The term "deplatforming attempt" lacks a clear definition, making it challenging to ascertain its exact meaning. It could encompass situations where there's dissent towards a speaker or concerns raised about their content. It might involve hecklers disrupting an event. However, reports of faculty or speakers being forcibly removed are often exaggerated. The concept of deplatforming is inflated to serve right-wing agendas. While the right champions free speech when it aligns with their views, they react defensively to dissenting opinions.
For example, from the cited database:
> As Clinton was speaking a heckler began shouting over her calling her a "war criminal." The school's dean had the heckler escorted out by security. A second heckler then began to shout over Clinton. Clinton paused her speech for a minute before resuming and completing her remarks.
The incident involving hecklers disrupting Hillary Clinton's speech, while undoubtedly disruptive, it's an exaggeration to say this is a threat to free speech. In no way does this indicate a systematic suppression of free speech across the campus or broader community. It's an isolated incident rather than a widespread phenomenon. The dean's decision to have the hecklers escorted out by security demonstrates an attempt to address the disruption while allowing the speaker to continue. It's a measured response aimed at maintaining order rather than outright censorship. Despite the interruption, Clinton was able to resume her speech and complete her remarks. This indicates that the disruption, while disruptive, did not prevent the speaker from expressing her views or the audience from hearing them. The fact that hecklers were present and able to voice their dissenting opinions, albeit disruptively, suggests that there is at least some degree of diversity of views on campus. This diversity is a cornerstone of free speech, even when it manifests in challenging or uncomfortable ways.
The article goes into some depth describing what constitutes a deplatforming event, including shouting down an in-progress event, rescinding an offer to speak, etc.
While the article may detail various forms of deplatforming events, such as shouting down speakers or rescinding speaking invitations, these actions, while disruptive, do not inherently pose a significant threat to free speech.
Another thing to note... Freedom of speech guarantees individuals the right to express their opinions, but it does not guarantee them a platform or audience. Institutions have the prerogative to manage their events and platforms to ensure productive discourse while also maintaining safety and order.
I do wish the author defined what it meant. Heckling? Pushback? Public calls for firing?
Without clarity, it becomes a word that the audience is invited to read their own interpretation into. When this happens, the article serves the purpose of indoctrination rather than persuasion. This is because the audience now self-limits to people who already believe deplatforming poises the threat described in the article.
I agree. They're quoting 75 deplatforming attempts in the recent year; that is not very many. Is there a list of the things that were said to cause these attempts?
Software engineers using tools like ChatGPT isn't really about trying to game the system. It's more about how out-of-touch the old-school job application process feels. We really just want to make things easier on ourselves. We're in a time where we're all about automating the boring stuff. Why? Because we can. The whole idea of writing a cover letter feels ancient. Honestly, when I'm shooting out a ton of job applications, it's a total drag to whip up a special cover letter for each one. Most of us are just trying to find a gig that matches what we can do and what we want to do. But nope, we gotta jump through all these hoops and write these fancy stories, even if no one's really reading them.
The author is talking about a fairly “classic” approach. I was a hiring manager for a long time, and had a similar (but more flexible) worldview. It may not age well.
I personally think that being able to leverage AI tools will be an important skillset, in the future, and would not disqualify AI submissions, right off the bat (but maybe not consider them a “leg up,” either). They will just be part of the landscape, going forward. A lot of “classic” résumé advice isn’t really much better than what ChatGPT will provide, anyway. For example, he rails against “Buzzword Bingo.” I hate that, too, but it is also a “classic” CV technique, and many professional submissions will be absolutely packed with jargon.
I just think that there isn’t any way to avoid having to dedicate some real time and effort to screening applicants. In my case, it was something that I took very seriously. I had to fight like crazy to get headcount, and I was hiring pretty high-functioning people for a small, rather “elite” team. I really can’t relate to having to sort through hundreds of CVs of folks right out of school.
The problem is that there are two types of roles you need to fill. The first type is the role where you need the best you can get, it is worth passing on good candidates to try to get the great ones.
The second type are the roles where you just need someone that passes the minimum bar, good enough will do.
Problem is, everyone thinks that their role, their company, can only operate with the first type, where really most of them are the second type.
To me, a good cover letter is about being actually motivated to apply to a specific job and then simply explaining why.
AI doesn’t help because if you can articulate your genuine motivation as a prompt for an AI, you should just use the prompt as the cover letter which will be a lot more effective than using the AI-generated letter, as the AI will muddy your authentic motivation and diminish its impact.
> To me, a good cover letter is about being actually motivated to apply to a specific job and then simply explaining why.
Money. I want money. That's the reason I am applying to your job offer. I found a job offer that meets my skillset and I applied to it because I want an income.
