On censorship

[Student of Trinity]

A place that is paying you to do a job, and providing you with a computer to do it with, seems to me to be perfectly within its rights to prevent you from spending their time using their machine to do anything other than the work for which you're taking their money.

 

And schools are paid for by taxpayers, to educate kids. I'm willing to pay taxes for that. I'm not going to be thrilled to be paying for some kid to stalk EBay auctions or yack to their friends on Facebook. It's fine for them to do that, but they can do it on their own dime.

 

If people have paid for their own gear and access, they can do what they want on their own time.

[Dantius]

Internet filtering is appropriate when conducted by your employer. At my work, pretty much everything is blocked- forums, social networking, porn, shopping, FB, personal emails, proxys, etc. I'm perfectly OK with it, since they are paying me the $ for me to do a job, not wast time on the Internet. I do plenty of that at home and on Sundays.

 

I would image the most of schools are blocked for much he same reasons- you are/were there to learn, and the taxpayers are not wasting billions of dollars a year to have you play flash games and browse Faceboook.

 

However, under VERY few circumstances should any website be blocked to private access. Short of VERY illegal content (Child porn, torrents, planning of illegal activities, etc), blocking websites does amount to censoring free speech. While it may be OK for China to stifle reports about the devastation from the latest earthquake (in China), it is NOT OK to block content on a global scale (see: British Libel laws, for example) as that amounts to censorship of free speech.

[Ephesos]

I'm pretty much in agreement with SoT.

 

Also, I do recall seeing some filter services blocking this site (cafés mostly), but one quick email saying "No, this has nothing to do with all the humor writing on ironycentral proper", they unblocked it. Or it was automated, go figure.

 

Regardless of whether it's a good idea, filtering sites is a pretty difficult task. You're always going to get false positives and negatives, but the OP's experience sounds like a one-off glitch.

[VCH]

The school district my Mom works for in BC blocks the Spiderweb message boards. But other message boards are not blocked. The warning that comes up says something along the lines that access was denied due to adult content. Lol.

[cfgauss]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

And schools are paid for by taxpayers, to educate kids. I'm willing to pay taxes for that. I'm not going to be thrilled to be paying for some kid to stalk EBay auctions or yack to their friends on Facebook. It's fine for them to do that, but they can do it on their own dime.

If people have paid for their own gear and access, they can do what they want on their own time.

I would agree, but there are still lots of people out there without computers at home, and that could be their only chance to use them. Not to mention that, given how most schools go, the computer skills they learn screwing around on facebook may well be more valuable than what they learn in some of their classes.

Also, if what they're doing is not during class time, but at lunch, before/after school, or whatever, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Since that's not really costing anyone anything.

I really think it'd be better for the schools to focus on individual students actually doing well in classes, rather than paying (sometimes very large) amounts of money to a questionable service that randomly blocks pages, since I think it's debatable if there's any positive effect on students at all by doing this. And when I was in high school, it wasn't much better than random blocking, and from what I've heard, over the past almost 10 or so years since then, things haven't gotten much better.

But yeah, in an ideal world where everyone had as much access to computers as they wanted at home, and schools were good enough to learn from, I'd agree with you.

[Ephesos]

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

Not to mention that, given how most schools go, the computer skills they learn screwing around on facebook may well be more valuable than what they learn in some of their classes.

...I am highly suspect of this. Playing Farmville and poking people is not valuable. And if school is the only time/place they have to use computers, why would they be on Facespace at all?

And "how most schools go" varies from place to place, and it varies rather a lot. The few that are really that intent on self-teaching will probably be doing that at home anyway.

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

I really think it'd be better for the schools to focus on individual students actually doing well in classes, rather than paying (sometimes very large) amounts of money to a questionable service that randomly blocks pages, since I think it's debatable if there's any positive effect on students at all by doing this.

It's not a binary choice. Nobody is saying "either we help the kids learn or we block their Myfacetubes access". They can do both. And there are far bigger money-wasters out there, truthfully. Many schools will "waste" vast amounts of money on sports programs whose only purpose is to impress alumni (when they win, of course). And at least they're not spying on their students.

[cfgauss]

Originally Posted By: Ephesos

...I am highly suspect of this. Playing Farmville and poking people is not valuable.

