Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Social Networks The Media Twitter

Is Twitter Shifting the Balance of Power From Companies to Their Employees? (theverge.com) 64

Posted by EditorDavid from the social-media-unrest dept.
Last week leaked audio surfaced of investors arguing that journalists have too much power.

But the Verge's Silicon Valley editor asks, "What if you take the whole discussion of "tech versus journalism" and reframe it as 'managers versus employees'? Then, I think, you get closer to the truth of what's going on." After all, this conflict started with employees. They were the people who initially described their working conditions under Steph Korey at Away, leading her to step aside as CEO. (She later returned, only for the company to say she would step aside later this year after her comments about the media on Instagram.) The employees made their comments at a time of increasing activism inside workplaces. Since the Google walkout in 2018, employees of venture-backed startups and public companies have become increasingly comfortable in speaking out — often using social media platforms to call out their employers. This trend has only accelerated since the Black Lives Matters protests swept the nation last month — which, among other things, led to the first-ever virtual Facebook walkout a few weeks later.

Workers still face significant obstacles as they lobby to create more fair and equitable workplaces. But Twitter in particular has given them a place where not only can they be heard, but — crucially — employers can't really fight back... [T]weets have given workers an asymmetric advantage in the unrest — a one-sided argument is easy to win — and we're seeing it play out in new ways all the time. This dynamic, which is tilted heavily against bosses, goes a long way in explaining the disdain that the managerial class has for what they call "hit pieces." A "hit piece," in angry Twitter parlance, is typically a piece of journalism in which one or more employees are granted anonymity to talk about their working conditions. Journalists, myself included, would simply call that reporting. But it's the kind of reporting that tilts the balance away from managers and toward their employees — and in ways that are difficult to fight back against...

And so it shouldn't be surprising, when a prominent reporter like Taylor Lorenz calls attention to posts like Korey's, the managerial class rises to Korey's defense. When CEOs can be held accountable not just for their working conditions but for social media defenses of their work, that represents a threat to the entire managerial tribe. And that explains how venture capitalists, who have millions of dollars at their disposal and could comfortably retire without ever participating in a single Twitter fight, have nonetheless come to see themselves as the underdogs in this situation. They got where they are in part because they've been good at winning arguments, and now they find themselves living in a world where they get punished for arguing...

[T]he next time you see journalists and tech overlords going a few rounds online, ask yourself whether what you're looking at isn't, on some level, a labor issue...

Workers are justifiably outraged about the state of affairs in this country, and some of that outrage is being captured by journalists.
David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of Ruby on Rails and the founder of Basecamp, called the piece "a wonderful framing of the issue" in a series of tweets. "While I decry this website as the bane of modern living half the time, the other half it has probably done more to move my own position on many issues than anything else online.

"Which is why I'm not actually sure that VC Twitter should be so eager to cheer on 'citizen journalism'. The number of citizens that count themselves in the worker class vs. manager class are far more plentiful. And their unfiltered stories really do add up to paint the picture."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Twitter Shifting the Balance of Power From Companies to Their Employees? More

Is Twitter Shifting the Balance of Power From Companies to Their Employees?

Comments Filter:

  • No (Score:5, Informative)

    by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @10:45AM (#60286518)

    Benfords law of headlines

  • Because ultimately, the employer can hand their employees their pink slip, not the other way round.

    What a stupid headline.

    • How is not the other way around?

      An employee can leave an employer at any time. Of course there are impacts from that decision but the same is true when companies let employees go, unless they had more than they needed in the first place.

      • Companies always have more employees than they need. I always have "spare" people on my teams so when the economy turns sour or some ugly corporate politics kills my division's budget I have useless people to let go without harming my ability to continue to perform.

        How do you think companies manage to continue to exist when they fire people or lay-off 5-10%? Dead weight. Chaff.

        Some mom n pop shop can't afford to do that but that's not what this silly article is about.

        • You have spare IT security researchers and consultants with more than 5 years of experience? Mind sending some my way? Because neither I nor most of the rest of the industry can find any. You can actually make some decent money right now just by telling companies where they could find some.

          Besides, how companies can continue to fire 5-10% of their staff is by working the remaining 90% to the grave and cutting corners like it's crunch time at the circle factory. You can always make an inferior product with f

          • I am one, however I am not currently able to work full time since I am recovering from a cancer diagnosis. Fingers crossed that in the next 3-6 months, I’ll be able to do more than part time remote consulting. I’ve also got a few friends who too are looking and have recently been laid off due to startups in life support mode or out of touch executives who pull the “if we didn’t have these alarmists finding issues, we wouldn’t be scrambling to fix them” routine.

          • I don't currently own the security researchers. If I did I wouldn't let any go anyway. I only get rid of people who are active problems or when I'm forced to by C level decisions. I don't let go of passive seat warmers if they're otherwise harmless. They don't get bonuses or raises. Sometimes they leave on their own which is fine. I get to back fill, maybe get a useful person and if not, I get more seat filler just like o had before.

