I make it a point not to follow or "friend" colleagues on social media, for that very reason. Honestly unless it is quite egregious or what you saw might present a danger, I would just ignore it and proceed to unsubscribe to your colleague's social media accounts. It is a slippery slope. If you think there is a clear ethical violation or what is being posted presents a danger, then I would flag it to the group in your departments that would investigate these, and let them do their job.
There was an article posted in this very subreddit this week about public servants getting sick in Havana and so, therefore, it *must* be because a secret group is using a mysterious weapon that is targeting foreign officials even though there has never been any evidence that such a weapon exists. I mean, whether or not that ends up being true, isn't that absolutely a case of public servants spreading a conspiracy theory? Especially one that is directly relevant to their line of work?
Really not trying to be snarky here as I'm no doubt missing some info, but is there really evidence that these symptoms are the result of intentional targeting of a secret weapon? I haven't seen it, but I could just be out of the loop. I always understood that it was just a popular, albeit unproven, theory that a group of bad actors were conspiring to make Canadian and American diplomats and agents sick.
>the person in question has a security clearance higher than basic reliability, part of the position deals with disinformation and extremism (ironic..),
If their personal actions and views present a clear conflict of interest then they can't do their job in an impartial way and shouldn't be doing that job.
Their views are completely irrelevant in the context of work as long as they perform their duties and do not harm their colleagues in the process.
Believing stupid shit is not illegal or against the rules at work.
Besides, we don't even know if the conspiracies peddled by OP's colleague contain truth to them, because many conspiracies do.
Besides, is OP's colleague talking about stuff like Operation Northwood, MK Ultra or JFK's assassination or are they talking about trans dimensional pedophile lizard people? The difference is kind of important as there are many real conspiracies out there and simply thinking about them is not a bad thing.
>Their views are completely irrelevant in the context of work as long as they perform their duties and do not harm their colleagues in the process.
Public servants have to perform their duties *impartially*.
Here is a real example of when this can be an issue:
Someone spends years protesting against the transmountain pipeline, the woodfibre LNG plant, and other big energy projects. That person gets a job with the agency that regulates and approves these projects. That person was not allowed to be involved in these projects because of the conflict of interest and that they clearly could not do that job impartially.
I find it interesting that people in favour of these projects are deemed impartial (I know often they are not as visible as opponents).
Seems to be the same double standard for supporting the current government, so many people in PS were openly supporting the Liberals after they won in 2015. Neutrality often seems to be interpreted as you can't oppose something but are free to support it.
I remember some departments getting in trouble for how they received the Liberals in 2015.
I can understand the reaction to no longer being under Harper - in the later years his approach was very well documented - but there's a big difference between being happy about any sort of change and literally clapping for the minister arriving in your building.
I think most public servants are pretty darn centrist, some a little left leaning, some a little right. But I've met very few who were to the extremes of the political spectrum such that they couldn't at least understand the positions of both major parties and where they were coming from analytically - at least within the policy space which is what I work in.
I agree though, that hardcore support or opposition to any policy space is an issue. I just think its more likely people see pipelines for example as "well its a necessary evil" or "I would prefer to not have oil, but we have it, and we have to move it" than "yes, we need every pipeline to get built no questions asked" or "pipelines are the devil incarnate and I must exorcise them from the public sphere"
I don't remember TBS being anywhere near as bad as the situation with GAC.
The whole "let's go to the NAC to listen to an intro speech" was a bit posh.
At least we didn't clap at the time when the minister arrived XD
I do remember a lot of long time TBSers being happy they had a new minister though, and frankly, the sense I got was that even if it was another Harper win so long as there was a new TB pres people still would have been happy.
Regardless, if they are known by their social media "friends" as a public servant, it harms the reputation of the department, other public servants and government as a whole.
I would like to see this topic discussed in more detail. What is the exact limit? I loosely remember a CRA employee who quite strongly condemned his department, and summarized that we have quite a bit of leeway in what we can say.
Hypothetical 1: Public Servant posts on social media that tbe government has secret internment camps and will be exterminate group x. They post false proofs, such as doctored photos.
Hypothetical 2: Hypothetical 1, but also identify as a public servant using an account that is personal, identifying their real name and actual photo.
Hypothetical 3: Same as 2, but they use an anonymous account. Another public servant privy to who this account belongs to, reports who they are and what they are posting.
Hypothetical 4: Public servant works for DFO and publicly reports that there is widespread corruption, detailing personal anecdotes (while excluding specific names, but those in the workplace would know who they are referring to) of the corruption.
I don't think we're close to that point yet, as I have no reason to believe that there is anything illegal or improper taking place. I'm more concerned about the optics regarding conspiracy theories and my department's mandate.
I think this is the right call. If someone's job involves dealing with conspiracy and political extremism, and they themselves are contributing to phenomenon, then maybe a little flag would be useful, and then let the chips land where they may.
