> Anyone putting in real effort is better served doing things under their own brand
This. It doesn't matter if you're talking reddit, facebook or instagram. Building on a platform means you are benefitting the platform's owners rather than yourself. There is no excuse for being a creative talent who uses social media for anything beyond lead generation without building direct links to your own audience.
Could it have been implemented at any time in the past 150 years? I rather doubt it.
What we're seeing is that the pressure on institutions to conform to social norms in this specific area has exceeded the critical value required for change. Institutions that do not at least passively make this change in policy are at high risk for losing legitimacy.
The thing is, the confederate battle flag was not as charged of a symbol in the first 75 years after the armistice was signed at Appomattox. It gained relevance in the post-war years as a response to the civil-rights movement.
That the change now happens so rapidly and so quickly can be directly attributed to the speed at which social consensus can change and crystallize due to the new communication technologies that we have.
But the real question that a lot of people are actively working on in relation to this is "How do you manage and steer political legitimacy in the current environment?"
Also remember that the flag in question is merely a symbol and that banning it does very little to reduce the racism and violence that claims it as a standard. This doesn't fix systematic oppression, economic disenfranchisement or the fact that most of the political power remains with a group that is overwhelmingly white, male and dedicated to the continuance of an unsustainable economic system that will surely destroy the ecosystem we rely on if we don't fix it soon.
Or government regulation; in which case it is not illegal by definition.
As americans we are trained to forget that it is possible to have collective norms that are enforced by law. And indeed there are many who believe that all government regulations are ipso facto immoral; while conveniently forgetting the government granted monopolies and subsidies that make them wealthy. "Ayn Rand fuck yeah, but don't touch my soybean subsidies." 'merica!
Remember that this contract is a negotiable agreement.
You can strike clauses and file an amended agreement, they can refuse to accept such things; but you are not obligated to sign unless they are compensating you adequately for what you are giving up. Approach this as an equal; decide what _you_ are willing to put up with. Nobody on this forum can tell you what you can and cannot live with.
The compensation part is actually really interesting. My particular industry is notorious for using really strongly worded non-competes. Those don't fly at all in California but they do fly in a fair number of other states. In Illinois there was a court ruling that stated that non-compete agreements are not enforceable unless a specific bonus is paid for signing the agreement. Continued employment (in that case of just under 2 years, after an acquisition) was not enough compensation.
So, if you are asked to sign one of these things either ask for some cash up front or hold in your back pocket that it's probably not enforceable (though it can certainly end in litigation which can be terrible for everyone involved).
but you are not obligated to sign unless they are compensating you adequately for what you are giving up
In the US, at least in general, this is a contract, and without the employee getting "consideration" it's not valid. And mere continued employment doesn't count, they'd have to give you something extra such as a raise or bonus.
What I meant by 'not obligated to sign' was that there are more than a few paths open. Some of those paths involve separation from this employer. The original poster needs to figure out what his options are, and what he can do if he can't negotiate an outcome he finds satisfactory.