Directly, no, but indirectly they're learning how to use computers, how user interfaces work, planning skills, etc. There's actually recently been some research on these things that've found there are significant changes in the way young people think and solve problems when they spend a lot of time using computers or playing video games due to these indirect influences. (Doing the usual kind of tests in psychology--picking groups of people who do and don't play games and testing their visual, problem solving, etc, skills.)

I don't know what statistical confidence level these things were demonstrated to offhand, but I've heard enough of these reports that it seems to be generally accepted by the psychologists as a real effect. And, having recently seen nieces and nephews grow up around computers, and seeing how those skills spill over into other things, I'm not surprised by those findings.

It's amusing to note that entertainment based video games have apparently succeeded in some areas carefully designed educational games have failed to touch for decades!

This is particularly important considering many grade/middle/high schools don't have any classes in computer skills at all (or if they do, they will be taught by the 90 year old guy who's never actually used a computer to do anything, or are about ridiculous things, like spending 6 months learning basic Word and Excel). Not to mention that the skills people learn by themselves are often totally orthogonal from those learned in even a good class in a subject.

Quote:

And if school is the only time/place they have to use computers, why would they be on Facespace at all?

Because all the cool kids are doing it. Seriously. That may not seem important, but participating in stupid activities like that with friends is gigantically disproportionately important to teenagers. The alternative is to have all the teenage girls not pay any attention in class because they're fantasizing about using facebook .

There've actually been other studies that've showed there's an optimal amount of time an employee spends screwing around on the internet per day that's around an hour or something. Happy, entertained workers are more productive! I don't see why it should be any different in school (aside from the massive irrationality of teenagers).

Quote:

And "how most schools go" varies from place to place, and it varies rather a lot.

It does, but, having taught/TAd/tutored people at a large university with tons of undergrads from all over (and also teaching/TAing/tutoring older and high school aged students at a small community college when I was in high school) I can tell you that, in a quantitative sense, in terms of technical skills (math, computers, and science) there's very little difference between students based on where they're from.

Quote:

The few that are really that intent on self-teaching will probably be doing that at home anyway.

Not if they don't have computers at home. And most of the skills aren't deliberately self-taught. They're just picked up trying to do something that's fun--and that's the most reliable way to learn!

I certainty know it's the case in my learning, that the things I've learned have almost exclusively been incidentally learned in trying to figure out something interesting. Naturally, finding lots of things interesting is a big help here, but still.

Quote:

It's not a binary choice. Nobody is saying "either we help the kids learn or we block their Myfacetubes access". They can do both.

Particularly for smaller districts--but also for larger ones, the filtering software license and IT staff required can be the difference between hiring a real science teacher and having the gym teacher teach physics. So for some places, it is a binary choice.

Quote:

And there are far bigger money-wasters out there, truthfully. Many schools will "waste" vast amounts of money on sports programs whose only purpose is to impress alumni (when they win, of course). And at least they're not spying on their students.

Yeah, that's definitely true. It would actually make a lot more sense to dissociate the sports from schools by making separate athletic entities, which are self-funding, but schools seem to actively refuse to do anything like this.

And I'd heard about the spying thing--that's just totally nuts. I'd actually thought it was one of those stories that the sensationalist "computer privacy media" had overblown, and it was pretty horrifying to realize it was true!

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: VCH

The school district my Mom works for in BC blocks the Spiderweb message boards. ... The warning that comes up says something along the lines that access was denied due to adult content.

My local library does that too. I'm just glad we finally got an internet connection at home, and that I'm the most computer-savvy person in the house (although, granted, that's not exactly saying much).

[Ephesos]

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

I don't know what statistical confidence level these things were demonstrated to offhand, but I've heard enough of these reports that it seems to be generally accepted by the psychologists as a real effect. And, having recently seen nieces and nephews grow up around computers, and seeing how those skills spill over into other things, I'm not surprised by those findings.

citation plz kthxbai

(seriously, otherwise this is just unsubstantiated fluff)

Originally Posted By: cfgauss (quote condensed)

...having taught/TAd/tutored people at a large university... there's very little difference between students based on where they're from.

