zlacker

> “The malignant dictatorship of social media rage in the US is becoming insufferable. It's probably going to require government regulation to stop it.”

you know you can just not tune in, right? it’s not coercive in any way, unlike said dictatorship or government regulation. amplification of voice is not a civil right.

>>clairi+(OP)
As many employers will not hire you now without an extensive, positive social media history, and many people communicate with their friends and family almost exclusively over social media, it's questionable to call social media use optional. It's also extremely dubious to effectively support bullying because "you can just go somewhere else".

>>clairi+(OP)
You can easily find yourself dragged into situation where activists at your workplace demand you sign a letter, or else you will be branded <all kinds of crap>. If you depend on these people in any way, you will be in trouble. And it's the social media that turned your coworkers that way.

These days you don't have to go to social media to find trouble - the social media comes to you.

>>DenisM+R2
folks just gotta learn how to say no gracefully. it's a useful workplace skill anyway.

as for the branding, you can say no without conceding either side. the target of this twitterer seems to have done it successfully, keeping their job and not conceding either way.

note that i'm not taking sides here either. just making a point about having the fortitude to put social media in its proper place.

further, if you can't take a principled stand under pressure (another useful skill), it might be an indication that the stand isn't principled, or at the very least, you need to find the foundational principles on which to stand.

>>clairi+b7
You missed the point. I don't want to take any principled stands. That's not why I came to work.

>>clairi+b7
I don't think the onus should be on the decliner to "gracefully" decline beyond a simple "No thanks", under threat of twitter mob.