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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates.

DonFerrari said:
Errrrr... in any company only people authorized by the company (basically its board) is allowed to speech on the name of the company. So it shouldn't be any different that government agencies talk is made through official channels.

Except the US government isn't a company. The job of all departments is to work for the people through the constitution, not to be a loyal slave to the president whatever he does.



Around the Network
Scoobes said:
DonFerrari said:
Errrrr... in any company only people authorized by the company (basically its board) is allowed to speech on the name of the company. So it shouldn't be any different that government agencies talk is made through official channels.

There should already be checks and rules in place about how departments discuss outside their respective department. This is a whole new level of censorship and control beyond that.

Plus, a complete gag order on all employees on social media is not the norm even for major companies. They usually have a set social media policy in place to allow employees to post, especially material that is beneficial to them, but even other material as long as it comes with a "Does not represent the views of my employer" tag. 

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?



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."

Vinther1991 said:

It is fucked up that he could win with less votes than Clinton, but it's even more fucked up that 27% voted for him. In a healthy society a candidate like that would get 2-3% max

I agree. But what would it look like if 2-3% had voted for Trump and 2-3% had voted for Clinton. What can you expect for the outcome if you have only two worse candidates. People complaint for the outcome, when they should complain for the system being bad. Then again, I believe people were voting for Trump  b e c a u s e  they think the system is broken.

Puppyroach said:
bdbdbd said:

This thread was about Trump, not Clinton...

Elaborate because I don't understand your reply? What in my post referred to a Clinton position?

Pot calls the kettle black. I wonder how many of the people who complain about limiting free speech are bitching only because of it's their side of things being limited, while would be happy if it was the opposing side that was banned for saying things. As far as I know, Trump is being accused of the same things Clinton was campaining for. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Writing was on the wall for things like this to happen if he took office. Pretty much every time he opened his mouth during the election you (well...people who were paying attention) understood that this is a man who stands fundamentally opposed to many of the democratic principles that western society holds dear (and clearly takes for granted).

The sad irony is, if the man was less terrible than he actually is, he probably would have seemed worse than a large percentage perceived him to be. Because every time he opened his mouth, there were so many red flags to unpack and take time to actually dissect, that there really wasn't time to even give it all it's proper due and focus on it. I mean by the time he finished saying one outrageous thing, it was straight onto the next before anyone even had time to exhale.



DonFerrari said:
Scoobes said:

There should already be checks and rules in place about how departments discuss outside their respective department. This is a whole new level of censorship and control beyond that.

Plus, a complete gag order on all employees on social media is not the norm even for major companies. They usually have a set social media policy in place to allow employees to post, especially material that is beneficial to them, but even other material as long as it comes with a "Does not represent the views of my employer" tag. 

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.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Scoobes said:

There should already be checks and rules in place about how departments discuss outside their respective department. This is a whole new level of censorship and control beyond that.

Plus, a complete gag order on all employees on social media is not the norm even for major companies. They usually have a set social media policy in place to allow employees to post, especially material that is beneficial to them, but even other material as long as it comes with a "Does not represent the views of my employer" tag. 

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.



Puppyroach said:
DonFerrari said:
Errrrr... in any company only people authorized by the company (basically its board) is allowed to speech on the name of the company. So it shouldn't be any different that government agencies talk is made through official channels.

Except the US government isn't a company. The job of all departments is to work for the people through the constitution, not to be a loyal slave to the president whatever he does.

So any personnel working for the government can talk in the name of it?

And one of the problems with governement is that they aren't managed as companies, so much drains and inefficiencies.



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."

I was going to make a flippant comment about Trumps own infamous twitter usage and irony but this is acutally serious.

So now Trump is starting to restrict information flow to the public. This is very worriying and hinders people from taking informed decisions.

Everyone who thought Trump wasn't going to be that bad and mostly a powerless puppet is in for a very bad surprise I think. These decisions are dangerous. America might very soon no longer adhere to it's core values of freedom.



He's making America great again!



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

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."