There has been a recent increase of firings for people being racist online via social media. Do you agree these people should lose their jobs? (Page 3)
I dont think its fair. People need jobs. That persons job could be feeding a family or something. They should get a warning and be asked to remove all posts and never post anything like that again. I think thats fair.
Employees represent the company. If an employee is doing stuff online that makes them self look bad, then they are also making the company look bad by association. Companies have every right to pick and choose who they want to represent them.
So if an employer doesn't want any black people to represent their company and hence refuses to hire any of them, you'd defend their decision as their right to do so?
@David_Kek I’m pretty sure there are laws against that, because that’s racial discrimination. Judging a person because of they’re actions is completely different than judging them by the color of their skin. Let me be clear, I specifically meant employee behavior, not race, gender, age, sexuality, or anything like that.
And employer vastly disagrees with their actions of tearing down statues and rioting and stuff, and hence does not want any of their employees associating themselves and hence their company with them.
@David_Kek I think they’re allowed to fire them for that, but I think it would cause a lot of public backlash. Personally I think it would be a stupid move.
@David_Kek I mean a lot of the damage done in the protests was caused by undercover police, anarchists, and white supremacists in order to make the blm look violent. I’m sure there are some protesters that participated in the vandalism, but that doesn’t meant the entire movement is violent and arsonists.
tbh it was likely 100% done by police and white supremacist's, because BLM is peaceful, and isn't racist at all. I mean the police burning down buildings, knocking down statues and then framing peaceful protestors for it is just par for the course.
hey, you said it yourself; "a lot of the damage done in the protests was caused by undercover police, anarchists, and white supremacists in order to make the blm look violent", so why should we believe any of said violence and destruction of was caused by BLM?
@ThisIsMyOpinion I debate a lot of people detached from reality, yes. Such as this woman, who genuinely believes police burn down buildings and frame it on blacks, rather than accept said "peaceful protesters" aren't that peaceful.
sometimes they aren't even online. like the woman in the park who was threatened by the black man, she was threatened and did nothing wrong. they fired her anyways
Only if your posting as a representant of the company ortalk shit about the company you work for. And in Sweden we do has right as an employee so you can't just fire us in theory, in practice they come up with some baloney you have to fight if you think they are unfair.
The definition of racism is so fluid as to be worthless. This Gestapo wickedness is Chinese social credit conditioning, and must be resisted at all costs.
The ghouls consider intact families to be "white supremacy"! Which means if you support getting married or saving yourself for marriage, you're "racist," because they say so! So now, you have to be pro-fornication to be allowed to work? F*k that!
Define racism. These days that definition is kinda fast and loose. For example, a Hispanic utility worker fired for cracking his knuckles while stopped in traffic, because some “woke” person said it was a white supremacist gesture. Anything you say can be used against you, taken out of context, and embellished. Especially embellished. It’s insane. And now they teach in college that the concept of 2+2=4 is colonialism and white supremacy. I am glad I never went to college.
I agree with it because I do believe that privately-owned entities should be able to hire and fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.
But I also believe that the vast majority of people who say "employers have the right to fire you for any reason" in response to this would flip their script mighty quick if a company instead decided to fire someone for expressing their support for BLM, for example.
Whatever you post online is public. Employers now even have employees sign forms that if they display bigotry on social media, they will be fired because it reflects on the employer.
You do have freedom of speech, but your employer is not the country, it's a private entity and it's up to them if they want you associated. So yes, they do have the right to fire you.
How many of these people who support BLM donate to Africa? U kno the adverts where a little boy with swollen belly bout 4 years old travels miles for dirty water to drink
Must be a privillage to demand rights for equality in the West on that high horse when yu don't contribute to your own...
So rather than call white people karen let's call all American banshees meghan... Both blacks and whites...
After meghan sparkles... Proof that Americans are not Al there...
