Personally, it should be very liberating to be barred from certain companies based on your views.
Go work somewhere that respects who you are, rather than one who tries to control you.
“Do we risk losing our careers over an ephemeral social post that doesn’t save a single life in Palestine?”
They wouldn’t be suppressing it so desperately if it wasn’t a severe threat to their fascist institutions. Always remember: Fascism isn’t a collection of individual racists, it’s a system designed to keep the people divided so they can stay in power, and they will kill you if you don’t stop it.
inb4 some FOSS tool comes put to check if your name has ended up on some bull crap ADL blacklist lmao
but comments on the internet are largely anonymous, and an IP address does not determine identity for an individual (though it’s probably suspicious as heck)
Oh these websites target public comments lol.
Social media with your real name, protests, speeches, literally any statement of any kind.
So yeah, you can be safe by easily just using a username. But anyone with any major position, especially people in academia, can’t really pretend to be a PHD without showing their creds.
Students and professors show up to public IRL events and then get pasted onto these crappy sites lol
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But across the media and technology sectors, the arts, academia, and even generally nonpolitical industries like aviation and public relations, there has been an obvious effort to threaten, ostracize, and remove individuals from jobs based on their stated views on the subject.
In recent weeks, the editor-in-chief of the nonprofit scientific journal eLife, Michael Eisen, was forced to resign after sharing an article from The Onion satirizing public indifference to Palestinian civilian deaths; a top Hollywood talent agent, Maha Dakhil, was removed from the board of her company for suggesting on Instagram that a genocide was taking place in Gaza; and numerous journalists engaged in nonpolitical coverage, as well as ordinary corporate employees both in the United States and beyond, have faced reprimands and dismissals over their statements on the war.
Numerous writers have had their events canceled or been forced to shift venues based on past or present statements they have made deemed to be supportive of Palestinians or critical of Israel, including the political analyst and author Nathan Thrall and the novelist Viet Thanh Nguyen, who was scheduled to speak at 92NY.
A number of new websites have sprung up in recent weeks listing names of university students and corporate employees accused of issuing or endorsing sentiments deemed hostile to Israel, adding to an already rich cottage industry of such sites, including the notorious academic blacklist Canary Mission.
In the context of an emotionally charged, seven-decadeslong armed conflict, the effort to ruin people’s careers or livelihoods based on public comments on the matter have antagonized some free speech advocates.
Despite the growing climate of repression, legal advocates committed to defending free speech on the issue say that they will continue to promote the Palestinian perspective on the conflict with renewed urgency given current events in Gaza.
The original article contains 1,521 words, the summary contains 297 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
