"Trust and Safety" departments exist to protect the company, not users.
"Trust and Safety" departments exist to protect the company, not users.
When a corporation pays to manage a problem instead of fixing it, it’s reasonable to question if they actually think it’s a problem in the first place.
This is the same as "HR cares about the company, not the employees"
Exactly. FTA:
"Trust and safety” departments are kinda like “Human Resources” departments. They exist to help the company avoid expensive lawsuits and expensive PR blunders. These departments, I assume, are comprised of good-hearted people who care deeply about their work and the well being of others. But they are fighting a battle that the companies do not actually want to end.
FYI "comprised of" is not a thing; you mean "composed of". The correct way to use "comprise," if you're interested, is like "the United States comprises fifty states". Technically you should mention DC and the various US territories etc as well, since comprise should indicate all of the parts.
Everything in a corporation exists to benefit the corporation.
Trust and Safety? Is this the new buzzword for HR, a la People Empowerment?
No, it's more like "policy enforcement".
Ostensibly it means "if our policy forbids Nazis, then you can trust us that there won't be Nazis engaging with your content on our site."
But really, the policy doesn't forbid Nazis.
Exactly, well said.
At my previous company the department went through various names over the years, ending up as "People Experience" when we parted ways.
I think Trust and Safety would probably be for an analogous department focused on the users, not the employees.
That would be people & culture
I've seen them use Tallent and Culture unironically. Yes and also shorten it to T&C
It's hard to think the author's concern is too genuine given that they're publishing on Substack
When I switched to Substack it was just a Mailchimp alternative (I don't think Mailchimp moderates what they send out either). They were a service, not a platform. But since then Substack has added a lot of social elements. And now that I've been made aware of their stance, I'm planning my exit ASAP.
Why users are always the ones screwed?
A "user" is anyone who walks through the public park and picks up a gadget that someone else left there.
They poke at it for a while, not knowing who built it or who dropped it in the park. It does some cool stuff.
Sometimes they can wiggle it and it makes colors that their friends enjoy. Maybe someone built this thing just to be a fun toy to play with?
They put it in their pants pocket and walk on.
Once in a while, the thing they picked up in the park just spontaneously catches fire and burns their pants off, leaving them naked in the middle of the town square and really embarrassed.
But usually, a "user" can mess around with technology crap and not get burned.
Until, y'know, they do.
And then it's supposed to be their fault.
Hey, thing-builders: If the thing you built hurts people, you should fix that. "They picked it up, it's okay if it burns their pants off" is not a good excuse.
While I agree with your premise, people also need to be aware that some random thing they started fiddling with can be problematic, and should maybe do some basic research on what they're fiddling with. We absolutely need to hold creators responsible for their creations, but this also shouldn't absolve people of using their brains and thinking critically.
I think its morally acceptable to make products designed to hurt the user and other people.
"Useds" is a more appropriate term
Down voted because substack enables nazis.
Good lad/die, fuck substack