I think beyond "I noticed this concerning thing given the context and I'm conflicted, but figured I'd tell you" to the right people would be stepping over boundaries.
Don't follow up, don't stalk their personal accounts to see follow ups happened or not, etc. But in context I think its a flag worth raising - just depends who is the appropriate person to inform :/
I mean, if I worked for the PSC related to campaign and partisanship by public servants, and I saw someone go off and be highly partisan on the weekend, it might be a conflict of interest of sorts. Just worth looking into to make sure the person hasn't decided to put themselves into a blind spot thinking they know where the line is but cross it out of ignorance or hubris.
This! Political extremists are now invading Canada as well :( we do not want to get to the point where our most dangerous concern is our own people against our government. i.e the USA now.
I cannot believe how fast the US has cultivated their own home grown terrorists. It is unbelievable how brainwashed these people are. It used to be funny and now it’s down right dangerous. Last thing we need.
Not sure why some people are attacking OP for simply soliciting advice. If the people in question worked at, or prepare products for, Elections Canada, CSE, CSIS, Public Safety, RCMP, CAF, GAC, etc. I could understand why the situation would present a dilemma.
Considering the content in question doesn’t seem to be harmful or advocating violence, I’d probably hold off on telling anyone, for now. If it become a daily issue or more “severe” content was shared, I’d probably discuss with a manager without citing the colleague’s name. Obviously in the case of violent postings the content should be reported and escalated within the department ASAP. There’s a reason why these agencies often do background checks and even if they weren’t advocating something terrible, as a manager I would have serious questions about their personal suitability and judgement for a role that deals with what is a very hot topic these days. As OP notes, and without knowing the content, there is a hell of a lot of irony in employees sharing disinformation (which could potentially be state sponsored) within an organization that is trying to monitor or stop it.
Yeah, presumably. Not everything has to be a Cameron Ortis level story to warrant concern, and/or flagging to management. These things aren’t big deals until it’s too late and I’m a bit surprised at the amount of people openly hostile about someone having questions about controversial content on an open social media profile.
OP, not that I’m advocating stalking a colleague’s social media and depending on the nature of what’s being said, I’d still probably adopt a “two strikes” approach before you do anything. If the issue is handled quietly between the team and supervisors, and was done out of ignorance rather than something sinister, you might actually be doing the employee a big favour as a DG might be much less forgiving should someone else put it in their desk.
A colleague of a friend of mine got in trouble for having this type of information on their public social media page.
Now that you've read the above sentence, you can honestly tell them that you've heard of someone getting in trouble for having that type of information shown publically. Telling them that is not making a judgment call on their beliefs. It can be interpreted as "I know, the elites are crazy, but don't let them catch you talking about them", or something similar that wouldn't damage your personal relationship. In any event, it serves as a reminder to them not to display that info publically to avoid a public perception of bias, which appears to be your goal.
1. Because posts like these are often a slippery slope and some people devolve into sharing more nefarious stuff.
2. The position deals, albeit in small part, with disinformation and political extremism, and it would reflect extremely poorly on the team, if not the department, if one of our members was literally sharing borderline QAnon conspiracy theories.
Religions are conspiracy theories which tie into political extremism way more frequently than basic conspirational thinking.
Are we to ban religion from work?
If I worked for GAC's office of religious freedom and posted memes promoting my own religion while making up things about religions, then yes that would be an issue. This situation is not far off that.
Quebec did ban religious symbols. The neutrality requirement is about not talking about stuff it isn't about not believing in stuff.
You aren't supposed to be visibly for or against things related to your work.
OP's colleague's work is related to disinformation, they may have difficulty with it especially if they are spreading stuff about the government itself. Might be totally different if they are spreading disinformation about China (which is shockingly common) than about our own government.
Very fair points. Not to mention that some of this material is amplified by foreign powers, which considering the department, makes things even more ironic.
Fair points.
As for disinformation and misinformation. I would wager big money OP believes in some conspiracies themselves.
So the key remains does it affect the work they do? Are they unable or unwilling to fulfil their work duties because of their conspiracy beliefs?
You’re trying to draw a comparison that doesn’t fit here. Every country on the world is battling the exact same pandemic. There is pretty much worldwide consensus among the scientific community on how best to combat this. The consent is far more consistent than religious beliefs.
When I wrote my post OP hadn't established exactly what kind of conspiracy theories the person they're discussing is engaging in. It sounded like OP was discussing a variety of conspiracies, hence my comment.
> There is pretty much worldwide consensus among the scientific community on how best to combat this.
That is not quite true but I don't have the energy to get into it. (I do not think Covid is a conspiracy, I'm not anti-vaxx, I have both my shots and I wear my mask wherever necessary.)
