Human rights violations weren't a problem; only optics mattered. The contract was a boon initially, and only became a liability because of the media attention. Shameful but typical corporate behavior.
> Certified B Corporations are businesses that meet the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose.
Are you so sure? Surely the rest of planet was better off before the advent of agriculture, when density was very low.
Increased human carrying capacity does not necesarily mean increases for any other organism. I would think they would tend to be negatively correlated.
Second-order effects of densification and development improve the prognosis of many organisms. Birthrate is lower in developed societies, at or below replacement level. Land use is lower in dense, urbanized societies.
Overall, cities are better for everything on the planet. If we were hunting and gathering like we did before agriculture not only would we fail to support our current population by several orders of magnitude, we'd hunt and gather other organisms to extinction, just like we did with the mammoth and dodo.
Which developing countries are rural and sparse but use more land than, say, Germany, where humans use essentially every available piece of land?
That hunter-gathering couldn't sustain the current population is not evidence that the planet would be worse off. Neither are birth rates. High population growth rates are a side effect of development, which is usually accompanied with both urbanization and ecological damage. It's a very common story.
The dodo was killed off in the 1600s by urban, agricultural Europeans. You might want to revisit some of the data you used to come to your conclusion.
The vast majority of organisms cannot be profitably farmed. Are you suggesting a world devoid of all wildlife but with whole continents of corn and soybean monocultures would be "good for the planet"? Perhaps if your view of which species count is very narrow.
If you don't like a law enforcement agency, then work to elect officials that make the political change you want. Don't use cancel culture to enrage your tribe and shame everyone you disagree with.
edit:removal of inaccurate reference to McCarthyism.
Exactly. Last year I went on a date with this person. Her family immigrated to USA when she was 2 years old. Recently for some reason her family didn't get green card. Everyone had to leave USA. Her whole family is disbanded. Parents and siblings are living in different countries. She couldn't join her cousin's wedding because according to USA immigration officials "she has too much ties with USA". Her family was law-abiding, tax-paying and highly-educated. This begs the question. At what point do we care about people who don't have backing of the poiltical outrage machine?
This is not mere dislike of a law enforcement agency. ICE is keeping children in filthy conditions, conducting forced hysterectomies, knowingly deporting people who will be murdered on the other side, and imprisoning people in conditions where they will die from COVID-19. Any association with them whatsoever is anathema to any ethical human.
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the term McCarthyism but I fail to see how this can be classified as such.
I agree with your thesis and conclusion about electoral responsibility and cancel culture. However, isn't McCarthyism necessarily the use of spurious accusations to incite such tribal enragement, as opposed to the use of the proven claim of HootSuite actually having said ICE contract?
>work to elect officials that make the political change you want
Not sure how that is supposed to apply to people like the Canadian employee referenced in the article. Canadians don't exactly have much say in American elections.
"That we are eagerly accepting money from an organization that is allegedly subjecting its female detainees to forced hysterectomies, that has a documented history of locking children in cages, that tears families apart and destroys lives is devastating and disgusting," she wrote at the time."
Then why were you working there?
Meanwhile, you still live in a civilization that exists only because it was able to conquer both nature and competitor civilizations — you are a party to genocide and ecocide.
If you had as much integrity as your posturing suggests, you'd have removed yourself from that civilization by now.
People like this combine a grindingly midwit intelligence with extreme narcissism in ways I find morbidly fascinating.
Hootsuite has been the center of a bunch of controversies up here in Canada including illegally employing unpaid interns (and employing paid interns without offering relevant training). I don't understand how they've managed to keep hiring when the Vancouver market is so full of better alternatives.
It is considered among the most "fun" tech companies to work for in Vancouver. Its beautiful office, nap rooms, free Yoga and other exercise classes, meals, rooftop happy hours, as well as a general party culture. The lifestyle side of Hootsuite attracted young people and made them willing to take some of the lowest tech salaries in Vancouver. However, my latest litmus test on this was admittedly around two years ago: all of my friends who worked at Hootsuite have since moved onto other jobs, the core leadership has completely changed over the past couple years, and most early employees are now gone as well.
I can respect someone taking the initiative to speak out against business choices they disagree with, but you can't openly start a social media campaign against your employer and expect to keep your job.
>but you can't openly start a social media campaign against your employer and expect to keep your job.
Provided 1. the information is public, 2. You do this on your own time, and 3. you do not reference your position as an employee in the context of your campaign, I really do not see why not.*
What is the point of freedom of political speech if your employer can trample all over it? How long until employers just mandate in contracts that all political speech must be cleared by HR?
*generally speaking of course, I did not read that twitter thread.
27 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 62.9 ms ] threadInteresting way to split the difference.
> Certified B Corporations are businesses that meet the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose.
Increased human carrying capacity does not necesarily mean increases for any other organism. I would think they would tend to be negatively correlated.
Overall, cities are better for everything on the planet. If we were hunting and gathering like we did before agriculture not only would we fail to support our current population by several orders of magnitude, we'd hunt and gather other organisms to extinction, just like we did with the mammoth and dodo.
That hunter-gathering couldn't sustain the current population is not evidence that the planet would be worse off. Neither are birth rates. High population growth rates are a side effect of development, which is usually accompanied with both urbanization and ecological damage. It's a very common story.
The dodo was killed off in the 1600s by urban, agricultural Europeans. You might want to revisit some of the data you used to come to your conclusion.
edit:removal of inaccurate reference to McCarthyism.
I agree with your thesis and conclusion about electoral responsibility and cancel culture. However, isn't McCarthyism necessarily the use of spurious accusations to incite such tribal enragement, as opposed to the use of the proven claim of HootSuite actually having said ICE contract?
How did resolve the "Canadians can't vote in the US" issue? I found it to be a bit of a showstopper.
"wow no way let's cancel our contract with them"
You: OhMgees it's cancel culture.
Yeah I remember when the Montgomery Bus cancel culture thing happened. It didn't actually do anything because only voting works.
Not sure how that is supposed to apply to people like the Canadian employee referenced in the article. Canadians don't exactly have much say in American elections.
Then why were you working there?
Meanwhile, you still live in a civilization that exists only because it was able to conquer both nature and competitor civilizations — you are a party to genocide and ecocide.
If you had as much integrity as your posturing suggests, you'd have removed yourself from that civilization by now.
People like this combine a grindingly midwit intelligence with extreme narcissism in ways I find morbidly fascinating.
I can respect someone taking the initiative to speak out against business choices they disagree with, but you can't openly start a social media campaign against your employer and expect to keep your job.
Provided 1. the information is public, 2. You do this on your own time, and 3. you do not reference your position as an employee in the context of your campaign, I really do not see why not.*
What is the point of freedom of political speech if your employer can trample all over it? How long until employers just mandate in contracts that all political speech must be cleared by HR?
*generally speaking of course, I did not read that twitter thread.
Tech employees, especially Canadian tech employees, must unionize.