            Consultants are an outsource cost, not FTE. You can get those by wri

        • I always have "spare" people on my teams

          I've read the shit you post here. No way you're in charge of anyone.

          • Lol, been doing it for decades. You ever managed anything?

            • Sure you have! Your teenage writing makes it abundantly obvious.

              • Ad hominem from a low end code monkeys or windows desktop guru. You've never managed anything and if you bothered you'd see others here posting support for what I said based on their management experience which you obviously lack and will never have.

                The printer is out of paper again. Go fix it. Have a great day.

                • Apparently even filling a printer with paper is beyond you, and yet you are insulting to people who you believe can do it. Now that's the sign of an excellent manager!

                  Maybe I'm mistaken, your ill informed opinions, condescending attitude and quick anger would fit the profile of a manger at certain companies. Just not any I'd ever accept a job at!

      • How is not the other way around?

        A handful of employees may quit over these issues, but the majority either disagree with their position or just don't care that much.

        Twitter has struggled to appease the SJWs while Facebook has pushed back. Neither is having attrition problems.

        Here is a NY Times article [nytimes.com] about the situation at Facebook. Two people sent tweets threatening to resign. One prospective employee turned down an offer. This is in an article with an obvious anti-Facebook slant.

        It is also likely that as many employees support Face

    • Because ultimately, the employer can hand their employees their pink slip, not the other way round.

      What a stupid headline.

      What I think it means is that cancel culture is replacing the company HR department.

    • In a one sided argument, the other side isn't listening and doesn't care. Twitter is just an empty echo chamber with nobody there. So frankly my dear, your employer doesn't give a flying fuck about what you say on Twitter and that is why the employees seem to be getting away with it - because nobody is listening.

  • I filter out all "balance of power" strategies that won't work in over a 200 year timeframe.

    • A complete transformation would thus be effected; public opinion would be controlled; "priests and princes" would find their hands tied; the marplots who ventured to interfere would repent their temerity; and the order would become an object of dread to all its enemies.

      Just sayin'. [newadvent.org]

  • This all comes in cycles (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Twitter and Reddit used to be some of the freeist sites on the until the censors got to them. People are mass migrating to new freer sites (i’m on several of them) and in a few years when the censors come after them the cycle repeats. Just remember that without *those evil nazis* sjw censors wouldn’t have a cause and they would have to get a real hobby.
    • Mind sharing a few sites for those of us looking for replacements?

      • Parler comes to mind as the most recent example, but like many other it suffers from the usual problem - not enough users making it a widespread space to compete with Twitter.

        Although, if enough people were on it, it would, but they're not, so it doesn't.

  • Shift power to employees! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @11:28AM (#60286592)
    Twitter is already becoming an environment where only the mob gets to talk.
    Companies would be smart to start cutting any ties with twitter for business purposes.

    If twitter becomes more of a mine field companies will flee. Same goes for Facebook they are on the edge of being more of a dangerous minefield than a benefit to business.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by yemanja ( 258653 )

      Companies would be smart to start cutting any ties with twitter for business purposes.
       

      I think companies would be making a big mistake. Often twitter is the only way I can find to contact a company. We need some way to do that.

  • The concept of "Class War" reinvents itself. Now it's apparently employees that "must fight the man" by attacking their managers. Which shows the probable lack of any management experience of the journalist in question.
    A good portion of management has gone through the job, knows the job, knows how to get best from their staff (there are crap managers, no doubt about it, but they're thankfully in the minority; adequate ones are the norm, and good ones are a joy, but fewer in number that I'd like to see).

    T

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by g01d4 ( 888748 )

      A good portion of management has gone through the job, knows the job, knows how to get best from their staff

      You must be new here :) The Peter principle [wikipedia.org] has been around for something like fifty years. The Dilbert principle, which is thirty, shows how things have been getting worse with the advent of highly specialized technical jobs which require continually evolving skills that management rarely, if ever, keeps up with. Sure, there are some instances where management's role has evolved with these changes bu

      • Management doesn't need to keep up with those skills - they ned to be able to manage people and whatever it is the company is supposed to be making/selling.

        they're literally managers.

        But, most companies have too many of these guys, who are useless at pretty much everything, and see their roles as "kings" - ie always ruling in arbitrary fashion and never being part of the workforce.

        But the idea that managers need to keep up with skills is like saying secretaries need to be able to program AI assistants.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Reinvents? Labour versus management is the classic class conflict, expressly so since the aristocracy became irrelevant and the corporation rose to power.

      Unions and Pinkertons were the 20th century manifestation. But unions couldn't resist getting big and corrupt. When that happens, grass-roots movements pop up. Twitter is a handy method for organizing those.

      It's also happening in politics.

