By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ebw said:
DonFerrari said:

So you will say that there is no company that have a total control over about employees not posting company information and keeping their personal accounts for their personal subjects?

"Not the norm" literally means "in less than a dominant majority of cases".  That's absolutely not the same as saying "there is no company", so it is illogical to restate the claim in this fashion, and can only be interpreted as an inept attempt at a straw man argument.  At the same time, you also draw an unjustified equivalence between proprietary information owned by a private company and scientific that are facts already publicly available.  No rational person would say these things.

Ok so bring the TOP 500 companies and how much they allow their employees to talk about the company without prior authorization from the company.

Scoobes said:
DonFerrari said:

So you will say that there is no company that have a total control over about employees not posting company information and keeping their personal accounts for their personal subjects?

Depends on the industry and company. Note that you started your post with "any" and are now moving the goal posts so to speak. 

There are certain bits of private information they will be restricted from talking about at nearly all companies. That's natural and has a legal basis. Like I said, most companies have a social media policy in place that covers their own needs.

On a side note, you know the EPA aren't a private company, right? Tax payer funded research is for the public, not proprietary. A gag order of this scale is ridiculous and disproportionate.

Nope, it isn't private but also isn't the right of any employee under it to run their mouth as they see fit, and if the overseeing power over that agency decides that only the official mouthpieces are allowed to talk to the public about agency related stuff then so be it.

In Brazil most public employees aren't there on social media talking about their internal affairs, most that are involve judicial system



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."