R.I.P.

I wonder if there will come a time, if it isn't already here, where not having any social media accounts to spy on will be a 'red flag' to employers.

I mean... maybe?

"No facebook, no twitter... oh, but he has a Gab account? Well then... *next!*"

I've always valued internet anonymity.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it gets to that point.

Yeah, we do, but there's a new trend arising of watching people's other/out-of-work activities. I remember back when this kind of thing first started when someone I know got fired from Subway for comments she made while off-duty *about* Subway.

I mean, that qualifies as a conflict of interests

*Everyone* complains about their job at one point or another, though.

Some employers do include disparagement clauses, as well.

Well, sure.

Even if it's in passing.

The thing is, with social media, we've been toying with something that's EXTREMELY powerful, and yet we've been taking it for granted.

We don't really think about it, but when we post something on Twitter, or on Facebook, we've basically got the same potential as an advertiser does.

That's the difference between posting stuff on social media and saying something with a group of friends.

If that guy at Subway got a private text he sent to a friend, and fired them over that text

or a recorded conversation bitching about work

and got fired over that

100% in the guy's corner

but when you post something on Facebook

You've sent a message into the ether, and you no longer control it.

Someone could share it, and then it's gone.

I understand that, but it still sets a precedent.

I mean, yeah, it does, but Subway, the franchise owner, the district manager, the store manager - they're all required to protect their brand, and someone complaining specifically about Subway when they're paid by them, on social media where the wrong thing could take off beyond even the poster's control, It's a conflict of interest and a risk of brand deprecation.

I 100% understand why they did it. We're playing with powerful toys when it comes to social media.

Maybe they shouldn't give their employees a reason to complain then? Even just firing her over a comment could be seen in and of itself as bad practice. It shows underhandedness and might add legitimacy to the person's claim, where there otherwise might not be.
This isn't even to mention in this particular case where she wasn't going around saying 'Subway sucks' or something. It was years ago now, but if I remember she was complaining about her schedule.

well, I mean, I don't know the nature of the complaint

But complaining about work is something EVERYONE does, as you said before.

Yeah, and this was too small of a case, never got attention, and me being your only source can barely remember why. Perhaps she complained in the wrong way or said it in such a way where it could be seen another.

And it actually derailed the main point a bit: that there's this trend coming up of platforms monitoring their users (or jobs monitoring their employees) while off of that platform of off-duty from that job.

As someone who's a business owner, and has been an assistant manager in the past, I can say it would probably depend on the manner in which she complained. if she called Subway out by name, that would be a degree worse than just saying 'Work Sucks'.

Like Twitch monitoring people's activity on twitter and the like.

Yeah, no, I see your point there

There's a point where it crosses a line from protecting a brand

into policing your employees

or in the case of twitch, contractors.

Maybe the work thing was kind of a bad example of my part, because there are good cases and bad cases of that happening.

Like, if I got fired for saying, by name, my employer sucks and nobody should use the service, and talk about what a tool one of our customers are, and release information like that

That's damaging to my employer, they have every right to fire me

But if I simply repost a spicy meme

I shouldn't get called into the manager's office over that.

I guess, but if it's something like "I hate my work hours" or something, that is much more inocuous.

I think the main issue in this discussion is that people are too accustomed to social media being their new "friend/audience"

That they forget that posting on open social media isn't
"Talking to friends" as much as "Announcing to the world"

And as chat is open to interpretation, their followers see it more as a point of noteworthy discussion
Aka, a complaint isn't letting off steam, but a genuine complaint

Jay put that quite well.

It also comes down to what was said and how it's said.

100%.

