What is Digg?48 Comments
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -5/+35Traditional media is dying. Listen to it scream as it circles the drain.
- shutaro, on 06/23/2009, -8/+28***** THE ASSOCIATED PRESS!
- Rollic, on 06/24/2009, -4/+23That's a crazy policy. How does the AP not realize that that policy is more damaging to their corporate image than ANYTHING some employee could post on Facebook?
- malcolmlo, on 06/24/2009, -5/+23Look I'm all for free speech watchdog posts, but sometimes you just need to be rational. Companies dont want their employees leaking things, trash talking, or marring their image. Companies already do this in many ways with internal and external communications policies and electronic data policies, this is just an extension or update to those policies. Its simple, dont be an idiot and post a bunch of stuff about your company, and if a friend posts on your wall "suck it AP" or "AP does x, y, and z ethically questionable things" - delete it. Its your responsibility to protect the image of your company, and depending on the nature of the company that may even extend into personal life a bit.
Would you say its acceptable (from a companies perspective) for an employee to leak new information about a computer game for example at a cocktail party? Or badmouth their own company? Or reveal inside information? Then why would it be acceptable on facebook?
The censoring friends thing is a little weird, but i think how they worded it is confusing. If they mean making sure wall posts and things are appropriate, that is fair game. That is part of their profile page, something they have control over and are responsible for. If they mean somehow censoring other peoples pages, that is not acceptable however. - trian1, on 06/24/2009, -1/+14As is journalism, and that is not a good thing.
We need some form of 'traditional' media to survive to protect one of the only industries spelled out in the First Amendemnt as being needed for a safe republic.
The problem is that corporations got involved in journalism. A CEO of a cmpany can be sued for failing to try to maximize profits. That should not be the goal of the local news source.
Woodward and Bernstein could not have exposed corruption at the highest level without receiving a paycheck from the WaPo. Had they run a blog, they could not have brought down a president. - mintedmeadow, on 06/24/2009, -2/+12Why are people up-in-arms about this.
It only says there are restrictions if the employees are using it for -work purposes-. This is the same as any other private company having restrictions on what an employee can do or say in their offices. Essentially, it's no different from employee email or chatrooms. All the employee has to do is create two accounts: one for work, one for private life. - whatthefu, on 06/24/2009, -0/+10Thank god we'll have blogs and Twitter to spread information with no facts whatsoever.
- slsanity, on 06/24/2009, -1/+10I work for Apple retail, if we choose to list Apple as our employer we open a can of restrictions. We can't have any photos in which an Apple product is the showcase or center of the photo's attention (like holding up an iPhone). We can't post anything negative or positive about Apple or its third party channel partners. We can't post anything that may embarrass ourselves or Apple, including anything our friends may post on our walls. Same applies to Myspace, twitter, or any other social networking site.
- withoutamartyr, on 06/24/2009, -4/+12Since the private company involved is attempting to restrict what people who aren't even employees say, that's when.
RTFA. - vault, on 06/24/2009, -1/+9In other words, you were spamming your site on theirs, and then you insulted them claiming your blog is more reliable than their newspaper, and that people should read you instead? I'm not surprised they were pissed, and no, it has nothing to do with free speech.
- withoutamartyr, on 06/24/2009, -6/+14Mr. charm803, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no diggs, and may God have mercy on your soul.
- drunkenoaf, on 06/24/2009, -1/+8Yes, but signing away your rights for that so you can write that your job title is "Genius" makes it all worthwhile.
Note I've embedded that comment with the HTML5 <an attempt at irony> tag. - poonjob, on 06/24/2009, -1/+8the ***** you talking about?
- MargotCross, on 06/23/2009, -3/+9Dugg for the title alone.
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -2/+8Good luck with that you Web-Nazi bastards
- fafaforza, on 06/24/2009, -0/+5Traditional media? The AP has its stories regurgitated by most of the online news sources around. If anything, they've been able to adapt and should be the twinkle in your eye.
- Aroundtown27, on 06/24/2009, -1/+5I really have no idea why you're being dugg down. Like you said, lots of companies control their employees communications and really, if you don't like their policies then don't work for them.
- TWiThead, on 06/24/2009, -1/+5There appears to be a major misunderstanding here. The AP is asking employees to delete certain posts (made by friends) from _their own_ Facebook accounts used for work purposes. The AP is *not* asking that any material be removed from non-employees' pages. They just don't want someone viewing an employee's page for AP-related reasons to be greeted with a message likely to be interpreted in a negative or embarrassing light.
