Reactionaries are like, "ah, I see that you post constantly and passionately about minimum wage, but riddle me this: have you considered that some people I don't respect or care about might benefit from this?"

I love it when a thought occurs to someone a century after everyone with a brain thought about it and quickly explained why it's irrelevant or false.
Ah, but did you know that human beings who are of high school age also are compelled by social structure to mortgage the time they have in this life to perform labor to survive, from which wealthy people extract profit??? #gotcha
I find it very clarifying to think about min. wage not as the lowest amount you're owed for your labor but the lowest amount you're owed just for giving your employer that time, even if you're standing around. Your time alive is also what they are buying from you.
This is useful in part because it negates skill-based labor objections, which are garbage anyway, but anything that reframes the conversation as a human right and not a job-based right is good.
They owe you because instead of tinkering in your toolshed to invent something or spending time with family or experiencing the wonders of this temporary world you are "flipping burgers" or providing IT support, even though we have resources to do different by everyone.
And if you don't have a social structure that guarantees human needs, the remediations for those needs are commodified specifically so you have to perform more labor, give them more of your finite time.
there is no relationship between obtaining healthcare & your paycheck except as created by capitalists on purpose to avoid ensuring healthcare becomes part of the assumed background fabric of public life like the highways you drive on without worrying
Decoupling health insurance from your work would also mean there's more cash you're owed because neither you nor your employer should be using that money to purchase the commodity known as health insurance.
That's right

https://t.co/MajgcRiPVF

More from For later read

Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options

Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other

1/13


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.

3/13


You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"

4/13


Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/13
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like