Nope. Nope nope nope NOPE. No part of this is remotely reasonable. Stop normalising mass surveillance. It is not okay. Not even your own employees, to this degree. Employees are humans too (maybe not the ones at Meta, but I'm speaking in general). Just because somebody is receiving a paycheck for something does not make them fair game for anything and everything to be done to them.

> there's a foreman watching the employees output, and the machine operators have their actions logged so that the machines can be automated in the future. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Is this very different at all?

Yes. Every time these analogies to normalise mass surveillance are brought up, they mistake "another human or two can see you doing something in real time" with "a permanent record of every single action you ever take in your entire life, micromanaged down to the millisecond, accessible to many people over a period of years". That is, in fact, very different at all.

▲

otterley an hour ago | parent [-]

Do you believe that police should have their activities monitored at work? How about child care workers? Nuclear power plant operators? Bank tellers?

And if those are ok, what makes them different?

	▲	Lio 10 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They’re different because of the job they do, who’s doing the monitoring and who has access to the records. In all the examples you’ve given the monitoring is used to reduce the power imbalance between the public and vested interests with their own agenda. For example, so the bank teller doesn’t steal from account holders. For child care workers it’s to protect children in care. If it was used solely to gather information fire potential whistleblowers people would have a problem with it too. Considering that, for example, Meta management have a record of encouraging their staff to break copyright laws and lie about it, this surveillance probably isn’t designed to help society as a whole.
	▲	41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]