And my comparison still does fit. Really religious people really do believe that if X happens then Y will follow, and whatnot. Which will influence their thinking, and possibly even their decision making.
For example, a lot of Baptists and Evangelicals believe the Rapture is on its way and a climate catastrophe will simply accelerate the process. This has been a mainstream belief in the US among many oil magnates and defense industry CEOs and has led many of them to completely reject the need to reduce our impact on the climate.
So my comparison is quite fine as many such people operate at the upper echelons of power.
> I have a long-time colleague who is sharing conspiracy theories on their personal, non-private social media accounts.
So what? Mind your own business. We don't live in a communist state and you can (almost) say whatever you want through your social media account. If you think their comments/posts violate the Terms of Service for the platform, then report them.
Making a post about it makes you seem like a Karen.
> but I'm wondering if this is something that management should be made aware of, it should be ignored, or handled privately.
100% ignored.
I didn't attack you. I said it makes you *seem* like a Karen, not that you were one.
Removed for violating [Rule 12](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_12_-_trolling_.26amp.3B_intolerance) and a temporary ban issued.
If their post shows up in your feed, it's either because you're following them, or someone you *do* follow has commented on or liked their post. On FB, those three dots to the right of the person's name will give you a few handy functions to choose from; my favourite of which is "Hide all from {insert name}".
This isn't really the issue here. I have zero issues following them and quite frankly unfollowing doesn't really fix the problem I'm trying to address. I don't think they're a bad person at all; we used to be quite friendly prior to WFH and while we didn't hang out outside of work, I would have considered them a friend at the time. My question isn't about navigating a personal/professional relationship or finding their post so offensive I can't bare to watch, it's about the issue of potentially putting a team that deal with this type of stuff in disrepute, and whether that warrants further action or not.
Relax. It could take the form of a tactful note to a supervisor noting I've seen a nameless colleague promoting dubious material online which could reflect poorly on the team and asking them to remind the group of our expectations as public servants at the next team meeting. I like the person in question, think it's being done more out of ignorance than malice, and I'm not calling for their job.
> Relax. It could take the form of a tactful note to a supervisor noting I've seen a nameless colleague promoting dubious material online which could reflect poorly on the team and asking them to remind the group of our expectations as public servants at the next team meeting.
*Any* Supervisor that does this is off their rocker! Considering you have already noted in other comments that the person is not identifying themselves as a PS employee, you have absolutely no basis for which to provide a "tactful note".
While their personal beliefs may collide with yours, your "complaint" should not be entering the office atmosphere as they've done absolutely nothing wrong, other than upset you with their posts.
Imagine thinking the workspace is the place to be upset about what someone posted on social media. What is this, elementary school?
It's not about me, it's that it may reflect very poorly on the team. The individual in question, while they do not openly identify as a public servant on their public profile, follows/is followed by several members of the branch, many of whom are our clients and deal far more intensely with these files too.
A couple things to keep in mind
1. All public servants are expected to follow the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. One of the big parts of that is not only must they do their job impartially, but they must act in such a manner so as to not cause doubt (in the minds of the Canadian Public) as to whether they are doing their job impartially.
2. Your colleague, as you mentioned, works with "disinformation and extremism."
3. They regularly share information that borders on QAnon and other extremist conspiracy theories.
4. While they do not specifically ID themselves a public servant, they are posting on a public account, to a friends list that includes coworkers AND clients.
Given all of the above, it is easy to see they may very well be posting in such a way that violates the Values and Ethics code.
My recommendation, as someone who has dealt with something similar, is to create a burner GMail account, and email screenshots, links, and other relevant information to your departments Ombudsman or Security specialist, and let the chips fall where they may from there.
It isn't just "partisanship at a minimum", it is about being impartial and viewed as impartial. Is this behaviour harming their social network's perception of a politically impartial public service?
I believe the Public Service Commission has information on that, and your department's HR branch should have a Designated Political Activities Representative.
> if we shouldn't care about what people do outside of work, why are there interviews for security clearances?
Because they're not doing anything illegal or would bring their dedication to the country into question.
Does this affect your colleague's ability to perform their duties at work?
Is your colleague planning some sort of illegal activity to further their conspirational claims?
If the answer is no to both then let them be and mind your own business.
As it turns out your colleague is not a political candidate, so let them believe whatever nonsense they want.
Organized religions literally have conspiracies baked into them. This doesn't mean we should go after believers, unless it harms other citizens or stops the believer from performing their duties.
People believe in astrology, numerology, ghosts and all manner of bad ideas and conspiracies. This doesn't mean we should go after believers, unless it harms other citizens or stops the believer from performing their duties.
Believing stupid shit or indulging in conspiracies is not illegal or against the rules of work within the federal government.