That is at the university level. At that point, students generally have to have proven at least some degree of proficiency, so it would make sense that the differences dwindle. Also, your point would carry more weight if you had taught/TA-ed at institutions in different areas.

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

Because all the cool kids are doing it. Seriously.

...well yes. I acknowledge that. That's pretty much the whole point of social networking sites. But there's still a point past which the hassle is less than the payoff. And if one's only access to Mytweetfacetubesspacebook is on a school computer (which is typically a low-spec, misused and abused piece of equipment), then the hassle is greatly increased.

[Monroe]

This might not be what you meant, but I don't think the government should be able to censor anything in people's homes. We've reached a level of technology where censorship should be by household, not national. I don't even like how radio and TV are so heavily censored. Schools and businesses, on the other hand can filter as they wish, their house, their rules. Yeah, I know public schools are the government, but they need to assume there is at least one kid with very conservative parents and plan for that kid. Can't have him seeing his first pair on a state owned machine, God forbid.

 

Chose "I said no" in the third question even though child porn was mentioned in one of the answers. Child porn isn't so much censored/filtered as it is straight up illegal. It simply existing is illegal, as it should be, so censorship shouldn't even be an issue there.

[Thaluikhain]

Over in Australia, the government is making alot of noise mucking about with a blanket censorship thing "to protect the children" or somesuch. It's goibng to block child pornography (illegal to possess), beastiality porn (not illegal to possess, but illegal to host), normal porn, and various sites talking about euthanasia and abortions.

 

They are also going to ban Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site is also being sued for Aboriginal groups, as it abuses everyone and everything without exception, and since Aborigines fall under the heading of "everyone and everything", they are also being abused. This is known as discrimination.

[Enraged Slith]

Filtering exists to remove distractions, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it censorship. Calling it such reduces the impact that term holds for more pressing situations, and I couldn't care less whether or not some whiny teenagers were able to access facebook for a few hours.

 

There are still far more distracting things in school than the internet, namely, short skirts. I assume the office experiences similar obstacles.

[*i]

Quote:

Yeah, I know public schools are the government, but they need to assume there is at least one kid with very conservative parents and plan for that kid. Can't have him seeing his first pair on a state owned machine, God forbid.

I think there is a big difference between the government censoring material on your property versus computer networks they own. In this respect, the government functions much like a company, albeit a publicly "owned" one. If you are on a government owned machine, you have no expectations of unrestricted web viewing or even privacy for that matter.

The same basic principle applies to government owned property. Being a law-abiding US citizen and taxpayer does not grant you the right to go traipse on the lawn of the White House without permission from the relevant authorities. Granted, you do have all the rights to petition the government (or run for office) to change the policy so you can visit the White House whenever you want. Likewise, you can petition the government to change the internet viewing policy in schools.

Where the right of government to control flow of information or restrict movement ends is once it encroaches on the private property of others. The government should in no way interfere with my right to view whatever content I desire so long as it is done with my own property and on my personal time.

[Monroe]

I agree, *i. I actually wasn't being sarcastic in the bit you quoted. Schools should definitely be able to filter things on their computers. I guess I got a little off topic going into censorship, which is totally different, as Enraged Slith said. An important similar topic, none the less.

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Thaluikhain

They are also going to ban Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site is also being sued for Aboriginal groups, as it abuses everyone and everything without exception, and since Aborigines fall under the heading of "everyone and everything", they are also being abused. This is known as discrimination.

How is it discrimination if it treats everyone equally?

[Alorael at Large]

It could be libel or hate speech, which can be lumped into discrimination even when there's no actual discrimination involved.

 

—Alorael, who thinks companies are entirely within their rights to censor. Schools he's less sure about. If you don't want kids using the internet, fine; give them something else to do. If you are going to have computers and internet access, though, accept that the internet is a bad place and make it unrestrictedly bad. Aside from rights, he disfavors censorship. It's more likely to engender resentment and annoyance than to promote productivity or protect anyone.

[cfgauss]

Originally Posted By: Ephesos

citation plz kthxbai

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/science-and-...ial-skills.html

http://news.msu.edu/story/6096/

https://www.msu.edu/user/jackso67/CT/children/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yp379XK4iHgJ:www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_93397.html

http://www.physorg.com/news148193174.html

etc...

