Sam Zell Ditches Internet Filters In The Newsroom

from the good-for-him dept

We were rather surprised last year to find out that the LA Times and other Tribune-owned newspapers had started employing web filters for journalists working at the newspaper. The filters were supposed to prevent journalists from visiting "inappropriate" sites, though failed to explain what a reporters was to do if he or she was actually reporting on inappropriate sites -- which should make you realize that there really are no inappropriate sites for a journalist. It looks like new Tribune owner Sam Zell is equally mystified by the policy and wasted little time getting rid of it with the following message:

"I do not see how a member of the Fourth Estate, dedicated to protecting the First Amendment, can censor what its own employees and partners can see. I have instructed that all content filters be removed. You are now exposed to the dangers of You Tube and Facebook. Please use your best judgment."

Somehow I get the feeling that Zell won't be joining the AFP in banning the use of Facebook and Wikipedia as sources.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Slippery Slope Of Censorship In ISP Filtering

from the here-it-comes... dept

We've talked about how government attempts to censor certain types of internet content tend to be a slippery slope towards more and more censorship. They usually start out with "child pornography" and then move onto other areas as the line concerning what's acceptable is blurred. It gets even worse when the government doesn't reveal what sites are censored, as it gives them pretty much free reign to block whatever they don't like -- whether or not it's actually problematic. You can watch the walk down the slippery slope over in the UK where some folks in the government are saying that, if they already filter out child porn, why not filter "radical Islamic" websites as well. Does anyone actually believe that it's websites that are turning folks into radical Islamic fundamentalists? Either way, it's not hard to go from there towards censoring other types of content that people in the government don't like, no matter how harmless it might be.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Fired For Using eBay At Work

from the did-they-at-least-buy-anything-good? dept

There have been a bunch of bogus stories over the years (usually placed by companies that sell internet filters) about the productivity losses of personal surfing at work. However, other studies have shown that personal surfing tends not to be a problem for most people. It helps ease the work-life balance that has all too often created a situation where "work" interrupts "life." Thus, it seems only fair for "life" to occasionally show up at "work." In fact, one study showed that people who do personal surfing at work tend to make it up either by being more productive or putting in extra work time from home. The key, really, is to look at whether or not the person is getting their job done. If they're able to get the job done, then does it really matter if they spend some excess time surfing?

Over in the UK, there's a story about nine office workers who were fired after it was discovered that they had spent up to two hours a day on eBay. That seems like quite a bit (though the "up to" part can be misleading). However, some questions aren't answered. For example, there's no indication as to whether or not it impacted their job performance. It's also not clear from the report if these workers were exclusively using eBay or just had the window open while doing other things. Right this second, I have about eight or nine browser windows open. Most are work related, but a few are not -- but if I leave the window with the latest baseball scores open all day, it doesn't mean I only was checking baseball scores all day. The employees apparently are represented by a union -- but rather than arguing the points I've mentioned here, they're actually arguing that it's (get this) the employer's fault for putting temptation in the way of these workers and not filtering out eBay. That seems ridiculous and hopefully doesn't get any support at all.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Some Reasonable Advice On Facebook At Work From British Trade Unions

from the ain't-so-bad dept

We've seen a bunch of ridiculous reports lately blaming Facebook for lost productivity and saying that nearly half of all companies now ban Facebook at work. Those studies were both biased and misleading -- often coming from companies that were trying to sell filtering solutions to companies. Over in the UK, however, it's nice to see the Trades Union Congress (TUC) there say that banning Facebook at work is going too far and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, the group recommended that companies come up with some straightforward usage policies. All in all, the group's comments seem quite reasonable, noting that there are benefits to these services and banning them outright is simply an overreaction. The report also notes that banning sites like Facebook won't stop employees from slacking off at times and it probably won't even stop them from figuring out ways to get to Facebook. Instead, it makes more sense to focus on encouraging them to use social networking sites in a reasonable way and then just focusing on whether or not the employees are actually getting their jobs done.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Latest Bogus Report Blames Facebook For Productivity Loss

from the yeah,-try-again dept

We've pointed out in the past how often we see totally bogus reports about productivity losses due to "personal surfing" at work. These reports are always based on research done by companies that sell internet filters, and yet the press almost never bothers to point out this fairly obvious conflict of interest. The latest twist on all of this is for one internet filtering company (who shall remain nameless, since they don't deserve free advertising for pulling this stunt) to now tie productivity losses to Facebook. All the filter company does is estimate how much time people spend on Facebook, and then claim that all that time is lost productivity. Of course, this ignores all of the real evidence from actual studies that show things like people who spend time personal surfing at work usually more than make it up either by being more productive when they're working, or by working from home at other times. Then there was the study that showed that those who do some personal surfing at work tend to see "better time management, stress reduction, improvement of skill sets and helping to achieve a balance between work and personal life." We wouldn't want to encourage that at all among employees, now would we? Since these filtering firms just won't stop these bogus studies, does someone want to calculate just how much money has been wasted by these firms performing such ridiculous studies?

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..