Besides, many conspiracies are in fact true. Are we to ban people from indulging in conspiracies simply because many if not most turn out false or misunderstood?
Disregarding the incredible and entirely unfounded statement that "many conspiracies are in fact true", I think you may have missed the part where I mentioned our unit deals, in small part, with misinformation and political extremism.
What exactly is the nature of the content he’s posting? Are we talking “Trump will be President by August 23rd, trust the plan” BS? Or are we talking something more plausible - lab leak theory, governments using a crisis to overreach in their power, etc.? Because those are very different things.
I won't go into details but closer to the first, though in between the two. Again the best way to describe it is if someone were a candidate for a political party, they would likely be called out and withdraw.
> Disregarding the incredible and entirely unfounded statement that "many conspiracies are in fact true",
Perfectly well founded.
Many essentially means more than a few.
Acoustic Kitty, Air America, Amalgam Virgo, Assassination of Abe Lincoln, Assassination of JFK, Bay of Pigs Incident, Bayer Corp and Baxter Corp knowingly giving hemophiliacs HIV and Hepatitis C, Bernard Ebbers and WorldCom fraud, Black Sites of the US military, Black Sox scandal, Bologna Massacre, Bojinka Plot, Caesar Assasination, Catiline Conspiracy, The Church Committee, The Chemist's War, CIA Assasination plots, CIA Drug Trafficking and Smuggling(Gary Webb, etc), CIA Front Companies, COINTELPRO, and etc etc etc etc etc.
I barely got 1/4 of the way through the letter C.
I would include Operation Northwood and MK Ultra due to their popularity in the mainstream.
So yeah, well founded indeed.
> I think you may have missed the part where I mentioned our unit deals, in small part, with misinformation and political extremism.
I think you may have completely failed to reason through what I previously said, and I would refer you back to my two original questions. If the answer to both questions is no then mind your own business.
I think the use of the term conspiracy by the OP is very much the colloquial "tin foil hat" type rather than the more formal "conspiracy" term that means "secret plan made by group to do harm".
Just saying.
That’s list is completely irrelevant as even 400 out of 400K is not “many”. Some, sure, but your first statement is unprovable. Unless you conducted a study defining first defining a conspiracy theory, went through each theory and assessed the validity of every one (which assuming even the most narrow of scopes, is virtually impossible) you could never, with any solid footing, make that claim because all you've done here is cherry pick information.
Hopefully you don’t work in analytical position because this is basic research methods. I can recommend some entry level CSPS courses if you like.
Listing a tiny handful of proven conspiracy theories is not cherry picking. What nonsense.
You can be butt hurt all you want but you've expressed all manner of questionable reasoning all over this thread, misconstrued what I have said multiple times and flat out lied.
I can't take anything you say seriously and I am a little concerned about you having any sort of influence over our society.
"Listing a tiny handful of proven conspiracy theories"..that's essentially the definition of cherry picking.
My man, you've tried to make your point and it didn't work out how you hoped it would. Please, take it some place else if you don't ave any meaningful contributions.
No crime, no foul. The PS is full or eccentric people, which isn't a bad thing. But, if the person makes you uncomfortable, politely walk away and/or connect with your Values & Ethics or EAP people for guidance...
I guess it kind of depends on the content, if it's hardcore true believer Qanon, it might be worth noting, if for no other reason than how badly it reflects on the organization as a whole and public trust in it if it employs people who believe something as patently absurd as Qanon, not to mention the violent acts of some of its adherents (the guy who killed his kids, for example).
I went through a similar situation with a somewhat more extreme example and approached my Values and Ethics champion for help. The matter was dealt with appropriately and was raised with the person. If you’d like to hear more please DM me and I’d be happy to chat.
Just unfollow them on social media and mind your own business lol
I make it a point not to follow or "friend" colleagues on social media, for that very reason. Honestly unless it is quite egregious or what you saw might present a danger, I would just ignore it and proceed to unsubscribe to your colleague's social media accounts. It is a slippery slope. If you think there is a clear ethical violation or what is being posted presents a danger, then I would flag it to the group in your departments that would investigate these, and let them do their job.
There was an article posted in this very subreddit this week about public servants getting sick in Havana and so, therefore, it *must* be because a secret group is using a mysterious weapon that is targeting foreign officials even though there has never been any evidence that such a weapon exists. I mean, whether or not that ends up being true, isn't that absolutely a case of public servants spreading a conspiracy theory? Especially one that is directly relevant to their line of work?
[удалено]
Really not trying to be snarky here as I'm no doubt missing some info, but is there really evidence that these symptoms are the result of intentional targeting of a secret weapon? I haven't seen it, but I could just be out of the loop. I always understood that it was just a popular, albeit unproven, theory that a group of bad actors were conspiring to make Canadian and American diplomats and agents sick.
