymous, or any better than a non-company-specific anonymous chat, if an anonymous chat is even required?
The easiest would be to just hash the email along with the password - a simple and effective way to have an account tied to a single user without identifying the individual. It requires some trust in the provider, sure, but it also isn't a voting machine or medical records; I'd say it's good enough for the job.
As for why: having it open to the world would quite probably drown out any signal at all in a sea of noise. If it's employees only, there's at least a theoretical incentive for everyone to behave in the interest of the good of the whole. I do wonder if that would help more in a smaller (say 100 person or so) company, where it's large enough to potentially benefit but still small enough that there are no strangers.
I am not really convinced that this will happen - as in, yes, trolls exist. They do the most silly things. There's even people who do "drive-by spamming" without any particular target. But, let's...
As for why: having it open to the world would quite probably drown out any signal at all in a sea of noise. If it's employees only, there's at least a theoretical incentive for everyone to behave in the interest of the good of the whole. I do wonder if that would help more in a smaller (say 100 person or so) company, where it's large enough to potentially benefit but still small enough that there are no strangers.
I am not really convinced that this will happen - as in, yes, trolls exist. They do the most silly things. There's even people who do "drive-by spamming" without any particular target. But, let's assume that there exists a chat app that allows people to create anonymous chat groups, which everyone can join.
These groups would be mostly uninteresting to outsiders, and probably not shared outside work (even if just the sharing itself might be an issue, once someone is on the platform and inside the group there would be no way to know who they are), so not a really palatable target for anyone but spammers.
Anonymized platforms like Blind fascinate me, because a lot of them really seem to have at the very least some good intentions. But it's interesting to see that so often they fill into the trap of...
Anonymized platforms like Blind fascinate me, because a lot of them really seem to have at the very least some good intentions. But it's interesting to see that so often they fill into the trap of assuming equal "empowerment" for everyone means everybody ends up equal, when in reality it ends up reinforcing already existing power dynamics.
By using hate buzzwords these individuals lose any right to be heard. There are valid criticisms to be made about the excesses of political correctness, but those people are just too bigoted to make any coherent points. It doesn’t help that many programmers seem to think that knowing algorithms makes them instant masters of every phenomenon in the universe.
"Seem to be"? These kinds of forums are toxic from the get-go, and a perfect example of the paradox of tolerance making "empower every individual" impossible. They only end up empowering the assholes, as everyone else gets tired of their shit or is pushed out and finds another platform.
And here, specifically, they make workplace gossip both more aggressive - anonymity removing the fear of backlash, extending one's circle of "people I can make racist rants to without getting reported for it" - and less ephemeral. It's not just the small group of assholes ranting about their trans coworkers in a corner, not anymore. As Fong-Jones say, this is the equivalent of graffiti, there for all to see.
Ironic, and not at all an example of the kind of behaviour that they deny being a problem in the first part of their message.
"Uplift voices that have been silenced", yes.
I'm really not sure what purpose Blind even serves in the first place. This article links to another article, about Blind allowing people in South Korea to "share their knowledge in the workplace without fear of reprimand or losing their job", but... It also says that it requires a company e-mail to sign up for it? How can this be considered anonymous, or any better than a non-company-specific anonymous chat, if an anonymous chat is even required?
As you said above, the outcome seems to have largely been amplifying the assholes, but I can still see the intent.
Imagine there's a better, faster, cheaper way of doing something. There's also an egotistical, self centered manager who sees that their personal budget would go down a few percent if it were implemented and blocks it, even though the employees and business as a whole would be much better off. A system like this gives anyone a chance to blow the whistle, and have others back them up, without taking personal risk.
I'm also not surprised it mentions Korea, where seniority and hierarchy are more important, and breaking them carries an even higher social/career risk even with a "good" boss.
The easiest would be to just hash the email along with the password - a simple and effective way to have an account tied to a single user without identifying the individual. It requires some trust in the provider, sure, but it also isn't a voting machine or medical records; I'd say it's good enough for the job.
As for why: having it open to the world would quite probably drown out any signal at all in a sea of noise. If it's employees only, there's at least a theoretical incentive for everyone to behave in the interest of the good of the whole. I do wonder if that would help more in a smaller (say 100 person or so) company, where it's large enough to potentially benefit but still small enough that there are no strangers.
I am not really convinced that this will happen - as in, yes, trolls exist. They do the most silly things. There's even people who do "drive-by spamming" without any particular target. But, let's assume that there exists a chat app that allows people to create anonymous chat groups, which everyone can join.
These groups would be mostly uninteresting to outsiders, and probably not shared outside work (even if just the sharing itself might be an issue, once someone is on the platform and inside the group there would be no way to know who they are), so not a really palatable target for anyone but spammers.
Anonymized platforms like Blind fascinate me, because a lot of them really seem to have at the very least some good intentions. But it's interesting to see that so often they fill into the trap of assuming equal "empowerment" for everyone means everybody ends up equal, when in reality it ends up reinforcing already existing power dynamics.