Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Circle Skewers Google, Facebook, Twitter

Soulskill posted 1 year,25 days | from the ripe-targets dept.

Books 56

theodp writes "This week's NY Times Magazine cover story, We Like You So Much and Want to Know You Better, is an adaptation from The Circle, the soon-to-be-published novel by Dave Eggers which tells the tale of Mae Holland, a young woman who goes to work at an omnipotent technology company and gets sucked into a corporate culture that knows no distinction between work and life, public and private. The WSJ calls it a The Jungle for our own times. And while Eggers insists he wasn't thinking of any one particular company, the NYT excerpt evokes memories of Larry Page's you-will-be-social edict and suggests what the end-game for Google Glass might look like."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And this is surprising? (4, Insightful)

segin (883667) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982335)

Social media breeds the lifestyle where privacy is just putting clothes on; all else is fair game. Although, I do use Facebook and Google+ myself, I'm careful what I post

Re:And this is surprising? (1)

segin (883667) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982347)

Sorry, a culture, not "the lifestyle".

Re:And this is surprising? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982389)

A "lifestyle" of undeservedly vain and attention-hungry pleas consisting of banal, vapid, and meaningless drivel on a stage of everybody chattering and nobody listening. Those of you who participate in social media (personally, as opposed to having to do it for P.R. gig at work) are indeed sad, desperate, and even masochistic...or just dumb. Hey everybody, look at me! Validate me, respond to my pictures and comments and tell me what an interesting person I am! Tell me I am good-looking and that my fat ugly girlfriend and I are cute together! Please? Pretty-pleeeease? :3

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:And this is surprising? (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982467)

Watch the mod army attack this with knives.... They have to, it hits too close to home.

Mod parent up! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982497)

Hi, Ethanol-fueled! I like your comment and find it interesting!

Re:And this is surprising? (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982713)

Validate me, respond to my pictures and comments and tell me what an interesting person I am

Something like habitual Slashdot posters, except w/ less pedantry and "look at me, I'm so smart".

Re:And this is surprising? (1)

dbIII (701233) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982863)

That's an extreme. At the other Slashdot is also social media. Back when I was reading facebook some people were using that in a similar way to this place in addition to the occasional attention seeker that spammed the news feed.
To an extent for a lot of people it's just replaces an email list to send photos to.

Re:And this is surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983161)

Slashdot is social media, so this is a cry for help....I guess?

Re:And this is surprising? (2)

Nikhil Mahajan (3018943) | 1 year,25 days | (#44983291)

A "lifestyle" of undeservedly vain and attention-hungry pleas consisting of banal, vapid, and meaningless drivel on a stage of everybody chattering and nobody listening. Those of you who participate in social media (personally, as opposed to having to do it for P.R. gig at work) are indeed sad, desperate, and even masochistic...or just dumb. Hey everybody, look at me! Validate me, respond to my pictures and comments and tell me what an interesting person I am! Tell me I am good-looking and that my fat ugly girlfriend and I are cute together! Please? Pretty-pleeeease? :3

-- Ethanol-fueled

Talk about over simplification. :)

Re:And this is surprising? (1)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,24 days | (#44985203)

Validate me, respond to my pictures and comments and tell me what an interesting person I am!

You are.

Re:And this is surprising? (5, Informative)

BitterOak (537666) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982383)

Social media breeds the lifestyle where privacy is just putting clothes on; all else is fair game. Although, I do use Facebook and Google+ myself, I'm careful what I post

You'd better be careful about what others post about you as well. Simply having an account allows you to be tagged. Right now, Facebook allows you to disallow those tags, but that policy could change at any time. Frankly, it's safest not to have a Facebook account at all if you care about privacy.

Re:And this is surprising? (3, Informative)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982561)

Not having an account (as in never ever signing up for one) is no protection either.

There is bound to be some person who chooses to use FaceBook as their address book, so facebook will end up knowing everything about you soon enough.

Re:And this is surprising? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982573)

In fact, they have shadow accounts of people even if they aren't signed up.