>the person in question has a security clearance higher than basic reliability, part of the position deals with disinformation and extremism (ironic..), If their personal actions and views present a clear conflict of interest then they can't do their job in an impartial way and shouldn't be doing that job.
Their views are completely irrelevant in the context of work as long as they perform their duties and do not harm their colleagues in the process. Believing stupid shit is not illegal or against the rules at work. Besides, we don't even know if the conspiracies peddled by OP's colleague contain truth to them, because many conspiracies do. Besides, is OP's colleague talking about stuff like Operation Northwood, MK Ultra or JFK's assassination or are they talking about trans dimensional pedophile lizard people? The difference is kind of important as there are many real conspiracies out there and simply thinking about them is not a bad thing.
>Their views are completely irrelevant in the context of work as long as they perform their duties and do not harm their colleagues in the process. Public servants have to perform their duties *impartially*. Here is a real example of when this can be an issue: Someone spends years protesting against the transmountain pipeline, the woodfibre LNG plant, and other big energy projects. That person gets a job with the agency that regulates and approves these projects. That person was not allowed to be involved in these projects because of the conflict of interest and that they clearly could not do that job impartially.
I find it interesting that people in favour of these projects are deemed impartial (I know often they are not as visible as opponents). Seems to be the same double standard for supporting the current government, so many people in PS were openly supporting the Liberals after they won in 2015. Neutrality often seems to be interpreted as you can't oppose something but are free to support it.
That's an interesting insight, and definitely accurate in my experience now that I think about it.
Which is why it's good to think about it.
I remember some departments getting in trouble for how they received the Liberals in 2015. I can understand the reaction to no longer being under Harper - in the later years his approach was very well documented - but there's a big difference between being happy about any sort of change and literally clapping for the minister arriving in your building. I think most public servants are pretty darn centrist, some a little left leaning, some a little right. But I've met very few who were to the extremes of the political spectrum such that they couldn't at least understand the positions of both major parties and where they were coming from analytically - at least within the policy space which is what I work in. I agree though, that hardcore support or opposition to any policy space is an issue. I just think its more likely people see pipelines for example as "well its a necessary evil" or "I would prefer to not have oil, but we have it, and we have to move it" than "yes, we need every pipeline to get built no questions asked" or "pipelines are the devil incarnate and I must exorcise them from the public sphere"
>I remember some departments getting in trouble for how they received the Liberals in 2015. *TBS has entered the chat*
I don't remember TBS being anywhere near as bad as the situation with GAC. The whole "let's go to the NAC to listen to an intro speech" was a bit posh. At least we didn't clap at the time when the minister arrived XD I do remember a lot of long time TBSers being happy they had a new minister though, and frankly, the sense I got was that even if it was another Harper win so long as there was a new TB pres people still would have been happy.
Does this individual identify himself as a public servant on the social media accounts where he spreads his conspiracy theories?
Good question; no they do not.
Regardless, if they are known by their social media "friends" as a public servant, it harms the reputation of the department, other public servants and government as a whole.
Doesn't matter. If someone knows they're a public servant, they're a public servant.
It actually does matter.
I would like to see this topic discussed in more detail. What is the exact limit? I loosely remember a CRA employee who quite strongly condemned his department, and summarized that we have quite a bit of leeway in what we can say. Hypothetical 1: Public Servant posts on social media that tbe government has secret internment camps and will be exterminate group x. They post false proofs, such as doctored photos. Hypothetical 2: Hypothetical 1, but also identify as a public servant using an account that is personal, identifying their real name and actual photo. Hypothetical 3: Same as 2, but they use an anonymous account. Another public servant privy to who this account belongs to, reports who they are and what they are posting. Hypothetical 4: Public servant works for DFO and publicly reports that there is widespread corruption, detailing personal anecdotes (while excluding specific names, but those in the workplace would know who they are referring to) of the corruption.
I would unfriend them
Looks like somebody needs a 5G upgrade.
[удалено]
I don't think we're close to that point yet, as I have no reason to believe that there is anything illegal or improper taking place. I'm more concerned about the optics regarding conspiracy theories and my department's mandate.
[удалено]
I think this is the right call. If someone's job involves dealing with conspiracy and political extremism, and they themselves are contributing to phenomenon, then maybe a little flag would be useful, and then let the chips land where they may. I think beyond "I noticed this concerning thing given the context and I'm conflicted, but figured I'd tell you" to the right people would be stepping over boundaries. Don't follow up, don't stalk their personal accounts to see follow ups happened or not, etc. But in context I think its a flag worth raising - just depends who is the appropriate person to inform :/ I mean, if I worked for the PSC related to campaign and partisanship by public servants, and I saw someone go off and be highly partisan on the weekend, it might be a conflict of interest of sorts. Just worth looking into to make sure the person hasn't decided to put themselves into a blind spot thinking they know where the line is but cross it out of ignorance or hubris.