So with that report me to my boss, I'm proud of my colour, (after all I didn't pick it) I'm proud to be British, I'm proud of my Irish Scottish and English roots... Should I be cowed down and feel ashamed... Naw fkoff
As for china to be fair we are all angry at them they've changed this world dynamic beyond repair... And this BLM won't be happy until the rest of the world has turned into a China clone... Reap what you so suckers
But you are being brainwashed to feel guilt.. According to BLM all white peoples ancestors owned a tonne of slaves each... U are supposed to not feel pride but to have it torn from you
Yeah, I think they should. It'll avoid workplace problems in the long-run, it's good PR, and consequences to actions usually results in fewer of those actions. I think it's a good thing that there are actually consequences to being a piece of shit now.
I'm going to say yes, because an independent company should have the authority to hire, fire, provide and deny service to anyone for any reason (or none at all), so long as they acknowledge that brazenly bad business practices will earn the wrath of consumers and they can't go crying to the government for assistance.
Yes I agree. While people need to start realising that we’re all the same despite our skin colour. All bleed the same, all sh! t the same, all fuck the same. Treat us with respect. I’m sick of it. If you can’t accept people for the skin colour they are then you don’t deserve a job in my opinion. Imagine what you’re horrible words can do to a non white person’s confidence
I personally think racist people are dumb. People should try to talk their differences and come up with a way to live through this mess because we're in a ball that's going round and round and we're stuck here for a very long time.
You can through Imgur or I can send you Google photos link and you can upload the files on that link. Plus, if that was the case, why not tell me upfront?
This site really does takes it toll sometimes. Well, I hope to recieve a text from you later tho if you'll not text, I'll assume that you're not interest and will not bother you so please don't forget to text me later.
Nobody likes racism but you cross the line when you try to mess with someone's livelihood. It's immature behavior at best and at worst, its borderline sociopath. Its one thing if its one person, but if they have a family, you're punishing their entire fucking family.
But fuck them, I guess all that matters is that you got yourself some brownie points and feel good about yourself and get to brag on twitter about how virtuous you are because you sent someone death threats and got them fired over a joke they made 10 years ago.
Nobody should be fired or dismissed from a place because of a social media post unless an explicit threat is made. That is a violation of freedom of speech. At work or on campus is different because the action is happening on property, but what a person does in their free time is none of a workplace/school's business.
perhaps the issue is that the definition of racism is so broad and ever expanding nobody can keep up
some people don't even do anything wrong like the woman in central park who called the cops on the black guy while HE was filming HER.
he said to her "well if you are going to do what you want i am going to do what i want... and you aren't going to like it" she interpreted this as a threat (as would i) and she felt the need to call the police
there is nothing wrong with what she did but she lost her job
I think companies have the right to do so, but at the same time if you are encouraging companies for doing this you can't turn around and complain if they fire you for going to a protest. Eg. If you go to a BLM protest and your boss sees a photo of you there and fires you for it you have to take it and move on.
When you allow people to be fired for a different view point you can't get mad when your boss with q different viewpoint then you turns around and fires you.
I agree. But at the same time a manager should always think about the business. If firing an employee who goes to a BLM protest is going to affect the company negatively then they need to think again, just like they need to think about hiring a person who they know goes to Klan meetings or regularly "trolls" with offensive comments and language.
@Hypnos0929 Interesting, in the last few years the laws changed, now they call it "Positive Action". In the older system they had a quota system that needed to reflect the local demographics, but now they've included merit on paper into that system, but not really. One of the exceptions is if you have two candidates that are equally qualified on paper (in my experience toilet paper qualification don't mean shit in regards to an employees work merit), then you have to choose the minority if your demographics don't match the rest of society, regardless if the reason you'd rather hire the other one has nothing to do with their race. No matter what way you slice it, that is still racial discrimination in favor of minority groups. Not even including the other exceptions, it is genuinely not possible tog et rid of any type of discrimination in all forms.
@David_Kek What country? And furthermore you just admitted there is no quota. So do you have physical proof and data that hiring managers choose underqualified minorities over qualified majorities? Have you considered that both applicants are equal and they chose the minority because they had a better personality or confidence or fit the image they wanted to create? It sounds like you've fallen into the College administration's complainer category: In this a person complains that they didn't get into their pick of school (s) but some minority who they considered underqualified did. What they fail to realize is both have different essays to write, different references from teachers, different goals in majors and different approaches to interviews.
