Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Related story from last month: https://www.thedailybeast.com/unsafe-and-just-plain-dirty-wo...

One of the interesting parts to come out of that (and from the OP) is VICE's "non-traditional workplace agreement":

> New hires at Vice also sign a “Non-Traditional Workplace Agreement,” an infamous internal document that requires employees with no experience at Vice to agree as a condition of employment to not be generally offended by anything that goes on there.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4203989-Non-Traditio...

View on HN

I've signed something similar at other companies. Talking about sex work at a regular company is inappropriate. But discussing an article your co worker wrote about sex workers is okay because it's your job to cover vices.

The agreement protects Vice from being sued for the second scenario, but not the first. Though I've encountered employees who interpret it as "anything goes."

People who work on search engines, build family friendly filters, or categorize apps and movies have to deal with porn. But that doesn't mean employees are allowed to watch porn. One story I heard about Bing is that they go to a covered conference room whenever they need to view adult material. A good idea to not expose porn to bystanders.

> to not be generally offended by anything that goes on there.

Is it a one way or two way street at Vice - ie. are you allowed to "offend" in your turn too?

Seems pretty one way:

> One woman said she was riding a Ferris wheel at Coney Island after a company event when a co-worker suddenly took her hand and put it on his crotch.

So basically the letter the women sign is a license for certain men in a elevated position to assault women.

I feel like this kind of shit puts us two steps back, especially when the American president is accused of similar behavior towards woman, now it will give that side another "whatboutism" ammunition.

I have a strong nagging feeling that there are bound to be more #metoo stories shortly from Vice.

I mean it's so fucking bizarre to have a systematic infrastructure set in place to allow it's higher up members to traumatize defenseless women.

If the mainstream media wanted to destroy Vice once and for all, now seems like an appropriate opportunity.

> If the mainstream media wanted to destroy Vice once and for all, now seems like an appropriate opportunity.

So I guess its well accepted now that "mainstream media" is not merely there to report what is going on but have active agendas to shape the world according to their wishes. It a weapon of destruction.

> So I guess its well accepted now that "mainstream media" is not merely there to report what is going on but have active agendas to shape the world according to their wishes. It a weapon of destruction.

I'm not sure what you're angling for, but they're all corporations with market interests. The NYT itsself authored the article.

Your comment appears to be reaching pretty hard to throw in that MSM comment.

Wat? That was a quote of parent. Besides, Vice would have to try pretty hard to get more mainstream than it already is. Is TFA not discussing Matt-Lauer-style remote-kidnapping locks?

That’s been true since Watergate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com