Re:And this is surprising? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | 1 year,23 days | (#44992355)

You'd better be careful about what others post about you as well. Simply having an account allows you to be tagged. Right now, Facebook allows you to disallow those tags, but that policy could change at any time. Frankly, it's safest not to have a Facebook account at all if you care about privacy.

Actually, if you DON'T have an account you can still be tagged. In fact, unless you have an account, you can't even deny the tags. (Nevermind shadow accounts).

No one said you have to be on Facebook, G+ or LinkedIn all the time. You can have a basic page and put up basically nothing - any information you put up there, you do it voluntarily, no matter how much Facebook or Google or whatever encourage you to add.

I don't post my daily life and statuses on my FB page, nor on G+. If I wanted to write about my life, I use a diary like we have for years. If I wanted it public, I'd write it on a blog I host.

Re:And this is surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982571)

I've never been careful about what I've posted to Facebook, and judging by what it looks like on the handful of times I've had the misfortune to visit without a pop-up blocker, they still know absolutely nothing about me.

Me: So I've got Star Trek on Blu-Ray now.
Facebook: Meet hot single women in your area!

Me: I like this picture of craft beer that my friend posted.
Facebook: Check your credit score now!

Me: I'm going to the lake with my camera, anyone want to join me?
Facebook: These are great Flash games, you should play them!

I'm very disappointed with Facebook's ability to pry into my personal life. ELIZA was better at it than this.

Becoming the norm. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982585)

Unfortunately, not having some sort of public profile is becoming a detriment.

I was at a job fair and I was told by the recruiter for IT that I needed a LinkedIN profile because they did all their recruiting their. First, I restrained myself from asking, "WTF are you doing here , then?!"

I responded that I'm uncomfortable with social media.

He responded that LinkedIN is nothing like Facebook where you have people posting on your page.

He didn't get the whole privacy concerns.

I went home, gritted my teeth and created my LinkedIN profile. And now, a very large portion of my life is up there - our working life is the largest and a very important aspect of our lives, after all. And considering how judgmental, cruel and snobbish employers are (I worked for a while as a minimum wage laborer during the hardest time during the meltdown) and the fact an electronic profile gives no indication of my personality (and no opportunity to address someone's concerns about something), I am afraid I am probably going to end up back as a laborer - a very well educated laborer.

Things are all automated and depersonalized now. You have machines making the decisions and people trusting the machines. We are turning into a dystopian "future" that'd make a Nebula Award jealous.

Re:Becoming the norm. (3, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982761)

You have machines making the decisions and people trusting the machines.

The disease originated with MBA's and mindless bureaucrats, but has now become an epidemic. People who confuse mindless, only occasionally correct and rarely useful correlations, or figures of merit based on formulas drawn from someone's unwashed posterior, with actual judgments of reality. Interestingly, it's often technical people who are most skeptical of these things. Actually understanding the technology will do that.

Re:Becoming the norm. (2, Interesting)

blue trane (110704) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982817)

Solution: free people from the necessity of getting a job and working for an ignorant boss. Vote for government to provide a basic income to anyone who asks, and stimulate the natural creative instinct with challenges. The focus should be on the advance of knowledge, not "any job is a good job". With free MOOCs and the ability to collaborate in an ad-hoc way through the unprecedented communication tool that the internet provides, it is no longer necessary for individuals to work for a company to contribute.

Re: Becoming the norm. (2)

JWW (79176) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982935)

Whenever I hear about "basic income" sort of plans, I really wonder how many people will be able to live the quiet small happy life that money would be intended to afford or how many would scream at the world because it's "not enough".

Re: Becoming the norm. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983489)

I wonder if you're intellectually honest enough to realize that people who strive to have all the money in the world always suffer from that "not enough" syndrome. And yet there are powerful forces in the world convincing people who literally have nothing to give up everything they could possibly acquire to these nebulous people. Sadly, they are quite successful, as you have so prominently displayed.

Re: Becoming the norm. (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | 1 year,24 days | (#44986149)

And the smug marrieds woudl want their tax breaks for their rugrats.