But this isn't what you expect me to write, is it? You want something more, so I'm going to bullshit you so I can get the job that will allow me to get money
Ok. If you can explain in a little more detail how you get the job done and what qualifies your assessment of the relative efficiency, then you probably have the basis of a decent cover letter.
Did anyone ever get hired by answering the question of "Why do you want to work for us?" with "Because I need a pay check"?
Because that's realistically like 80% of the motivation for most job/candidate pairings. In my case the remainder is usually like 15% "and it doesn't require selling my immortal soul to the devil" and 5% "your tech/problem is vaguely interesting".
Given the above, I feel like a typical cover letter is really an exercise in spin.
A cover letter is also supposed to explain why the company should want you to work for them. But this question isn't usually posed explicitly, which I guess is confusing for some people.
Also, almost no-one is motivated so purely by money that they are equally interested in all jobs that pay the same. You can probably think of some reason why you would want to work at company X as opposed to any other number of other companies that may be offering similarly-paying roles.
I don’t think the reason of “I already applied to all the better sounding ones, but they all ghosted me” is gonna win too many points either.
It really depends on the market. Sometimes there are great looking companies that you really would like to support because they somehow seem awesome to you. But you don’t always have that luxury.
> A cover letter is also supposed to explain why the company should want you to work for them.
For the generic cover letter that’s a reasonable thing to focus on. I’ve seen plenty of application forms that specifically ask the “why do you want to work for us” question (or even worse: “why do you want to work for us rather than our competitors?” which is even harder to answer, especially if it’s a tiny startup you’ve first heard of by reading their job post on LinkedIn).
>I don’t think the reason of “I already applied to all the better sounding ones, but they all ghosted me” is gonna win too many points either.
Not if you word it like that.
>I’ve seen plenty of application forms that specifically ask the “why do you want to work for us” question
That's what I'm saying. That's the formal question posed, but you can easily answer it by explaining why you'd be good at the role. "I want to work at X because I believe that I could make a significant contribution to Y given my Z skills".
Absolutely. While in an ideal world, everyone would love to land a job that perfectly aligns with their personal values and interests, the reality is different. The current market conditions are dictating a lot of our job search and choices in companies. A vast number of talented engineers are out of work due to circumstances beyond their control and applying for multiple jobs becomes less about passion and more about survival. While a personalized cover letter sounds great in theory, when you're trying to send out dozens of applications to ensure you can keep the lights on the idealism takes a backseat to practicality.
> Honestly, when I'm shooting out a ton of job applications, it's a total drag to whip up a special cover letter for each one.
I've generally had more luck making a small number of applications with a short but carefully considered cover letter. It can just be a few sentences. Sometimes people think they need to spam applications because most of their applications are rejected; but in fact most of their applications are rejected because they're generic application spam.
A cover letter can be the least bullshitty part of an application (at least if you are applying to a small or medium sized company). You can truthfully explain why you are interested in the role and why you might be good at it.
That's so dumb. Dismissing applications based on the tools used rather than the content and qualifications is a missed opportunity. The goal should be to evaluate the substance and authenticity of an application, not to play "guess if it's AI-assisted or not." There's real talent out there looking for opportunities, and they might just be using AI to help navigate a convoluted application process.
You know job applications aren't checkboxes that need to be filled, but an opportunity to promote yourself? Sending in a cover letter that's obviously AI generated gives an employer so many negative signals about you. A good cover letter could be a single sentence, yet you choose to spam us with crap that says nothing about you? Are you struggling to say why we should hire you, or are you just stupid? Into the trash.
For example, from the cited database:
> As Clinton was speaking a heckler began shouting over her calling her a "war criminal." The school's dean had the heckler escorted out by security. A second heckler then began to shout over Clinton. Clinton paused her speech for a minute before resuming and completing her remarks.
The incident involving hecklers disrupting Hillary Clinton's speech, while undoubtedly disruptive, it's an exaggeration to say this is a threat to free speech. In no way does this indicate a systematic suppression of free speech across the campus or broader community. It's an isolated incident rather than a widespread phenomenon. The dean's decision to have the hecklers escorted out by security demonstrates an attempt to address the disruption while allowing the speaker to continue. It's a measured response aimed at maintaining order rather than outright censorship. Despite the interruption, Clinton was able to resume her speech and complete her remarks. This indicates that the disruption, while disruptive, did not prevent the speaker from expressing her views or the audience from hearing them. The fact that hecklers were present and able to voice their dissenting opinions, albeit disruptively, suggests that there is at least some degree of diversity of views on campus. This diversity is a cornerstone of free speech, even when it manifests in challenging or uncomfortable ways.