@Hypnos0929 UK. I've just told you, under the law they legally have to choose the minority if both applicants have the same qualifications (on paper) and said minority are underrepresented in that workplace relative to their demographics in society. That is racial discrimination under the law. And again, that's not even including the other exceptions.
@David_Kek Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. So yeah they are not required to choose the minority candidate.
@Hypnos0929 I have literally just told you, in my country if you are an employer and you have two candidates with the same qualifications On Paper, and you don't have "enough" ethic minorities in your workplace to reflect the demographics of society, then you are committing a crime if you decide to hire the other one over the ethic minority because of some other metric you're using such as personality. Why is that difficult for you to understand?
@David_Kek I literally just proved you wrong and you're still saying the same thing... kinda shows that you hate the truth. Show me the law which states a business is required to reflect the area's demographics.
1. "(4) But subsection (2) applies only if— (a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted, (b) P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and (c) taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2)."
2. "(2) Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to— (a) overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or (b) participate in that activity."
3. "(5)“Recruitment” means a process for deciding whether to— (a) offer employment to a person, (b) make contract work available to a contract worker, (c) offer a person a position as a partner in a firm or proposed firm, (d) offer a person a position as a member of an LLP or proposed LLP, (e) offer a person a pupillage or tenancy in barristers' chambers, (f) take a person as an advocate's devil or offer a person membership of an advocate's stable, (g) offer a person an appointment to a personal office, (h) offer a person an appointment to a public office, recommend a person for such an appointment or approve a person's appointment to a public office, or (i) offer a person a service for finding employment."
Sorry, 1b "(1) This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that— (a) persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or (b) participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low."
"(4) But subsection (2) applies only if— (a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,"
Social media is a disease on society in all ways and you deserve whatever bad shit you get from it if you're dumb enough to participate in it like 95% of sheeple in this world do, thanks.
This account is in no way connected to my personal life and on top of that I'm anonymous.
And I think if any social media should exist, it shouldn't be connected to anyone's personal life, because creating this virtual online world is so dangerous that a surprising amount of people, companies, and even countries use it as a substitute of the real world, and it goes downhill from there as more and more people see it as real life instead of just a platform for online communication.
A virtual world should remain a virtual world, connecting it with real life only brings confusion and mental illness to the table. Look at twitter, a battleground for politicians and their minions who forgot what actual physical face-to-face debates are, all they do is fire shots from behind their screens, how pathetic is that?
Home > Society & Politics > Polls > There has been a recent increase of firings for people being racist online via social media. Do you agree these people should lose their jobs?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
112Opinion
I dont think its fair. People need jobs. That persons job could be feeding a family or something.
They should get a warning and be asked to remove all posts and never post anything like that again. I think thats fair.
Yeah, thats a great idea! Thanks for your opinion. :)
Thanks for the good question :)
Employees represent the company. If an employee is doing stuff online that makes them self look bad, then they are also making the company look bad by association. Companies have every right to pick and choose who they want to represent them.
So if an employer doesn't want any black people to represent their company and hence refuses to hire any of them, you'd defend their decision as their right to do so?
@David_Kek I’m pretty sure there are laws against that, because that’s racial discrimination. Judging a person because of they’re actions is completely different than judging them by the color of their skin. Let me be clear, I specifically meant employee behavior, not race, gender, age, sexuality, or anything like that.
Ok... what about BLM?
@David_Kek what about them?
And employer vastly disagrees with their actions of tearing down statues and rioting and stuff, and hence does not want any of their employees associating themselves and hence their company with them.
Would you support a company's right to fire an employee for a social media post in support of some bad thing BLM did?
@David_Kek I think they’re allowed to fire them for that, but I think it would cause a lot of public backlash. Personally I think it would be a stupid move.
It probably would, since burning down stores is not above said group.
