[gruez]

>can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison

Alright, it's clear that you're against this, but what's the argument for allowing this? In other words, why should the company tolerate using its channels as a soapbox to advance your political agendas, especially if it's a drain on productivity? I want to shitpost on company time/equipment/networks as much as the other guy, but let's not pretend it's some sort of right, or that being denied the ability to do that is some sort of moral tragedy.

[z3phyr]

In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields. We fought hard to take that power from them.

Now a company asks its employees to forgo that power and liberty. Why did we take the power of policy from the aristocrats in the first place? We can of course go back to shut up, work the field peasant model and let them enjoy discussing policy for us while we produce goods.

What comes first? Your employer or your rights?

[drewcoo]

> In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields.

I don't think the French, for example, applied guillotines to solve the problem of "aristocrats talking too much policy."