Quote:

Also, your point would carry more weight if you had taught/TA-ed at institutions in different areas.

I did. The community college and university were in different places. No difference among people of the same age. Especially unexpected, since many of the people at the community college were there because they didn't get into the universities they applied to!

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel

How is it discrimination if it treats everyone equally?

Indiscriminate discrimination?

[Lilith]

if bestiality were really so bad they'd call it worstiality

[Ephesos]

Originally Posted By: First linked article

...speculates that the action video game experience "may cause the expression of previously inactive genes which control the development of neural connections that are necessary for spatial attention"...

Meh. I'm highly skeptical of macro-level events triggering genes.

Originally Posted By: Second linked article

"When it comes to cell phones, Jackson said she saw no detrimental effects to the students’ academic performance."

...no detrimental effects isn't the same as having positive effects. And if it takes time away from the activities that students are actually at school for, then again, it's reasonable to want to limit that. Also, this says nothing of the results with regards to video games... which admittedly isn't part of this discussion, but it's misleading in that it omits results.

The third link is probably one of the worst-designed websites I've ever seen. The intro video is hilariously dated.

Fourth link is also video games, not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Fifth link is for strategy games like Rise of Nations, which tend to require more time than can be scrounged from a day of school. At least, most schools I'm aware of.

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

I did. The community college and university were in different places. No difference among people of the same age. Especially unexpected, since many of the people at the community college were there because they didn't get into the universities they applied to!

Sample size of 2 != data.



...yeah, my main beef here is that there seem to be two different arguments going on here:

1) Do video games and games in general show promise for educational purposes?
2) Should schools allow unrestricted internet access to students? Ditto for businesses and their employees.

[wz. As]

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/science-and-technology/playing-video-games-reduces-sex-differences-in-spatial-skills.html

http://news.msu.edu/story/6096/

https://www.msu.edu/user/jackso67/CT/children/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yp379XK4iHgJ:www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_93397.html

http://www.physorg.com/news148193174.html

etc...

On the flip side:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-but-what-else/

[Alorael at Large]

I'm skeptical of the gene activation theory as well. It's clearly within the realm of the possible, but that's an odd place to jump first. Most neuroscientists would, I think, immediately jump to changes in neurons triggered by neurotransmitters. What's the response? Probably the upregulation and downregulation of a bunch of genes, as that's how we respond to a huge number of stimuli. But just leaping to activating genes makes it sound like pop genetics, not science.

 

—Alorael, who is all for promoting limited access to computers in order to foster non-computer skills and non-reliance on computers. That said, computer literacy, and especially good practices for internet use, are critical. (Cite sources! Wikipedia is not a good source, but you can do much worse! The internet is a series of tubes!)

[cfgauss]

Originally Posted By: wz. As

On the flip side:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-but-what-else/

That's not really the flip side, it was pretty much exactly what I was claiming . Using computer skills helps "cognitive abilities" and computer skills, but not much else.

Originally Posted By: Ephesos

Meh. I'm highly skeptical of macro-level events triggering genes.

Well these fields do tend to be rather, erm, "speculative" about the possible mechanisms for things... But regardless of the proposed mechanisms, there's still the correlation.

Quote:

...no detrimental effects isn't the same as having positive effects.

Right, it's the same as "no detrimental effects" . But cell phones were never argued to improve anyone's anything.

Quote:

And if it takes time away from the activities that students are actually at school for, then again, it's reasonable to want to limit that.

Well, no, it's the case that if the costs of missing out on school things caused by this outweigh the benefits gained by spending more time on computer activities.

It may or may not, depending on exactly who and how much time, and what things they're doing, etc.

Quote:

The third link is probably one of the worst-designed websites I've ever seen. [...] The intro video[/url] is hilariously dated.[...]Fourth link is also video games, not really relevant to the discussion at hand.[...]
Fifth link is for strategy games like Rise of Nations, which tend to require more time than can be scrounged from a day of school. At least, most schools I'm aware of.

The variety of sources (cell phones, games, rts games, etc) was really to demonstrate that this is generally believed to be a fairly robust thing, and not dependent on a single particular effect. There're lots more, you can see some of the articles were from 6 or 7 years ago. So this is a reasonably well-studies (i.e., new-and-trendy) effect.

