Gregory's Server@kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten The Social Media person was left, not trained enough, not supervised enough. Fire them, and most of all their Manager.
|
9 comments
@dave_cochran Alright. Train better the SoMe worker after a solid warning. Fire their Manager. @dave_cochran “Absolutely no reason to think would cause harm”, in 2024, in a design-oriented communications and events community and business. Alright. Let me elaborate: it was the Manager’s job to a. have heard and learned from Monteiro e.g. 11y ago (see Webstock 2013 iirc), b. have heard and learned about e.g. Gebru et al. stories and work. Defending workers is right, hence my leaning towards your point. Managers are paid to know better. About time for some accountability in those fields. @dave_cochran To be honest and fair, let in charge, I would fire producers of indoors conferences without neither masks mandates nor best-in-line air renewing and filtering infrastructures and practices too for being stupid and having learned nothing, to explain how I approach taking care of people attending events, or producing/volunteering/speaking there. YMMV.  @dave_cochran Then you cannot not see the issue with a woman speaker being sexualized through automation and edition of a picture she provided but never consented to be edited, never being shown the edited version, and nothing internally preventing that to a. happen, b. not be thrown away in due time, c. ever be published. How is it taking good care of your speaker community? How can it not show failure at a high level of core biz competencies? How can someone in charge not be fired? @dave_cochran @shalf @kittylyst @petrosyan @publictorsten Nope. No excuses for creating and posting a SEXUALIZED photo of this individual without permission. No excuses. This isn't "not noticing every single piddly thing IT tools ever do," you straw man you, this is altering a the professional photo of a woman to SEXUALIZE IT. Wake up. @dave_cochran @shalf @kittylyst @petrosyan @publictorsten Yeah because "hidden metadata" is exactly the same as showing a faked image they pretended were her BREASTS. |
@shalf @kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten I understand where you're coming from, and you are right to be upset. This was not an act of malice, it was addressed professionally and responsibly by management once they became aware of the situation, and - based solely on the original post since that's all the context I have - the injured party appears satisfied with the outcome.
If we fired people for not noticing things that IT tools do, every time it happened, there would literally not be anyone left working in IT. No one in their right mind thinks an "expand image" plugin is going to sexualize the image's contents; would you punish someone for printing flyers that have hidden metadata from the printer (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/household-printers-tracking-code/) in them?
The correct course of action, imo, is to start exactly as they've done by removing the offending image (and apologizing to the injured party), and to then use that as an educational moment so that it doesn't happen a second time.
Now, if it DOES happen a second time, fuck 'em. Unless/until, though, let people learn from their mistakes.
@shalf @kittylyst @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten I understand where you're coming from, and you are right to be upset. This was not an act of malice, it was addressed professionally and responsibly by management once they became aware of the situation, and - based solely on the original post since that's all the context I have - the injured party appears satisfied with the outcome.