• JustinHanagan@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Exactly. FTA:

      "Trust and safety” departments are kinda like “Human Resources” departments. They exist to help the company avoid expensive lawsuits and expensive PR blunders. These departments, I assume, are comprised of good-hearted people who care deeply about their work and the well being of others. But they are fighting a battle that the companies do not actually want to end.

      • boatswain@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        FYI “comprised of” is not a thing; you mean “composed of”. The correct way to use “comprise,” if you’re interested, is like “the United States comprises fifty states”. Technically you should mention DC and the various US territories etc as well, since comprise should indicate all of the parts.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s more like “policy enforcement”.

      Ostensibly it means “if our policy forbids Nazis, then you can trust us that there won’t be Nazis engaging with your content on our site.”

      But really, the policy doesn’t forbid Nazis.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      At my previous company the department went through various names over the years, ending up as “People Experience” when we parted ways.

      I think Trust and Safety would probably be for an analogous department focused on the users, not the employees.

  • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s hard to think the author’s concern is too genuine given that they’re publishing on Substack

    • JustinHanagan@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When I switched to Substack it was just a Mailchimp alternative (I don’t think Mailchimp moderates what they send out either). They were a service, not a platform. But since then Substack has added a lot of social elements. And now that I’ve been made aware of their stance, I’m planning my exit ASAP.

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, but that doesn’t let you off the hook for using them. You’re on a site that empowers people who want people like me dead. It’s hard to think you’re too concerned about my rights as a worker, when you’re not terribly interesting in defending my human rights

        • MellowSnow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          OP literally said they’re gonna stop using it, “now that they’ve been made aware of their stance.” Wtf more do you want? You want people to be omniscient? To know something before they know it? I don’t understand how you’re holding someone accountable for a lack of knowledge. That’s asinine.

        • rush@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We shouldn’t judge people for past decisons when new info comes out, especially when that new info makes them change. It will take some time for people to move and find a viable alternative.

          I do not intend this to be an attack of any kind, please be more considerate of the fact that changes can’t be made instantly when you have an audience to move.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A “user” is anyone who walks through the public park and picks up a gadget that someone else left there.

      They poke at it for a while, not knowing who built it or who dropped it in the park. It does some cool stuff.

      Sometimes they can wiggle it and it makes colors that their friends enjoy. Maybe someone built this thing just to be a fun toy to play with?

      They put it in their pants pocket and walk on.

      Once in a while, the thing they picked up in the park just spontaneously catches fire and burns their pants off, leaving them naked in the middle of the town square and really embarrassed.

      But usually, a “user” can mess around with technology crap and not get burned.

      Until, y’know, they do.

      And then it’s supposed to be their fault.


      Hey, thing-builders: If the thing you built hurts people, you should fix that. “They picked it up, it’s okay if it burns their pants off” is not a good excuse.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I agree with your premise, people also need to be aware that some random thing they started fiddling with can be problematic, and should maybe do some basic research on what they’re fiddling with. We absolutely need to hold creators responsible for their creations, but this also shouldn’t absolve people of using their brains and thinking critically.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Then it should at least come with a warning label, and perhaps, with the ability to block children from picking it up or playing with it.

          Those who create dangerous things have a duty to warn others of their potential dangers before leaving them haphazardly about.

      • Sorgan71@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think its morally acceptable to make products designed to hurt the user and other people.