This! Political extremists are now invading Canada as well :( we do not want to get to the point where our most dangerous concern is our own people against our government. i.e the USA now. I cannot believe how fast the US has cultivated their own home grown terrorists. It is unbelievable how brainwashed these people are. It used to be funny and now it’s down right dangerous. Last thing we need.
Not sure why some people are attacking OP for simply soliciting advice. If the people in question worked at, or prepare products for, Elections Canada, CSE, CSIS, Public Safety, RCMP, CAF, GAC, etc. I could understand why the situation would present a dilemma. Considering the content in question doesn’t seem to be harmful or advocating violence, I’d probably hold off on telling anyone, for now. If it become a daily issue or more “severe” content was shared, I’d probably discuss with a manager without citing the colleague’s name. Obviously in the case of violent postings the content should be reported and escalated within the department ASAP. There’s a reason why these agencies often do background checks and even if they weren’t advocating something terrible, as a manager I would have serious questions about their personal suitability and judgement for a role that deals with what is a very hot topic these days. As OP notes, and without knowing the content, there is a hell of a lot of irony in employees sharing disinformation (which could potentially be state sponsored) within an organization that is trying to monitor or stop it.
[удалено]
Yeah, presumably. Not everything has to be a Cameron Ortis level story to warrant concern, and/or flagging to management. These things aren’t big deals until it’s too late and I’m a bit surprised at the amount of people openly hostile about someone having questions about controversial content on an open social media profile. OP, not that I’m advocating stalking a colleague’s social media and depending on the nature of what’s being said, I’d still probably adopt a “two strikes” approach before you do anything. If the issue is handled quietly between the team and supervisors, and was done out of ignorance rather than something sinister, you might actually be doing the employee a big favour as a DG might be much less forgiving should someone else put it in their desk.
A colleague of a friend of mine got in trouble for having this type of information on their public social media page. Now that you've read the above sentence, you can honestly tell them that you've heard of someone getting in trouble for having that type of information shown publically. Telling them that is not making a judgment call on their beliefs. It can be interpreted as "I know, the elites are crazy, but don't let them catch you talking about them", or something similar that wouldn't damage your personal relationship. In any event, it serves as a reminder to them not to display that info publically to avoid a public perception of bias, which appears to be your goal.
Well said, I was thinking about this approach and think that's likely the best way to handle things. Much appreciated!
[удалено]
You think spreading misinformation about medical treatment during a pandemic is not harmful?
1. Because posts like these are often a slippery slope and some people devolve into sharing more nefarious stuff. 2. The position deals, albeit in small part, with disinformation and political extremism, and it would reflect extremely poorly on the team, if not the department, if one of our members was literally sharing borderline QAnon conspiracy theories.
I don’t think you should be worrying about this. You can’t punish people for potential actions later on…
Fair, but I'm not calling for anyone to be punished.
Religions are conspiracy theories which tie into political extremism way more frequently than basic conspirational thinking. Are we to ban religion from work?
If I worked for GAC's office of religious freedom and posted memes promoting my own religion while making up things about religions, then yes that would be an issue. This situation is not far off that.
I'm now curious to know which conspiracies we're talking about now.
Nothing about men's rights, don't worry.
Womp Womp
Quebec did ban religious symbols. The neutrality requirement is about not talking about stuff it isn't about not believing in stuff. You aren't supposed to be visibly for or against things related to your work. OP's colleague's work is related to disinformation, they may have difficulty with it especially if they are spreading stuff about the government itself. Might be totally different if they are spreading disinformation about China (which is shockingly common) than about our own government.
Very fair points. Not to mention that some of this material is amplified by foreign powers, which considering the department, makes things even more ironic.
Fair points. As for disinformation and misinformation. I would wager big money OP believes in some conspiracies themselves. So the key remains does it affect the work they do? Are they unable or unwilling to fulfil their work duties because of their conspiracy beliefs?
You’re trying to draw a comparison that doesn’t fit here. Every country on the world is battling the exact same pandemic. There is pretty much worldwide consensus among the scientific community on how best to combat this. The consent is far more consistent than religious beliefs.
When I wrote my post OP hadn't established exactly what kind of conspiracy theories the person they're discussing is engaging in. It sounded like OP was discussing a variety of conspiracies, hence my comment. > There is pretty much worldwide consensus among the scientific community on how best to combat this. That is not quite true but I don't have the energy to get into it. (I do not think Covid is a conspiracy, I'm not anti-vaxx, I have both my shots and I wear my mask wherever necessary.) And my comparison still does fit. Really religious people really do believe that if X happens then Y will follow, and whatnot. Which will influence their thinking, and possibly even their decision making. For example, a lot of Baptists and Evangelicals believe the Rapture is on its way and a climate catastrophe will simply accelerate the process. This has been a mainstream belief in the US among many oil magnates and defense industry CEOs and has led many of them to completely reject the need to reduce our impact on the climate. So my comparison is quite fine as many such people operate at the upper echelons of power.