  • Just stop! (Score:1, Troll)

    by xtrmist ( 547024 )
    I have been reading slashdot for more than 10 years and I'm tied to see this biased political SHIT here! Seriously we are better than this. It's we have degraded to this where do we go from here?
  • ...because up until recently the tech press was fawning over Silicon Valley and the startup culture. Then they became aware how Facebook and Google completely destroyed the revenue model for mass journalism (which was in trouble but could have been salvaged).

    That said, most journalists are easily manipulated because they either don't have the skills required to do investigative journalism or the financial support (see problem caused by FB and Google). So I think the complaining is because they were used

  • Looks like Twitter is trying to stop its slide into irrelevance.

  • Before I interview someone I look up their social media postings.
    I don't hire malcontents. They are unprofessional and detrimental to the team.
    They create no end of unwanted drama.

    • And it's exactly for that reason that every account I have is some kind of fake one. You will not find me on the internet if I don't want you to. You're just the opposite of what you're bitching about: the asshole micromanager who's constantly running around saying my way or the highway. I don't wanna work for you anymore than you'd want me working for you. You think you're being clever but you're just doing me a favor.

      • And it's exactly for that reason that every account I have is some kind of fake one. You will not find me on the internet if I don't want you to. You're just the opposite of what you're bitching about: the asshole micromanager who's constantly running around saying my way or the highway. I don't wanna work for you anymore than you'd want me working for you. You think you're being clever but you're just doing me a favor.

        Great, then we saved each other time. I don't want a whiner on my team, and you need to be one.
        The rest of the team thanks you for your candor.

    • Be careful with that. What you may call a malcontent might also be called a whistle blower, or possibly the canary who is the alarm before the fall.

      Someone reporting to the world that employees aren't being paid, that the management is abusing workers, or that there are other problems, it may be a sign that the worker is in touch with the pulse of the company and the company itself has refused to listen to inside voices, so they turn external.

      Yes, there certainly are people who cannot keep confidential info

      • Disagree. A negative drama queen is still a drain on a team. You are conflating macro and micro issues— hiring is a micro issue.

        Sure, the outlook can (and is) abused, but good luck changing it. You have to make decisions based on imperfect data.

        • Yes, and that is why I am saying to be extremely careful not to paint with a big brush. With a very fine brush, refusing to hire someone you feel is a "drama queen" by itself, someone who is always speaking of controversy and bringing up various things in social media, that is generally fine to avoid when hiring.

          But be DAMN SURE you talk with HR or company lawyers before and during your digging into people's backgrounds about ANYTHING other than their direct ability to perform the work. Many topics are pro

          • I get your point; the “reason” why you reject someone cannot be a protected class. However, ability to do a job is a function of being able to work with a team.

            I have only fired one person where I was concerned with them being in a protected class. The person was in the DramaQueen class, but the issue was that they did not get along with anyone in the office, and the position required being able to build functional relationships with the team. The person to replace them was of the same protec

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      Before I interview someone I look up their social media postings.

      Before I reply to commenters I look at their Slashdot comment history.

      I don't hire malcontents. They are unprofessional and detrimental to the team.

      But you're a real professional and team player. I can tell.

      They create no end of unwanted drama.

      You're not playing into the characters depicted in the article at all...

  • No.

    And the reason is that employees are much more willing to share all their personal information and their beliefs online. Allowing for a more "complete" screen of a candidate's demeanor and social skills prior to hiring - or rejecting - them.

  • Take your company off social media. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by memory_register ( 6248354 ) on Saturday July 11, 2020 @12:54PM (#60286756)
    I've advised several clients to remove all presence from social media beyond *maybe* Facebook. Twitter is a flaming garbage fire where only the aggrieved get a say, and Instagram just isn't worth the trouble unless you sell a very photogenic product (food, clothes, vacations etc) The rest are just fads and noise.

    If you run the public presence of a company and aren't on a given platform, nobody is going to fault you except the angriest customer/employee/rando, whom you may not want anyways. I've also noticed that if someone complains on social media about a company and they aren't there to respond, people engage a LOT less because it goes from a juicy mob-vs-corporation smackdown to a sad one-sided rant.

  • An acquaintance of mine works as a middle manager in a large software company. He uses Xing to advertise his career and Twitter to build up a following. He uses his account to comment on all kind of sociopolitical tweets, usually with a "progressive" mindset. He also presents his company in a progressive fashion naming himself as a major influence on the companies politics in that regard. He tweets so much that you ask yourself where he takes the time for performing actual work.

    It is foreseeable that if the

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Only 20% of Americans use Twitter (I sure don't). 8% of them are responsible for all this BS. Companies that listen to that tiny sliver of the population and assume it represents anyone else are making a huge mistake.

  • "ask yourself whether what you're looking at isn't, on some level, a labor issue... "

    "Workers are justifiably outraged about the state of affairs in this country"

    I don't think these two statements can be true at the same time, for the same topic. Labor issues do not encapsulate the 'state of affairs' of this country. They are a part of, and possibly not even the most important part of, the 'state of affairs' in this country, and I suspect most every country.

    Sheesh, making Twitter more important than it is?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close