Quote:

Sample size of 2 != data.

It is data, it's just two data points . And I've taught hundreds of kids over ~10 years, in various places, as well as tutored people independently. And of the other professors / grad students / TAs I've talked to, from lots of different places, many have independently made the same kinds of comments to me.

Quote:

...yeah, my main beef here is that there seem to be two different arguments going on here:

1) Do video games and games in general show promise for educational purposes?
2) Should schools allow unrestricted internet access to students? Ditto for businesses and their employees.

They aren't independent arguments, though. My point is, though, that there shouldn't be censorship because learning computer skills and associated problem solving skills is important for school-aged people to do, and people are more likely to learn these things if they can do fun stuff on the computer.

Obviously excessive use is not good, but that doesn't even need to be said since it goes along with excessively doing anything.

[Ephesos]

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

Right, it's the same as "no detrimental effects". But cell phones were never argued to improve anyone's anything.

...what exactly are you trying to say here. I got lost.

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

It is data, it's just two data points .

That is two anecdotes. Also, you never even specified what you mean by "very little difference between students".

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

They aren't independent arguments, though. My point is, though, that there shouldn't be censorship because learning computer skills and associated problem solving skills is important for school-aged people to do, and people are more likely to learn these things if they can do fun stuff on the computer.

...I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. There is data on the other side of the argument from your position, as wz. As pointed out above. Of course, nobody has actually linked to an actual study yet, just news stories about studies, so I still regard them as suspect.

[Ephesos]

(The original topic's poll was deemed inappropriate, and has been excised. However, since the rest of the thread was in the clear, and since we can't really moderate polls with any great efficiency, here's what happened. I split the whole topic back into this thread. So yay. Let the discussion continue.)

 

Original poll questions:

• Does your school/employer/gov't use Internet content filtering?
• Is internet filtering appropriate?
• If you said yes above, what level of filtering is appropriate?

 

Resume.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Ephesos

Original poll questions:

• Does your school/employer/gov't use Internet content filtering?
• Is internet filtering appropriate?
• If you said yes above, what level of filtering is appropriate?

Not so far as I know, yes, illegal stuff only.

Regarding employers: people who have a computer at work might say that they are entitled to use it occasionally for personal stuff, not as a Constitutional right, but as a condition of their employment. There used to be a consensus that this was a reasonable expectation. Longer ago, the same consensus existed for health insurance, a forty hour week, a pension, job security, collective bargaining, and a wage that kept pace with inflation. Facebook is an odd place to draw a line in the sand, but it's better than nothing.

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the comments above were referring to the United States, and may not apply to your country. If this is the case, will you marry me?

[Rowen]

What kind of things should be filtered and who should be in charge of the filtering? What is the difference in a business that filters the internet to improve production from its employees from a public school/government that filters the internet to improve grades/patriotism in its students/citizens?

 

Should the job of filtering be done by an outside organization or by part of the same organization (business/school/government) that wants the filter in the first place?

[VCH]

My university doesn't censor anything, bitorrent, porn, message boards etc

 

And Canadian Universities are at least 50% government funded.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the comments above were referring to the United States, and may not apply to your country. If this is the case, will you marry me?

:3

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: VCH

My university doesn't censor anything, bitorrent, porn, message boards etc

I'm pretty sure mine doesn't censor anything either. The only problem I've ever had at school is the inability to send emails from Thunderbird.

[Student of Trinity]

University residences are students' homes, for which they pay rent. It doesn't make much sense for a university to censor the internet on campus. Your alma mater is not actually your mom.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

[placeholder for obligatory mom joke]

[waterplant]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

:3

cleft chin??? what the...??

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Your alma mater is not actually your mom.

In theory, it actually is. In the US, there are laws that educational institutions must act in loco parentis for minors,at least.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Your alma mater is not actually your mom.

In theory, it actually is. In the US, there are laws that educational institutions must act in loco parentis for minors,at least.

Yes, but very few college students are minors, and generally for no more than the first four months or so of their first year.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

Yes, but very few college students are minors, and generally for no more than the first four months or so of their first year.