Re:Becoming the norm. (5, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | 1 year,25 days | (#44984571)

And then about ten minutes after that, vote for an increase in the free money. And then another increase, because after all we are in the majority now. Then democracy collapses once the masses have learned they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. Great plan you have there.

Re:Becoming the norm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,24 days | (#44986903)

And then about ten minutes after that, vote for an increase in the free money. And then another increase, because after all we are in the majority now. Then democracy collapses once the masses have learned they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. Great plan you have there.

We'd have to vote for it? We can't just do like the banksters do and stick out our hands and say "gimme?"

Socialism for the haves, capitalism for the have-nots — great system we've got here.

Re:Becoming the norm. (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | 1 year,23 days | (#44992463)

Solution: free people from the necessity of getting a job and working for an ignorant boss. Vote for government to provide a basic income to anyone who asks, and stimulate the natural creative instinct with challenges. The focus should be on the advance of knowledge, not "any job is a good job". With free MOOCs and the ability to collaborate in an ad-hoc way through the unprecedented communication tool that the internet provides, it is no longer necessary for individuals to work for a company to contribute.

The problem is your suggestion suffers from the ills of communism and the free market. And not ills of communism like red fever or "it's not democracy", but real problems exposed by communism.

The first is that it denies the fact that humans are not equal - some really are better than others. If I'm a brilliant artist, but I can't seem to hold down a good job (letting me do my art my way - or whatever), then I'm going to get the same money as the bum who can barely draw a stick figure.

Then the next stage will be people who perhaps see themselves as "more important" should start demanding that they get a bit more basic income because they contribute more. E.g., the engineer who designs a bridge on basic income (and thus makes people's lives easier) vs. me, the artist. Who deserves more?

And then we end up just like Animal House.

It also ignores another reality - humans are lazy. It's why we invented automation, tools, computers and other things - to have them do stuff we don't want to do. This proposal has the potential to turn into a bunch of people just living off "basic income" to do nothing but sit down and watch TV all day. People get extremely dependent on stuff like this as evidenced in the real world today.

The truth is, the free market sucks, as does communism (as an economic model). We've not come up with any alternative that doesn't have problems of one or the other, or both. It's just like how democracy sucks (ask someone in the minority about the tyranny of the majority), as does communism (as a political system). We've not come up with any form of economic or political model that's better, and we've been trying for thousands of years to figure it out.

Re:Becoming the norm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982889)

So you have some valid concerns about using LinkedIn. Then you find one employer who recruits using LinkedIn and not only do you still want to work for them but you throw out your principles and join LinkedIn anyway?

I think I see the problem here, and it's not social media.

Re:Becoming the norm. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982945)

I was at a job fair and I was told by the recruiter for IT that I needed a LinkedIN profile because they did all their recruiting their.

Your mistake was not telling the recruiter to take LinkedIn and shove it up his ass.

Any company worth a damn doesn't use crap like LinkedIn for anything which matters.

Re:Becoming the norm. (2)

605dave (722736) | 1 year,25 days | (#44984793)

Actually that is not the case. I just started working on a project with several very well regarded tech firms in SF, and they all said the same thing about LinkedIn. If you don't have a profile, you don't exist. Not saying I like that, or want it that way. But trust me, companies that matter do use LinkedIn whether we like it or not.

You wish (1)

jotaeleemeese (303437) | 1 year,22 days | (#45001937)

The only solid leads I got last time I was looking for a job and actually lead to interviews came all via Linkedin.

The traditional job boards were pretty useless.

You may not wish it so, but not having Linkedin is becoming a liability for people looking for a job.

Re:Becoming the norm. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982969)

Unfortunately, not having some sort of public profile is becoming a detriment.

I was at a job fair and I was told by the recruiter for IT that I needed a LinkedIN profile because they did all their recruiting their. First, I restrained myself from asking, "WTF are you doing here , then?!"

Nice English you fucking faggot.

Re:Becoming the norm. (1)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,24 days | (#44985243)

Things are all automated and depersonalized now. You have machines making the decisions and people trusting the machines. We are turning into a dystopian "future" that'd make a Nebula Award jealous.

