On watching what you say
Interesting news on internal communications within the Tentacle Beast. I'd be interested to watch in action something that would "block and flag employee posts on a planned internal messaging app that contain keywords pertaining to labor unions... An automatic word monitor would also block a variety of terms that could represent potential critiques of... working conditions, like “slave labor,” “prison,” and “plantation,” as well as “restrooms,”" in order to see blowback that would ensue.
If it weren't for news on similar features within communist regimes, I'm tempted to consider anti-capitalism has a point. It's a good thing the unionizers got their vote in, though if one were to sip the Kool-Aid on the cheerleader, one might miss the ones who fought for themselves. The cheerleader sure did.
Weather eye on this mess because B&R still got its claws in, 兄弟. These too - how generous, that support of a regime that seeks to reduce its contribution to addictions. Almost makes up for "studiously [avoiding] mentioning" backward movement in other areas.
(Moving to a more substantial issue than the commonplace ick I deleted earlier, this article references another, earlier real estate purchase. The publication in which the less expensive real estate was shown, that one clearly supported more conservative issues. The article linked in this paragraph shows a similar use of an organization's funds, and "On this score, some of the harshest criticism... has come from within." With that said, here's my question - which way does this publication lean, and what assumptions will be made of those who find the subject of the article questionable?
Ending with this because now I'm wondering which are better in sweet applications, or savory, or both.