I remember applying for a job at Twitter in 2021 (or was it 2020?). I did really well on the interviews, except for one due to a dumb mistake. I was rejected, and I was really bummed out because of it. It felt like a great opportunity had just slipped through my fingers.
Fast-forward a couple months, I got a better offer from a better company, and I can't help but think that I dodged a huge bullet there. I can't imagine being stuck at Xitter during these times when the job market is so bad. My sympathies to the people who are working there now.
I would even say normal is a stretch, even on average. At least in my area of expertise, a whole host of new jobs are available now than they were five years ago. There are so many more remote/hybrid jobs that were around before, healthcare is still seeing shortages, manufacturing/fabrication jobs are plentiful like I can’t remember, and the effects of “college bad, trade schools good” have left us with less engineers than can be utilized, across man disciplines, as college enrollments continue to fall.
This is just anecdotal data, from m monitoring of various job sites regularly over the years. Of course, it could be that Indeed, Linkedin, etc have gotten more popular over the years, but I see increases everywhere. The local hospitals were laying people off in 2018-19 for example, while now they are seeking doctors, nurses, EVS, Bio-Med, and many other positions.
Semi-related, but it's hard to imagine applying for new jobs at companies that have, in the recent past, laid workers off. An Amazon recruiter reached out to me recently, and it's hard to imagine that I would leave my stable job for a company that months ago was laying off employees. Who would want to work at Twitter if half of your colleagues (or more) are suddenly gone!
The good reason seems to be the same reason any private company makes editorial decisions to shape its coherent speech product: because they are seeking an audience that doesn’t want to hear constant jibber jabber about “her emails” or “his laptop.” This is their right under our property law regime, not to mention our right as consumers (i.e., under the law there is no way for you to force me listen to you).
My post was not long but you managed to completely ignore half of it. This was not Twitter's decision but rather the three letter agencies', which is totally illegal.
Proving my point by flagging comments critical of my interlocutor's intellectual capacities for misrepresenting me while ignoring that they both misrepresented (I'd say on purpose) my comments. Funny! Don't change silly cone valley! ps. to reiterate I said that three-letter government agencies dictating what these platforms censor is totally illegal.
Correct, I was only replying to "censored the Biden laptop with no good reason[.]" The rest of your post was not worth considering.
I appreciate the "we can do what we want with our property" trend in big tech now because I adore the idea of private property rights, which include the right to exclude. One example of why the right to exclude is so excellent is this thread, where the community has combined to inform you that your opinions and attitudes are not useful or within the spirit of our rules. Under your proposal, we would have to listen to you go on forever about how you feel the law should work. I am thankful internet platforms are able to institute such measures in order to control the insane nonsense we have to wade through.
Nope. The no good reason was the government intervention. You can't just ignore one half of a sentence because you identify as not wanting to acknowlege it.
Fast-forward a couple months, I got a better offer from a better company, and I can't help but think that I dodged a huge bullet there. I can't imagine being stuck at Xitter during these times when the job market is so bad. My sympathies to the people who are working there now.