@David_Kek I mean a lot of the damage done in the protests was caused by undercover police, anarchists, and white supremacists in order to make the blm look violent. I’m sure there are some protesters that participated in the vandalism, but that doesn’t meant the entire movement is violent and arsonists.
tbh it was likely 100% done by police and white supremacist's, because BLM is peaceful, and isn't racist at all.
I mean the police burning down buildings, knocking down statues and then framing peaceful protestors for it is just par for the course.
@David_Kek I didn’t say that, but hey let’s go with that instead. Sure.
hey, you said it yourself; "a lot of the damage done in the protests was caused by undercover police, anarchists, and white supremacists in order to make the blm look violent", so why should we believe any of said violence and destruction of was caused by BLM?
@David_Kek we actually agree on something. I am surprised.
@ThisIsMyOpinion err... your username sounds familiar... which one were you again?
@David_Kek The one you runned away from a while back with your tail between your legs.
@ThisIsMyOpinion that doesn't narrow the list down by much
@David_Kek does it happen that often?
@ThisIsMyOpinion I debate a lot of people detached from reality, yes.
Such as this woman, who genuinely believes police burn down buildings and frame it on blacks, rather than accept said "peaceful protesters" aren't that peaceful.
@David_Kek Funny thing, so do I.
Yes, she is an example.
@ThisIsMyOpinion well i'm glad we have some common ground, which is the best thing to focus on in any relationship
sometimes they aren't even online. like the woman in the park who was threatened by the black man, she was threatened and did nothing wrong. they fired her anyways
@David_Kek With that I also agree.
Only if your posting as a representant of the company ortalk shit about the company you work for. And in Sweden we do has right as an employee so you can't just fire us in theory, in practice they come up with some baloney you have to fight if you think they are unfair.
The definition of racism is so fluid as to be worthless. This Gestapo wickedness is Chinese social credit conditioning, and must be resisted at all costs.
The ghouls consider intact families to be "white supremacy"! Which means if you support getting married or saving yourself for marriage, you're "racist," because they say so! So now, you have to be pro-fornication to be allowed to work? F*k that!
Intact families to be “white supremacy”?
OMG u need to stop overreacting!
Define racism. These days that definition is kinda fast and loose. For example, a Hispanic utility worker fired for cracking his knuckles while stopped in traffic, because some “woke” person said it was a white supremacist gesture. Anything you say can be used against you, taken out of context, and embellished. Especially embellished. It’s insane.
And now they teach in college that the concept of 2+2=4 is colonialism and white supremacy. I am glad I never went to college.
I agree with it because I do believe that privately-owned entities should be able to hire and fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.
But I also believe that the vast majority of people who say "employers have the right to fire you for any reason" in response to this would flip their script mighty quick if a company instead decided to fire someone for expressing their support for BLM, for example.
Whatever you post online is public. Employers now even have employees sign forms that if they display bigotry on social media, they will be fired because it reflects on the employer.
You do have freedom of speech, but your employer is not the country, it's a private entity and it's up to them if they want you associated. So yes, they do have the right to fire you.
How many of these people who support BLM donate to Africa? U kno the adverts where a little boy with swollen belly bout 4 years old travels miles for dirty water to drink
Must be a privillage to demand rights for equality in the West on that high horse when yu don't contribute to your own...
So rather than call white people karen let's call all American banshees meghan... Both blacks and whites...
After meghan sparkles... Proof that Americans are not Al there...
So with that report me to my boss, I'm proud of my colour, (after all I didn't pick it) I'm proud to be British, I'm proud of my Irish Scottish and English roots... Should I be cowed down and feel ashamed... Naw fkoff
As for china to be fair we are all angry at them they've changed this world dynamic beyond repair... And this BLM won't be happy until the rest of the world has turned into a China clone... Reap what you so suckers
Nobody said you can’t be proud to be white. I’m white and I’m proud of where I came from.
But you are being brainwashed to feel guilt..
According to BLM all white peoples ancestors owned a tonne of slaves each... U are supposed to not feel pride but to have it torn from you
Yeah, I think they should. It'll avoid workplace problems in the long-run, it's good PR, and consequences to actions usually results in fewer of those actions. I think it's a good thing that there are actually consequences to being a piece of shit now.
