‘Frighteningly Authoritarian’: Publishing Giant Encourages Staff to Snitch on Co-Workers’ Social Media Posts, Union Says – Report
Totalitarians: The Power-Hungry Controllers
Totalitarians don’t care about labels. They come in all flavors, from the woke left to the RINO right. All they care about is power. To maintain power, they need control.
These totalitarians want to control what you think, what you write, and even what you drive. We don’t need to read dystopian novels like “Fahrenheit 451” or “1984” to see it. We’re living it.
Recently, publishing giant Hearst Magazines announced a new social media policy that takes control to a whole new level. According to The Washington Post, the policy encourages staff to snitch on their colleagues for any social media posts that might break corporate rules, even if it’s on their own time.
A New Era of Control
Hearst alerted its staff of the new policy through an email, along with an internal document detailing the new rules. Employees were expected to sign the document, cementing their compliance.
This policy was sparked by an Instagram post from Samira Nasr, editor-in-chief of Hearst-owned Harper’s Bazaar. Nasr criticized Israel’s actions following terrorist attacks by Hamas, calling them “the most inhuman thing I’ve seen in my life.” She later apologized.
View this post on Instagram
To make amends, Hearst pledged to donate $300,000 to charities in the region, according to the Post.
The new social media policy doesn’t specifically mention the Israel-Hamas conflict. Instead, it emphasizes the need to consider the impact of controversial statements on Hearst’s reputation. Any social media posts that don’t meet Hearst’s editorial standards should not be shared, whether on a Hearst account or a personal one.
But is censorship necessary in the Age of Social Media? Should employers have the power to stifle their employees’ personal political opinions? Has social media made totalitarianism inevitable and rendered the First Amendment obsolete?
After all, shouldn’t a company be able to protect its reputation if an employee supports terrorists and demonizes their victims?
However, we must be cautious. Those who make the rules gain more power. Power is an addictive drug, and vague rules provide the best high.
According to Newsmax, Hearst’s social media rules apply to personal as well as professional accounts. Managers have the authority to demand the deletion of objectionable content. Even liking or reposting something can be considered a violation of the rules.
Employees can be fired for breaking these rules, but here’s the catch: the policy doesn’t provide any examples of what would be considered a violation. It seems that the corporate brass gets to decide on a case-by-case basis.
The policy is incredibly broad. Even apolitical or local topics can come under scrutiny. As Newsmax reports, “Many social movements are politically charged, and apolitical events and movements can quickly become controversial and political.”
In other words, the rule makers can come after their employees for almost anything they post. The corporate brass, with their supposed wisdom, can’t be bothered with details. They might just rely on their feelings to determine who’s a good employee and who’s a bad one.
The Writers Guild of America, East, which represents Hearst editorial staffers, didn’t take kindly to this policy. They filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, accusing Hearst of declaring personal expression as company property.
It’s no surprise that the union advised Hearst employees to think twice before signing the policy consent form.
Lizz Schumer, a senior editor at Hearst’s Good Housekeeping magazine, expressed her concerns, stating, “It feels like a drastic overreach on the part of our parent company.”
But get used to it. Controlling the narrative is the expressway to totalitarian power. The Constitution and the First Amendment may be disregarded. Resistance seems futile.
The post ‘Frighteningly Authoritarian’: Publishing Giant Encourages Staff to Snitch on Co-Workers’ Social Media Posts, Union Says - Report appeared first on The Western Journal.
How can organizations uphold the principles of freedom of expression and privacy for their employees while also maintaining a productive and inclusive work environment
Totalitarians are individuals who are driven by their thirst for power and control. They can be found across the political spectrum, from the far-left woke movement to the more moderate RINO right. Labels mean nothing to them; all that matters is maintaining and exerting their power. Their ultimate goal is to control various aspects of our lives, including our thoughts, our words, and even our choices of transportation. We don’t need to look to the pages of dystopian novels like “Fahrenheit 451″ or “1984” to witness this control in action – we are living it in our everyday lives.
A recent example that highlights the extent of this control comes from the publishing giant Hearst Magazines. According to an article in The Washington Post, Hearst Magazines has implemented a new social media policy that takes control to a whole new level. The policy encourages staff members to report any social media posts made by their colleagues that may violate corporate rules, even if these posts are made on their own personal time. In other words, employees are effectively being asked to act as informants, monitoring their colleagues’ online activities and reporting any transgressions.
This new policy was introduced following an Instagram post made by Samira Nasr, the editor-in-chief of Harper’s Bazaar, a publication owned by Hearst Magazines. Nasr had criticized Israel’s actions in response to terrorist attacks by Hamas, describing them as “the most inhuman thing I’ve seen in my life.” Although she later apologized for her statement, it seems that her post served as the catalyst for this new level of control within Hearst Magazines.
The implementation of this policy is concerning on multiple levels. Firstly, it creates a culture of surveillance and mistrust within the workplace. When employees feel compelled to monitor each other’s online activities, it undermines the sense of autonomy and individuality that should be fostered in a healthy work environment. Additionally, it raises questions about the protection of employees’ freedom of expression and privacy. Should employees be restricted from expressing their personal opinions and beliefs, even when they are not representing their employer? The implications for freedom of speech and thought in the workplace are significant.
Furthermore, policies like these can have a chilling effect on free speech overall. When individuals perceive that their every word and action
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...