Oh yeah, my main point was if we would ever reach the point where a lack of social media accounts would ever in and of itself be a red flag to employers, because then there would be nothing for them of you to monitor.

oh that will definately happen,

"bad" branded social media will give you negative rep

like if you're on Gab, a "notorious alt-right blabla" form of twitter

Like having no facebook or twitter, but having Gab account.

that will definately happen,

people are alraedy vilified for following "the wrong" person

My Gab account, for instance, if they actually looked into it would find that I'm pretty much just one of two Nintendo news outlets on there.
But would they even look? lol

depends on if you use your real life info on gab 😛

Which brings up another point: what if your social media accounts don't use your real name or identity?

well as long as they remain anonymous, they'll never know

Like, again, my Gab account being "JadenFrostwolf", not my real name and face.

well if they'd google your name, you wouldn't show up on gab, so you'd be safe

Hopefully that is all they care about.

until all the bad people do it, then the left will push for banning anonimity

Kind of like what's going on right now with the MoneyBadgers calling out Metikur for being anonymous. lol

i haven't picked up on that one yet

but yeah, if they demand the "trolls" get revealed, then you'll get a shitstorm

Metikur and Randomercam got into a bit of a spat in the comment's section of one of Metikur's videos -- the one where he's talking about a pedophile that's also autistic?

Destiny? 😛

Randomercam apparently had issue with Metikur calling him autistic, even though he actually was, or something?

I only have Metikur's perspective of this, since Randomercam I don't think has talked about it.

*Allegedly*, Randomercam made continual and consistent passive-aggressive twitter comments about Metikur, before finally Metikur called him out on it, asking him to come to a livestream to talk about it in the internet equivalent of 'face-to-face.'

And Randomercam wouldn't do it.

The Honeybadgers jumped in and eventually one of them came into an IBS stream to confront Metikur.

You can imagine how well that went.

I only know Metikour to be a very sharp wildcard

Ever since then the 'MoneyBadgers' have been at war with Metikur, to the point where they've even 'inspired' him to do a video series on the MRM.

yay, internet drama

That nickname came about during the IBS stream where the person that came to 'defend' Randomercam didn't really do it that well, and seemed much more interested in informing everyone about their court cases and their patreons and fundraisers? She didn't actually really do much in the stream.

Anyway, the initial point was that Karen Straughn (I know I butchered that name at some point) and the other HoneyBadgers are complaining that Metikur is 'hiding' behind his anonymous internet presence.

His video explains it way better than I could. lol

well ofc he is, he'd be a fool not to

I have a tendency or either forget details or put them in in the wrong place, accidentally creating a faulty timeline?

I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it, though.

could be, doesn't really matter

I get the gist of it 😛

Anyway, moral of the story: don't poke the bear... especially if that bear is named Mister Metikur...

at the risk of sounding like a kafka trap

their complaining about his anonimity only proves anonimity is necessary

It's true though. lol

cuz if you want to debate him on facts/truth, or ideals, philosophy etc

you don't need his real info

I mean, even if what *half* of Dean Esmay said about the HoneyBadgers is true, I've lost all respect for them.

i followed 0% of the honeybadgers, i only know them as some group that was affected by the rabid feminists during the gamergate era

Randomercam is a honeybadger I think, and his stuff is pretty good. I've tried to listen to one or two of their podcasts, but it wsa kind of boring.

most podcasts are boring imo, but maybe its cuz hardly any hit a niche i liked

All I know is they've had to withdraw and reapply their lawsuit about 8 times since they keep accidentally suing the wrong entity, and they're using a disbarred lawyer to represent them.

but not timcast, oh no, its the single greatest ever, truelies 😬

nah, after the Ricky Gervais show podcast i haven't found any that i dedicatedly listen to 😛

Yeah, sometimes I'll turn on Kumite if it's already on, or a Warski Live if it's an interesting topic.

Like, I would watch Sargon vs Spencer 2 if that ever happened.

i doubt it will tbh, they've both said their things

Richard Spencer is a lunatic
the pro-alt right will side with Spencer as having "won"
the anti-alt right will side with Sargon as having "won"

and its just another hour of two people going "No YOU are the idiot for thinking <this>"

and yes i soley base his lunacy on the fact he wants to bring something akin of Feudalism/Monarchy to the Western world

I would pay to see Kyle Kulinski vs Mike Enoch, though.

Richard Spencer and that definition of the Alt Right were only given power by the media. Before that, they were literal whos.

Yeah.

Before the 2016 cycle, nobody fucking knew any groups other than the KKK and maybe the Aryan Brotherhood.

but now the deeper groups are convenient for grouping in stuff like the Proud Boys.