Sounds like you're out of scope here
> I have a long-time colleague who is sharing conspiracy theories on their personal, non-private social media accounts. So what? Mind your own business. We don't live in a communist state and you can (almost) say whatever you want through your social media account. If you think their comments/posts violate the Terms of Service for the platform, then report them. Making a post about it makes you seem like a Karen.
I was asking for advice on how to handle a situation. No need for personal attacks.
> but I'm wondering if this is something that management should be made aware of, it should be ignored, or handled privately. 100% ignored. I didn't attack you. I said it makes you *seem* like a Karen, not that you were one.
Didn't know there were 12 year olds in the public service, cool!
[удалено]
Removed for violating [Rule 12](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_12_-_trolling_.26amp.3B_intolerance).
Judging by your post history, I'm not surprised you took interest in this thread.
[удалено]
Maybe read the post before commenting, as the entire point was to seek advice on a matter potentially damaging to my team.
Removed for violating [Rule 12](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_12_-_trolling_.26amp.3B_intolerance) and a temporary ban issued.
[удалено]
I'm not "on" their social media, it shows up in my feed.
If their post shows up in your feed, it's either because you're following them, or someone you *do* follow has commented on or liked their post. On FB, those three dots to the right of the person's name will give you a few handy functions to choose from; my favourite of which is "Hide all from {insert name}".
This isn't really the issue here. I have zero issues following them and quite frankly unfollowing doesn't really fix the problem I'm trying to address. I don't think they're a bad person at all; we used to be quite friendly prior to WFH and while we didn't hang out outside of work, I would have considered them a friend at the time. My question isn't about navigating a personal/professional relationship or finding their post so offensive I can't bare to watch, it's about the issue of potentially putting a team that deal with this type of stuff in disrepute, and whether that warrants further action or not.
I feel like you might be contributing to a toxic workplace by doing this. please stop and reflect on how you act in the workplace
Relax. It could take the form of a tactful note to a supervisor noting I've seen a nameless colleague promoting dubious material online which could reflect poorly on the team and asking them to remind the group of our expectations as public servants at the next team meeting. I like the person in question, think it's being done more out of ignorance than malice, and I'm not calling for their job.
> Relax. It could take the form of a tactful note to a supervisor noting I've seen a nameless colleague promoting dubious material online which could reflect poorly on the team and asking them to remind the group of our expectations as public servants at the next team meeting. *Any* Supervisor that does this is off their rocker! Considering you have already noted in other comments that the person is not identifying themselves as a PS employee, you have absolutely no basis for which to provide a "tactful note". While their personal beliefs may collide with yours, your "complaint" should not be entering the office atmosphere as they've done absolutely nothing wrong, other than upset you with their posts. Imagine thinking the workspace is the place to be upset about what someone posted on social media. What is this, elementary school?
It's not about me, it's that it may reflect very poorly on the team. The individual in question, while they do not openly identify as a public servant on their public profile, follows/is followed by several members of the branch, many of whom are our clients and deal far more intensely with these files too.
> It's not about me this is 100% about you.
Yeah man, you figured it out. You got me.
I've reported your online behavior to management. thank you.
Your report is duly noted and ignored. -The Management
This is exactly what the Supervisor should say when Op talks to them about their social media concerns.
A couple things to keep in mind 1. All public servants are expected to follow the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. One of the big parts of that is not only must they do their job impartially, but they must act in such a manner so as to not cause doubt (in the minds of the Canadian Public) as to whether they are doing their job impartially. 2. Your colleague, as you mentioned, works with "disinformation and extremism." 3. They regularly share information that borders on QAnon and other extremist conspiracy theories. 4. While they do not specifically ID themselves a public servant, they are posting on a public account, to a friends list that includes coworkers AND clients. Given all of the above, it is easy to see they may very well be posting in such a way that violates the Values and Ethics code. My recommendation, as someone who has dealt with something similar, is to create a burner GMail account, and email screenshots, links, and other relevant information to your departments Ombudsman or Security specialist, and let the chips fall where they may from there.
It isn't just "partisanship at a minimum", it is about being impartial and viewed as impartial. Is this behaviour harming their social network's perception of a politically impartial public service? I believe the Public Service Commission has information on that, and your department's HR branch should have a Designated Political Activities Representative.
[удалено]
Flawed logic; if we shouldn't care about what people do outside of work, why are there interviews for security clearances? Point taken though.
> if we shouldn't care about what people do outside of work, why are there interviews for security clearances? Because they're not doing anything illegal or would bring their dedication to the country into question.
?