- malcolmlo, on 06/24/2009, -2/+6I'm being dugg down because I am going against the grain and not sheeping it like previous posters.
Its a companies right to protect their interests and their image. If you dont like it, dont work for them or dont mix your job into your facebook profile. - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3That's it, time to stop buying newspapers, by running articles by the AP they are supporting these free-speech-hating terrorists!!! When will our government realize, we need to go to war with AP and free their people of this tyranny?!
- rikwakefield, on 06/24/2009, -1/+4I feel sorry for some kids today who don't realise that what you put on the internet is permanent, even if you delete it it can still be pulled from an archive and viewed any time in the future.
- 0tis, on 06/24/2009, -1/+4They're allowed to say it, but employees are not supposed to give it an airing (delete it from their facebook page), in case it is misconstrued as the views of the AP.
- greenrider04, on 06/24/2009, -1/+4Does this mean AP employees have to spend all day looking at their Facebook wall to ensure that no disparaging remarks are made about AP rather than do actual work?
- fafaforza, on 06/24/2009, -0/+3And they say reason and common sense are dead on Digg's comments pages... Thanks for that post.
- psolms, on 06/24/2009, -2/+5***** THE RIAA?
- 0tis, on 06/24/2009, -1/+4If you don't like their policies on Facebook then don't link your Facebook page to them in any way.
- Barackalypse, on 06/24/2009, -1/+4Re-enforcing the idea that using your real name on the Internet and providing anyone with access the ability to easily determine your network of acquaintances is a bad idea. Guilt by association is a common tactic used by law enforcement and tyrannical Governments the world over.
- cgrado, on 06/24/2009, -1/+3Not surprised. My old High school expected similar. I always had to monitor what I said, as well as what other people said to make sure nothing on my profile would represent in the school in a way it didn't want to be represented- that essentially meant I had to follow school rules on facebook.
- fafaforza, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2If your parents didn't have a strong emotional tie to you, and could instead toss you out on the street in a blink of an eye, you'd do whatever they'd damn well please.
- IneffablePolk, on 06/24/2009, -3/+5I don't see anything wrong with the policy. It's not saying you can't bad-mouth the AP. It is saying that you can't post about the internal operations of the AP.
The only thing that is even slightly questionable is the bit where they don't want them "making any postings that express political views or take stands on contentious issues." This sounds bad, but this is a news organization. If their employees were posting that stuff left and right, it would make them seem biased and hurt the integrity of the AP. - siamesedream, on 06/24/2009, -4/+6How can you fail to understand a concept so simple? Do I really need to draw you a diagram?
Honestly, it's truly sad that you're actually arrogant and delusional enough to think your ideas are worthy of the amount of words you used to type them when you've not any logic or substantive arguments in your arsenal. You resort to ad-hominems to avoid having to defend your weak and fallacious arguments.
If you're man enough to admit you're wrong when you know you are, you will honestly appear more intelligent than you do while attempting to save face by deviating the focus of the discussion.
Your quickness to comment on issues of a political nature yet your vast misunderstanding of, yes, BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL political concepts is truly astounding. "Restricting" what others say who don't work for the company is entirely irrelevant to the issue of "free speech". They could fire you based on what your racist grandpa said last thanksgiving at the dinner table. It makes absolutely zero difference to, again, the BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL political concept at hand. The issue of free speech has absolutely nothing to do with a private party using a service or object that is rightfully theirs to restrict what anybody says anywhere at any time.
Perhaps I am overestimating your ability to comprehend this, despite its simplicity, but I'll try to further clarify this to you with an example. If I had a coke, and I said "here, you can have some of my coke", and then, while you were drinking it, I said "Wait a second. You can't have any more of my coke unless you stop posting on digg". It's not in the least a violation of free speech. That coke is rightfully mine and fully and entirely mine to use how I please. Your choice to accept it and limit your speech is entirely your decision to do so.
Here's where your massive confusion comes into play. Let's say I then said "Wait a second. You can't have any more of my coke unless you tell all your buddies to stop posting on digg". Then, you come in here, completely fail to comprehend the situation, and start screaming "FREEDOM OF SPEECH VIOLATION!!!!!!". Well, again, you're still absurdly wrong on a, wait for it, BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL political concept. The coke is still mine to use how I please. At no point do you have a right to it, and at no point have I violated any of your rights by taking back what's mine or restricting the use of that which belongs to me.