No. All it means is that your personality - your ability to charm people - is taken out of equation. Which is bad for those who have charisma and good for those who don't. There's nothing "dystopian" in evaluating potential employees solely based on their education and work history, and ignoring how smooth talkers they might be in person. If anything, it could be argued to be fairer than letting the recruiters personal biases affect the process.

Re:And this is surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982741)

I do use Facebook and Google+ myself, I'm careful what I post

I'm not sure whether your post is genuine or whether it is
designed to dupe others into feeling more comfortable
using social media. If your post is genuine you are pretty much
clueless about how this stuff is really used by the forces which
are not your friends.

The data which matters more is data you cannot control,
which links you to other people, places, events, avocations,
relationships, tastes, etc.

There is no "safe" way to use stuff like Facebook or Google+.
Not using them is by no means a panacea, but it is at least
a start on limiting the links which define you as a person.

What is puzzling about all this is that it is entirely possible to
have a very nice life without using any of this social network stuff.
You should try it, it worked for thousands of years for millions of people,
and it worked very nicely.

Re:And this is surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983121)

What is puzzling about all this is that it is entirely possible to
write a very nice comment on a computer without using the enter key.
You should try it, it worked for dozens of years for millions of people,
and it worked very nicely.

Re:And this is surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983311)

it worked for thousands of years for millions of people,

This is the stupidest, worst argument possible for anything. Humanity has survived for thousands of years, so we don't need anything new ever? Humanity survived by knapping stone tools, so you don't need to be using a computer connected to the internet. If something is bad, make an argument for why it is bad. Making the argument "we never needed it before" just makes you an old man yelling at the clouds.

Re:And this is surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983713)

it worked for thousands of years for millions of people,

This is the stupidest, worst argument possible for anything. .

You missed the point, Mister Knowitall. The point is not that Facebook is "bad" because it is
new. The point is that Facebook is a new way of doing things which used to be done
in other ways a few decades ago, and that the old ways don't have nearly the possible
sinister aspects that the new way ( Facebook ) does. If you are too stupid to understand that putting
a bunch of info about yourself and your friends on the web might have unfortunate unintended
consequences at a later time, that's YOUR problem. It's not my responsibility
to explain to you why something might be a bad idea. Go ahead and stick your hand
in the fire, and when you get burned, remember it was you who made the decision to stick your hand in the fire and accept responsibility for your own actions.

Anyone who has the ability to reason understands why Facebook or Google+ or
other similar social network stuff may have both good sides and bad sides. Newness
doesn't make it bad or good. What makes it questionable is that once the information is out
in the world you will NEVER EVER be able to erase it or recall it. That is a relatively new
thing, which in the past ( unless someone was deliberately compiling a dossier on a person )
did not happen with nearly the same degree of ease or detail. If you believe that compiling
a dossier on yourself and your family and friends is something that could never cause a problem
later, you are a fool.

I like this book about Google better? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982447)

A Segway was a two-wheeled, self-balancing, fission powered trailer dolly designed to scoot citizens around in a manner that was fast and space efficient. The base of a Segway was a sleekly designed compact encasing for a thousand server farms; an all powerful Beowulf cluster of computing intelligence branded the Personal Googleplex. An antenna ran from the base up through the Segway's control shaft broadcasting an encrypted WiFi signal to a single human brain. This one-to-one connection was "mindspace" and allowed access to all the features of contemporary adulthood. Segways in the future were actually Google Glass that got bigger. Hence their slogan: A Segway for your face.

Maser Chef Replicator Wars [pressbooks.com]

The Bay Area is becoming Snow Crash already (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982485)

I see so many people walking around with their noses in their devices. On the same walk I pass homeless guys passing joints on the lawn of the bank. It makes me think more of Snow Crash than the Jungle. Is the whole country like this, or is Redwood City and the Bay Are in general just really Snow Crashy?

Re:The Bay Area is becoming Snow Crash already (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982579)

You can have you "nose in your device" for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with social media.
News, maps, or where to find a good Latte, or maybe reading some relatively obscure novel.