Yeah, but the point still stands. It really does apply more to high school censorship, which seemed to me to be what Will was talking about.

[Alorael at Large]

Personal use at work (or in school) covers nebulous things. Is checking email personal use? Probably. How about checking eBay? Checking your favorite forums? Checking your favorite website of ill repute? Lines have to be drawn somewhere if they're drawn, and someone will complain.

 

—Alorael, who invites you to look up :3 on Wikipedia. Seriously, it's there. It's described as "big grin," although it's really a kind of grin that can't be printed on Spiderweb.

[Enraged Slith]

Isn't :3 an anime thing? I always thought it had something to do with cats/being catty.

[Dintiradan]

I always thought it was the emoticon for grinning cats.

 

Seriously, that's all I've ever seen it used for. Representing cats, or someone acting cat-like.

 

EDIT: Sniped. At least I'm not alone in my assumption.

[waterplant]

Alorael is a great big fibber - and the waterplant fell for it!!! On Wikipedia indeed.

I still suspect some Michael Douglas-type weird chin action at play here. Everyone knows that big grins are drawn like this ))

Good night Alorael!!

[Thaluikhain]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CatSmile

[Andraste]

>:3

[Monroe]

Apparently they really do make that face. Warning: link contains serious image.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Monroe

Warning: link contains serious image.

AAAAAHHHH! MY EYES! Why did you link that??? WHY!?!?!??!?!

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: Monroe

Apparently they really do make that face. Warning: link contains serious image.

Thank you

[inni]

awwww

 

:3

[Alorael at Large]

Wikipedia cannot be wrong!

 

—Alorael, who actually was looking at another page that he can't find anymore. It was moderately not sufficiently wikified.

[Rowen]

Originally Posted By: waterplant

Everyone knows that big grins are drawn like this ))

That looks like a double chin from where I'm sitting at.

[waterplant]

Originally Posted By: Rowen

Originally Posted By: waterplant

Everyone knows that big grins are drawn like this ))

That looks like a double chin from where I'm sitting at.

A big grin double chin - that could be me with another 40kgs.


...sorry Alorael. I should never have doubted you as a source of shining goodness.
*bow, worship, eat-humble-pie*.

[Locmaar]

Regarding SoT's initial reply which somehow started the thread: I understand the notion that if somebody gives you a computer to work with for them, they want to be able to control what you do with it. On the other hand, they also give me a job to do for which to use said computer. If I do that job to everybody's satisfaction, why would they still want to control what else I do on that computer unless it's illegal? Isn't it in my employer's best interest to provide me with a workplace that's as much fun to be at as possible, provided I do my job?

 

OK, that was a rhetorical question. Prohibiting use of professional resources for private activities is rarely a good idea if you are looking for an exceptional workforce.

[Student of Trinity]

It depends on the job. If it's pay for time worked, regardless of productivity, then filtering makes sense (though that might be a dumb kind of business).

 

If it's piecework, where pay is for a given amount of stuff regardless of how much time or effort it takes for you, then if the company has in effect agreed to pay you X dollars plus 40 hours per week of computer and internet use, in return for product Y, I agree there's no reason for filtering.

 

Unless, maybe, the company knows from experience that Product Y does generally take close to 40 hours to produce, and that allowing free internet use during those hours raises the danger that the job won't be finished in time. In which case, sure, they could fire the employee, or dock their pay; but they'd still be left hanging with no product, and maybe having to find a new employee. I think they might be entitled to set policies to reduce this risk.

 

On the other side, sure, there are some kinds of jobs where letting the employees do whatever they want will actually raise the chances of the job getting done, or increase product quality. For some kinds of job, there are a few employees who can slack off for five full days straight, then stay up all weekend in a burst of genius and motivation, and deliver a breakthrough product for Monday morning that will blow away anything that six normal people could have made working all through the week. But if the slacker geniuses weren't allowed to slack off all week, they wouldn't make their breakthrough. So it really pays to set them free.

 

But I think it's one of the big hurdles, in moving from tiny brilliant start up to large scale production company, that there are actually very few people like that. If three of them get together in a garage, they can do wonders; but then they crash and burn when they discover that expanding to 100 staff gets them 97 normal people, instead of 97 more people like them.