I'm going to say yes, because an independent company should have the authority to hire, fire, provide and deny service to anyone for any reason (or none at all), so long as they acknowledge that brazenly bad business practices will earn the wrath of consumers and they can't go crying to the government for assistance.
Yes I agree. While people need to start realising that we’re all the same despite our skin colour. All bleed the same, all sh! t the same, all fuck the same. Treat us with respect. I’m sick of it. If you can’t accept people for the skin colour they are then you don’t deserve a job in my opinion. Imagine what you’re horrible words can do to a non white person’s confidence
I personally think racist people are dumb. People should try to talk their differences and come up with a way to live through this mess because we're in a ball that's going round and round and we're stuck here for a very long time.
I am still hoping to see the animation tbh.
Can’t send pictures on gag, and I don’t feel comfortable linking my social media on here lol
You can through Imgur or I can send you Google photos link and you can upload the files on that link. Plus, if that was the case, why not tell me upfront?
Sorry, I’ve only been on this site a few days I don’t exactly trust it lol
You can trust me. Wanna talk?
Kinda busy rn, exasperated from this website lol. Having people calling me a bitch for my opinion really takes its toll on me
Sure later. I don’t really have any recent animation. I’m still saving money to purchase a proper drawing monitor.
This site really does takes it toll sometimes. Well, I hope to recieve a text from you later tho if you'll not text, I'll assume that you're not interest and will not bother you so please don't forget to text me later.
Also, I hope that you get a great drawing monitor
thanks :)
Nobody likes racism but you cross the line when you try to mess with someone's livelihood. It's immature behavior at best and at worst, its borderline sociopath. Its one thing if its one person, but if they have a family, you're punishing their entire fucking family.
But fuck them, I guess all that matters is that you got yourself some brownie points and feel good about yourself and get to brag on twitter about how virtuous you are because you sent someone death threats and got them fired over a joke they made 10 years ago.
Nobody should be fired or dismissed from a place because of a social media post unless an explicit threat is made. That is a violation of freedom of speech. At work or on campus is different because the action is happening on property, but what a person does in their free time is none of a workplace/school's business.
I think no one should lose a job just over an occasional bad outburst. If that happened for every case our economy would shatter.
@StarryCrossing aww did you downvote meh :(
Nope
horay thanks kind miss.
Isn’t it common knowledge that employers check your social media?
People don’t think so I guess
perhaps the issue is that the definition of racism is so broad and ever expanding nobody can keep up
some people don't even do anything wrong like the woman in central park who called the cops on the black guy while HE was filming HER.
he said to her "well if you are going to do what you want i am going to do what i want... and you aren't going to like it" she interpreted this as a threat (as would i) and she felt the need to call the police
there is nothing wrong with what she did but she lost her job
What’s up dude? How’s life treating yah.
I think companies have the right to do so, but at the same time if you are encouraging companies for doing this you can't turn around and complain if they fire you for going to a protest. Eg. If you go to a BLM protest and your boss sees a photo of you there and fires you for it you have to take it and move on.
When you allow people to be fired for a different view point you can't get mad when your boss with q different viewpoint then you turns around and fires you.
I agree.
But at the same time a manager should always think about the business. If firing an employee who goes to a BLM protest is going to affect the company negatively then they need to think again, just like they need to think about hiring a person who they know goes to Klan meetings or regularly "trolls" with offensive comments and language.
Discrimination based on race should be illegal in all forms
does that include "affirmative action"?
@David_Kek
Do you know what affirmative action is? I mean do you actually read the legal requirements of it and the ramifications?
@Hypnos0929 well in my country it is legally called "positive discrimination"... so enlighten me
@David_Kek
What exactly is your country and who called it positive discrimination.
@Hypnos0929 Interesting, in the last few years the laws changed, now they call it "Positive Action". In the older system they had a quota system that needed to reflect the local demographics, but now they've included merit on paper into that system, but not really. One of the exceptions is if you have two candidates that are equally qualified on paper (in my experience toilet paper qualification don't mean shit in regards to an employees work merit), then you have to choose the minority if your demographics don't match the rest of society, regardless if the reason you'd rather hire the other one has nothing to do with their race.