The issue is not who the company is "restricting" in terms of speech. Whether or not it's the employees themselves or friends of the employees has absolutely no weight on any side of the issue of free speech. The issue is how the company is going about limiting speech, and they're not doing so by violating anybody's rights anywhere.
Please, before you respond with a bunch of gibberish solely because your ego can't handle somebody pointing out your logical fallacies, take a moment to digest what I just wrote you. Don't search my post history again in an attempt to find something to make yourself feel comfortable with disagreeing with me because it allows you to avoid the logic at-hand. Be a thinker, here. Work with the actual ideas and arguments -- not with ad-hominems and fear. - siamesedream, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2cygnus 2112,
You're making the rest of digg look bad by commenting without regard for any of the arguments written.
If you feel you are simply stupid to engage anybody in a relevant manner, please tackle other ambitions that require a far lesser number of brain cells. Something like collecting stamps, if you will. - inactive, on 06/24/2009, -0/+2Or maybe people should only friend their actual friends, ignore those friend requests from sally in HR whome they never hang out with anyway, and just make their profile private. But I guess that would just be crazy-talk.
- poonjob, on 06/24/2009, -4/+4would u do any of this if your parents told you? prob not.
you are a bitch to apple.
(not saying ur a punk bitch.. just apple is being gay (sorry hilary duff) to it's employees) - stevethepocket, on 06/28/2009, -0/+0How the ***** does a government go to war against a company? Bomb their headquarters? You are a ***** moron, you ***** moron.
- mrmudgeon, on 06/24/2009, -0/+0You forgot about tyrranical companies :)
- mrmudgeon, on 06/24/2009, -1/+0They are biased and I want to know that stuff. Post away turkeys!
- b0tterman, on 06/24/2009, -2/+1***** Facebook. Everybody knows it's an unwritten rule that you have to watch what you and everybody who posts on your page say. There's a vast aggreed upon censorship on Facebook already. It's one big repressed closed community. So ***** Facebook!
- inactive, on 06/24/2009, -2/+1Really? Who ***** cares what your friends post on your wall. It's what THEY said, not what I said. If they say something stupid, it's their fault, not mine. Anyone using facebook knows that. This is like a company telling employees not to associate with people who use a competitors products, or hold a different world-view than the corporation. It's unrealistic, and it only hurts the company to make such a policy.
- withoutamartyr, on 06/24/2009, -6/+5I don't think you completely comprehend the issue at hand.
Yes, I support the notion of the AP having some semblance of control over what their employees say, especially when publically noted as being a part of the AP.
The problem arises when they attempt to restrict what OTHERS say. That is; people who are not employed by the associated press.
I've dug through your comment history, and more than once you've used the line 'basic and fundamental political concepts' in regard to our misconstrued 'understanding' of them. I can't imagine it's a far stretch to suggest you are still in college, or are taking some political science course. Did your professors 'open your eyes'?
You're commenting on an article I doubt you read. I'm disappointed in you; you seem like you could be intelligent if armed with the right information. - siamesedream, on 06/24/2009, -7/+6Again, "free speech" has nothing to do with restricting speech using perfectly lawful and private means. Noone has a right to an employed position at any company, and "restricting" speech by threatening to take away something that the offender has no right to in the first place is in no way a violation of the right to free speech.
Again, digg, you all fail to grasp some of the most basic and fundamental political concepts. The internet can truly be a terrible thing. - grizzlylabs, on 06/24/2009, -3/+1When did "free speech" start to mean that there are no consequences to whatever is said?
I thought free speech was that the government cannot punish me for what I say. I guess I didn't get the "AP is now in control" memo. - cygnus2112, on 06/24/2009, -5/+3siamesedream,
Excellent Smashing Pumpkins album, btw.
You don't understand the article nor what AP is asking it's employees to do. That's why you're being dugg down. That's also why you should shut up while you're looking more like a stubborn idiot. - cygnus2112, on 06/24/2009, -4/+1"The press is our chief ideological weapon."
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."
- Nikita Khrushchev - TertiusRegent, on 06/24/2009, -5/+1Um, yeah 'cause it's so easy to find a new job these days. As easy as selling a home or a getting a bank loan..
- Travelsonic, on 06/24/2009, -5/+1"Its a companies right to protect their interests and their image. "
But not to control what people who don't work for them say/do, the allegation of this being what has people riled up. - siamesedream, on 06/24/2009, -14/+9Since when does "free speech" have anything to do with a private company? Speech is only "free" with respect to government intervention.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is