You choose who to follow on twitter. It's also your choice to use the AI feed vs just who you follow.
Mechahitler thing was a brief controversy that was turned off a while ago and the people I follow aren't getting spammed dumb questions to grok (although I find grok to be very good these days).
The attention seeking right wing accounts are annoyingly prevalent but it's entirely possibly to not see their content. Just like on old twitter which was full of radical politics. Curate your follow list.
Even so being a nazi or having a feed of a bunch of hitlers or whatever is 1st amendment protected political activity that won't expose your employer to a successful hostile workplace lawsuit.
Having a sexually provocative furry show up is not protected by the first amendment, since it appeals to prurient interest, someone passing by could argue they feel sexually harassed or find it hostile and have a much better chance at causing problems for your employer.
Maybe I've worked for some weird employers but if I was caught on twitter posting Nazi salutes I would expect raised eye-brows, but for the stated reasons, if I was caught with a furry picture on display where someone else could see it I'd expect to be immediately terminated.
> I was caught on twitter posting Nazi salutes I would expect raised eye-brows, but for the stated reasons, if I was caught with a furry picture on display where someone else could see it I'd expect to be immediately terminated.
Let me get this straight: you would get fired immediately for a picture that depicts a sub-culture of people that is often sexually deviant (but would include no nudity or anything in said picture), but it would be perfectly acceptable to promote a hate/terrorism group whose main purpose is to exterminate large parts of the Earth's population?
There's pretty much zero chance of a hostile workplace lawsuit succeeding for Nazi activity, political activity is the absolute strongest 1st amendment protected activity.
It is much easier to win a lawsuit on something appealing to prurient interest since the supreme court says it is not protected.
Most people don't actually care if the people involved in making their products are murderous psychopaths, as long as you aren't putting Nazi symbols in their product or something. That's why what are essentially CCP owned chinese manufacturers run by a party that tank-rolls over people wanting basic civil rights is seen as no-fucking-problem, no one gives a shit and their sales are not meaningfully impacted.
The only reason American employers care is if they're going to get sued, unless they are selling to rich people in San Francisco or something who can afford to pay more to buy something for moral reasons.
The US government is concerned about terrorism, as they have very much been in the past. The current political climate, however, specifies forms of terrorism which are seemingly acceptable, so I suppose in this case you are sadly correct. It still doesn't fail to boggle the shit out of my mind.
"Hostile" can only be enforced by the government within the bounds afforded by the constitution. The constitution as interpreted protects the right to publicly and loudly wish or celebrate death of minorities. The constitution as interpreted does not protect the right to display sexually explicit pictures to your coworkers of someone in a furry get-up.
Mechahitler thing was a brief controversy that was turned off a while ago and the people I follow aren't getting spammed dumb questions to grok (although I find grok to be very good these days).
The attention seeking right wing accounts are annoyingly prevalent but it's entirely possibly to not see their content. Just like on old twitter which was full of radical politics. Curate your follow list.