No matter what way you slice it, that is still racial discrimination in favor of minority groups. Not even including the other exceptions, it is genuinely not possible tog et rid of any type of discrimination in all forms.
Iyou don't count that
@David_Kek
What country?
And furthermore you just admitted there is no quota. So do you have physical proof and data that hiring managers choose underqualified minorities over qualified majorities? Have you considered that both applicants are equal and they chose the minority because they had a better personality or confidence or fit the image they wanted to create?
It sounds like you've fallen into the College administration's complainer category: In this a person complains that they didn't get into their pick of school (s) but some minority who they considered underqualified did. What they fail to realize is both have different essays to write, different references from teachers, different goals in majors and different approaches to interviews.
@Hypnos0929 UK.
I've just told you, under the law they legally have to choose the minority if both applicants have the same qualifications (on paper) and said minority are underrepresented in that workplace relative to their demographics in society.
That is racial discrimination under the law. And again, that's not even including the other exceptions.
@David_Kek
Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity.
So yeah they are not required to choose the minority candidate.
@Hypnos0929 unless they are equally qualified (paper), in which case then they do have quotas to fill
(on paper)
@David_Kek
So basically you just don't care what the law is... because that's what I'm understanding right now.
@Hypnos0929 I have literally just told you, in my country if you are an employer and you have two candidates with the same qualifications On Paper, and you don't have "enough" ethic minorities in your workplace to reflect the demographics of society, then you are committing a crime if you decide to hire the other one over the ethic minority because of some other metric you're using such as personality.
Why is that difficult for you to understand?
@David_Kek
I literally just proved you wrong and you're still saying the same thing... kinda shows that you hate the truth.
Show me the law which states a business is required to reflect the area's demographics.
@Hypnos0929 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/159
1.
"(4) But subsection (2) applies only if—
(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,
(b) P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and
(c) taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2)."
2.
"(2) Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—
(a) overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or
(b) participate in that activity."
3.
"(5)“Recruitment” means a process for deciding whether to—
(a) offer employment to a person,
(b) make contract work available to a contract worker,
(c) offer a person a position as a partner in a firm or proposed firm,
(d) offer a person a position as a member of an LLP or proposed LLP,
(e) offer a person a pupillage or tenancy in barristers' chambers,
(f) take a person as an advocate's devil or offer a person membership of an advocate's stable,
(g) offer a person an appointment to a personal office,
(h) offer a person an appointment to a public office, recommend a person for such an appointment or approve a person's appointment to a public office, or
(i) offer a person a service for finding employment."
@Hypnos0929 The key there is 1a and 4a.
Sorry, 1b
"(1) This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a) persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or
(b) participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low."
"(4) But subsection (2) applies only if—
(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,"
society has become shit, having opinions is considered a crime nowadays if you dont agree with the media smh
Yeah, that’s how employers are though. You gotta clean up your social media if you want your job. 🤷🏻♀️
yep and no one is making a stand to stop this shit which means its only gonna get worse
Social media is a disease on society in all ways and you deserve whatever bad shit you get from it if you're dumb enough to participate in it like 95% of sheeple in this world do, thanks.
Aren’t you on social media right now? 🤔💭
This account is in no way connected to my personal life and on top of that I'm anonymous.
And I think if any social media should exist, it shouldn't be connected to anyone's personal life, because creating this virtual online world is so dangerous that a surprising amount of people, companies, and even countries use it as a substitute of the real world, and it goes downhill from there as more and more people see it as real life instead of just a platform for online communication.
A virtual world should remain a virtual world, connecting it with real life only brings confusion and mental illness to the table.
Look at twitter, a battleground for politicians and their minions who forgot what actual physical face-to-face debates are, all they do is fire shots from behind their screens, how pathetic is that?
i can't consider any platform social media if you don't have PII on it (personal identifiable information)
but even anonymous message board are dangerous to society