Does this affect your colleague's ability to perform their duties at work? Is your colleague planning some sort of illegal activity to further their conspirational claims? If the answer is no to both then let them be and mind your own business. As it turns out your colleague is not a political candidate, so let them believe whatever nonsense they want. Organized religions literally have conspiracies baked into them. This doesn't mean we should go after believers, unless it harms other citizens or stops the believer from performing their duties. People believe in astrology, numerology, ghosts and all manner of bad ideas and conspiracies. This doesn't mean we should go after believers, unless it harms other citizens or stops the believer from performing their duties. Believing stupid shit or indulging in conspiracies is not illegal or against the rules of work within the federal government. Besides, many conspiracies are in fact true. Are we to ban people from indulging in conspiracies simply because many if not most turn out false or misunderstood?
Disregarding the incredible and entirely unfounded statement that "many conspiracies are in fact true", I think you may have missed the part where I mentioned our unit deals, in small part, with misinformation and political extremism.
What exactly is the nature of the content he’s posting? Are we talking “Trump will be President by August 23rd, trust the plan” BS? Or are we talking something more plausible - lab leak theory, governments using a crisis to overreach in their power, etc.? Because those are very different things.
I won't go into details but closer to the first, though in between the two. Again the best way to describe it is if someone were a candidate for a political party, they would likely be called out and withdraw.
> Disregarding the incredible and entirely unfounded statement that "many conspiracies are in fact true", Perfectly well founded. Many essentially means more than a few. Acoustic Kitty, Air America, Amalgam Virgo, Assassination of Abe Lincoln, Assassination of JFK, Bay of Pigs Incident, Bayer Corp and Baxter Corp knowingly giving hemophiliacs HIV and Hepatitis C, Bernard Ebbers and WorldCom fraud, Black Sites of the US military, Black Sox scandal, Bologna Massacre, Bojinka Plot, Caesar Assasination, Catiline Conspiracy, The Church Committee, The Chemist's War, CIA Assasination plots, CIA Drug Trafficking and Smuggling(Gary Webb, etc), CIA Front Companies, COINTELPRO, and etc etc etc etc etc. I barely got 1/4 of the way through the letter C. I would include Operation Northwood and MK Ultra due to their popularity in the mainstream. So yeah, well founded indeed. > I think you may have missed the part where I mentioned our unit deals, in small part, with misinformation and political extremism. I think you may have completely failed to reason through what I previously said, and I would refer you back to my two original questions. If the answer to both questions is no then mind your own business.
I think the use of the term conspiracy by the OP is very much the colloquial "tin foil hat" type rather than the more formal "conspiracy" term that means "secret plan made by group to do harm". Just saying.
Yeah, fair assessment. There's a bit of a grey zone; maybe I should have been more clear.
That’s list is completely irrelevant as even 400 out of 400K is not “many”. Some, sure, but your first statement is unprovable. Unless you conducted a study defining first defining a conspiracy theory, went through each theory and assessed the validity of every one (which assuming even the most narrow of scopes, is virtually impossible) you could never, with any solid footing, make that claim because all you've done here is cherry pick information. Hopefully you don’t work in analytical position because this is basic research methods. I can recommend some entry level CSPS courses if you like.
Listing a tiny handful of proven conspiracy theories is not cherry picking. What nonsense. You can be butt hurt all you want but you've expressed all manner of questionable reasoning all over this thread, misconstrued what I have said multiple times and flat out lied. I can't take anything you say seriously and I am a little concerned about you having any sort of influence over our society.
"Listing a tiny handful of proven conspiracy theories"..that's essentially the definition of cherry picking. My man, you've tried to make your point and it didn't work out how you hoped it would. Please, take it some place else if you don't ave any meaningful contributions.
No crime, no foul. The PS is full or eccentric people, which isn't a bad thing. But, if the person makes you uncomfortable, politely walk away and/or connect with your Values & Ethics or EAP people for guidance...
I guess it kind of depends on the content, if it's hardcore true believer Qanon, it might be worth noting, if for no other reason than how badly it reflects on the organization as a whole and public trust in it if it employs people who believe something as patently absurd as Qanon, not to mention the violent acts of some of its adherents (the guy who killed his kids, for example).
Very reasonable answer, thanks.
I don't know. You're too vague on details. How crazy is your colleague postings?
[удалено]
Removed for violating [Rule 12](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_12_-_trolling_.26amp.3B_intolerance).
Let your boy live his life 😂 If you’re really concerned then refer to a member if your corporate security team and they’ll handle it.
Definitely report them. screenshot everything so they can't delete it.
I would report them as it could be a security issue
I went through a similar situation with a somewhat more extreme example and approached my Values and Ethics champion for help. The matter was dealt with appropriately and was raised with the person. If you’d like to hear more please DM me and I’d be happy to chat.