This story isn't about devices.

Re:The Bay Area is becoming Snow Crash already (2)

605dave (722736) | 1 year,25 days | (#44984813)

I like to point this out too. Before digital technology people were criticized for being "bookworms", or if you were reading in public you had your "nose stuck in a book".

I also remember my family each taking a section of the newspaper and reading it, sometimes pointing out articles to each other. It was great. And it is no different than me reading my iPad while my son reads his.

So in some ways not much has changed.

Re:The Bay Area is becoming Snow Crash already (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982721)

I live in Texas, my brother has livestock. He posted a pic to twitter from the back of his horse. Being born in the 80's I've heavily documented recounting of many personal tales of the 50s, 60s and 70s. I will hold onto them for a while, and let the next generation mature. To the cyber-punks it will be a surreal novel about the unthinkable practice of living without your head in another's digital ass.

Re:The Bay Area is becoming Snow Crash already (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44982731)

No, the whole country is not like that.

again? (2)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982635)

ahhh yes another story about over-reaching corporate/government culture invading the private inner sanctums of our lives...how predictable...the song remains the same only the names change.

i mean, really now, how many times over the past 80 years has this story been written?

the real story here isn't that huge entities want to know/control all aspects of things, but the overall acceptance is this culture in society...i know lots of friends who think all this geo-twit blog diarrhea is great fun. but imo they all live carefully constructed lives where they see threats everywhere, just as corporations and governments do, and fear the unknown.

i don't live a carefully constructed life...i just live.

Re:again? (5, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982711)

Hey, watch it. This is Dave Eggers we're talking about. Dave fucking Eggers. Every time he sets his pen to paper, the entire staff of The New Yorker looks up from their screens and stops typing, just watching in stunned awe. Scientists have shown that each David Eggers book of the last 20 years has raised the collective IQ of the entire United States by an average of 6.2 points, even among people who had their friends tell them about it but never actually read it themselves. Another study showed that just holding a Dave Eggers book in your hand so that the cover is visible makes you 14 percent more attractive than conspicuously reading The New York Times Review of Books on the subway. I did my master's thesis on the electromagnetic properties of Dave Eggers (in places with low EMF interference, people have actually reported that their fillings started picking up signals from NPR when Eggers is around) and I can assure you, this man is a blessing upon the literary world no less significant than the Christ-child, and you are not fit to shine his shoes.

Re:again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983043)

Doctor or Mr. Doris Haggis-On-Whey [mcsweeneys.net] , is that you?

Yeah except... (5, Insightful)

sanitycrumbling (956413) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982701)

The Jungle is still happening in real life, in real factories. Maybe not here in the USA, but in many other places. It's sort of offensive / ridiculous to compare the two. "No work life balance while making $125,000 a year" is not the same as sweatshop slave labor, and it's silly to compare the two.

Re:Yeah except... (0)

blue trane (110704) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982845)

Not to mention the slaughter and mistreatment of animals.

Re:Yeah except... (2)

foniksonik (573572) | 1 year,25 days | (#44983647)

#firstworldproblems

Situation normal for badly managed US companies (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982843)

knows no distinction between work and life, public and private

It's about time that somebody called attention to "we own you" management that want full on slavery but with less responsibility to the slaves than the old fashioned kind. All that shit like making employees wear recording devices and sacking them for what they get up to in private after the Christmas party (getting rid of the women and not the men - assigning the blame Taliban style), really needs to be brought out into the sunshine. Ordinary office or sales employees shouldn't have to put up with the sort of control that people in the military know to expect and get something in return for that loss of liberty.

Re:Situation normal for badly managed US companies (1)

DogDude (805747) | 1 year,25 days | (#44982985)

Since we don't have "full on slavery", everybody who submits to whatever kind of insanity you're describing is doing so willingly.

Re:Situation normal for badly managed US companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983619)

Stop blaming the victims; let me give you three quick problems with that attitude.

1. Have you looked at the economy lately? I know a number of people whose attitude is well described as "Any job is a good job". I probably would have agreed with you before the housing market went "pop", but there are too many desperate people out there. Past the crappy economy, there's also lots of other reasons (financial obligations, moving, health concerns, etc) that people might have for not switching jobs.

2. You presume that people would do their research before signing on with a company. Sure, there are sites out there on the web to get an insider's perspective, and it's (part of) what you are supposed to be doing in an interview ... but laziness is a near universal human constant. Even if the research was done, and everything came up smelling of roses, a change in management could introduce these problems.

3. I've met a few people who argue that this sort of monitoring is helpful to them, because they don't cause problems and the monitoring will give them an ironclad alibi against any complaint. (Which sounds great on paper, until the records "mysteriously failed" to record the event in question. The system really only serves whomever holds the power switch.)

Re:Situation normal for badly managed US companies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983853)

I have not done a single mistake managing my own money. However, I'm forced to submit to insanity to pay for my parents' debts. If not, my "life" would be even worse than now.

And the captcha is "beloved"...how sweet.

Re:Situation normal for badly managed US companies (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | 1 year,25 days | (#44984169)

Full on slavery didn't have any responsibility towards the slaves. The little concessions the slaves got, if at all, were given only because it made economic sense (eg room and board, because it makes sense to keep slaves alive and in good health, so they can, you know, work for free and all).

Re:Situation normal for badly managed US companies (3, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | 1 year,25 days | (#44984247)

That is exactly what I was referring to - the dregs of American management appear to have a fantasy of a slave workforce that they do not need to feed or house. That becomes especially clear when they are working in other nations where US law does not apply and they try to apply conditions considered unacceptable everywhere because they think they can get away with it. Perhaps the US is exporting these clowns because they are useless at home, or perhaps at home they have adult supervision and something resembling respect for the law or at least fear of it.
While the vast majority of the US has got over slavery there's still those holdouts that create such poisonous workplaces that would be even worse if they could get away with it.

test (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983107)

test

Omnipotent (1)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,25 days | (#44983187)

an omnipotent technology company

God is hiring?

True dat (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,25 days | (#44983657)

The government spying scandal has made some people think about whether social networking is even ethical e.g. link [comcast.net] .

Another politically motivated fiction (2)

dumky2 (2610695) | 1 year,24 days | (#44987899)

But was The Jungle anywhere close to true? It does not seem so.


Instead, some of these same historians dwell on the Neill-Reynolds Report of the same year because it at least tentatively supported Sinclair. It turns out that neither Neill nor Reynolds had any experience in the meatpacking business and spent a grand total of two and one-half weeks in the spring of 1906 investigating and preparing what turned out to be a carelessly-written report with preconceived conclusions. Gabriel Kolko, a socialist but nonetheless an historian with a respect for facts, dismisses Sinclair as a propagandist and assails Neill and Reynolds as “two inexperienced Washington bureaucrats who freely admitted they knew nothing”8 of the meatpacking process. Their own subsequent testimony revealed that they had gone to Chicago with the intention of finding fault with industry practices so as to get a new inspection law passed.9
9. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Agriculture, Hearings on the So-called “Beveridge Amendment” to the Agriculture Appropriation Bill, 59th Congress, 1st Session, 1906, p. 102
Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/ideas-and-consequences-of-meat-and-myth#ixzz2gK8kSBB9 [fee.org]

“The Jungle” is a pure work of fiction. It has absolutely no basis in reality. A 1906 report by the Bureau of Animal Industry refuted Sinclair’s severest allegations, characterizing them as “intentionally misleading and false,” “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,” and “utter absurdity.” Quoting Mr. Crumpacker on Sinclair’s allegations of diseased meats, “the chief inspector said there was not a single animal that went into the slaughterhouses that was not inspected before it went on foot; and if one was diseased, had a lumpy jaw, or appeared to be out of condition, he was separated, and then a skilled veterinarian made a thorough examination of that animal after the rest had been passed; and then they had inspection on the inside.”
Read more at http://www.libertariannews.org/2010/09/17/meat-packers-rape-you-and-you-love-it/ [libertariannews.org]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?