Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not actually that easy to revoke someone's citizenship. I know many people who came to the US legally that are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration precisely because they followed the rules and don't see why others shouldn't have to.
This touches on my greatest frustration with the national debate about prosecution/tolerance of illegal immigration: One of my main reasons for opposing illegal immigration is that it's contrary to the rule of law. It subverts the democratic process, and makes suckers of anybody who does try to follow these laws. I'm actually a big fan of legal immigration. But I rarely (never?) hear this distinction made in public s…
GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
641–650 of 708 posts
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#642I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used once it's created. You have to let certain control go after a point. Or if your product is open to everyone, you'll have to live with the fact that people may use it in ways you disagree with. Xerox or Canon (or whoever) probably makes copiers that ICE uses to make copies. Lenovo or Apple probably makes hardware that they use also t…
> I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used > Where do we start? Where do we stop? Often when moral question pops up on HN, the top comment is some variation of > But where do we we draw the line? > I wonder whether we should even try. Counterpoint: cynicism is too easy. Actually giving a shit is harder, it's uncomfortable, it involves compromise. Yes, there's ambiguity. Ye…
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#643Earlier quoted context omitted.
It forces developers to comply, but it doesn't impose any restrictions on the users of the software. In fact it forces developers to not impose any restrictions on the users of the software.
Your distinction between "users" and "developers" is meaningless to me. Why does FSF get to make that distinction, but GitHub cannot do the same for "ICE" and "other humans". All in all, the FSF is arguing for restrictions about how one class of individuals may use what they produce and for the benefit of the other class. Just like how FSF prevents other developers from using their products to lock other users out of…
Developers are allowed to create commercial or otherwise restricted software with FSF tools like gcc.
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#644Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hong Kong is part of China. Under the "One Country Two Systems" model, it has more 'experimental' and 'innovative' policies than the rest of the country (such as choosing their local government officials via democratic elections). But then again so does Shenzhen in other ways.
Hong Kong has never had democratic elections. It has elections but they are non-democratic, as the “functional consistencies” system rigs them in one side’s favor. “One country, two systems” refers to Hong Kong’s separate economic and legal system, not to democracy.
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#645Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misrepresenting the argument of people who don't think developers should interfere with the usages of their product. The most compelling arguments I found is that just because we happen to work in a field that lets us exert our influence over society doesn't make our moral sensibilities any better than the rest of society. What us privileged few who work in technology see as using our position of influ…
> What us privileged few who work in technology see as using our position of influence for good, many other people may see as a small minority abusing their power to manipulate society for the worse. Nevermind "good" or "bad" by the select judgement of a few privileged people -- it's whether you even bother to _consider_, or instead just claim "this is hard". We can create influencing machines, or consensing machines…
I don't mean that in a cynical or nasty way. As the years go by I get more convinced that the rise of atheism is causing some of our biggest problems in western society, and I'm not religious myself. But it seems that for all its flaws, Christianity at least was an infrastructure of people and principles that hung together in some vaguely coherent manner such that people could pose the question "Is this right? Is this good?" and either answer it themselves by reference to a book, or ask it of a full time moraliser (priest).
The reason the OP is expressing unease at this kind of tech worker "morality" is because it's wafer thin in a way that makes medieval theology look like a towering pinnacle of intellectualism.
They aren't making moral judgements of their customers consistently. ICE is targeted only because a bunch of journalists started covering it extensively as part of their anti-Trump agenda. ICE did similar things before Trump but they weren't in the news, so GitHub workers ignored it.
Moreover their morality isn't universal. ICE is bad because it hurts people who only want a better life. OK, so, should there be no borders at all? What happens then to all the American workers in marginal jobs who suddenly lose their income because an immigrant willing to live in practically sub-Saharan conditions took their job? That worker only wanted a better life too, do they not matter? If not why not? Is it because they're white and GitHub workers are racist against whites? What about other border control agencies? What about governments in general?
Christian religious morals are very far from ideal but at least make a show of being universal. You forgive those who trespass against you - it doesn't matter who they are or what they did. You forgive them. You are the good Samaritan who helps those in need. Doesn't matter who they work for. You love your neighbour. Doesn't matter if they voted for the other guy.
You're arguing that tech workers should engage with morality as if it's any other hard question that can be whiteboarded out in a few hours. But tech workers have got nothing to say on this topic that hasn't already been said hundreds of years ago. They have no special insights to provide. The rigour of their moral logic is trivial compared even to a bunch of men in funny clothes reading stories about camels out of a book written anonymously 2000 years ago. Why shouldn't they be reminded of this?
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#646Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a false dichotomy at all. Businesses should have a moral position, sure. That moral position should be right? According to who? The business itself? Then that second point is redundant. Everybody thinks their moral position is right, that's what morals are. It's a tautology otherwise. GitHub employees think their moral position on ICE is right. Many disagree. But according to them that's fine, because the…
> GitHub employees think their moral position on ICE is right. Many disagree. But according to them that's fine, because they think they're right so should be able to boycott who they like. A lot of music artists in the 50s and 60s refused to play on segregated crowds (where black people is separated from white people, usually blacks in the back), they did it because they though they were right and should be able to…
I'm simply pointing out what is almost definitely hypocrisy on the part of these Github employees. Tech companies are usually more progressive, and no doubt these employees would object to a private company, such as a family run bakery, choosing who they sell to. When the Github employees are advocating for their own company to do just that.
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#647Earlier quoted context omitted.
GH employees don't just get a salary but also equity. So in addition to being employees they are, in fact, owners of the company. It seems perfectly fair for a company owner (even a small one) to voice an opinion about how the company operates.
I can't really buy a few shares of Apple and get on a high horse trying to steer AAPL revenue strategy to my liking and beliefs. Shareholder I am - but lets get realistic.
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#648Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used > Where do we start? Where do we stop? Often when moral question pops up on HN, the top comment is some variation of > But where do we we draw the line? > I wonder whether we should even try. Counterpoint: cynicism is too easy. Actually giving a shit is harder, it's uncomfortable, it involves compromise. Yes, there's ambiguity. Ye…
I think you're misrepresenting the argument of people who don't think developers should interfere with the usages of their product. The most compelling arguments I found is that just because we happen to work in a field that lets us exert our influence over society doesn't make our moral sensibilities any better than the rest of society. What us privileged few who work in technology see as using our position of influ…
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#649Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the case then there's no room whatsoever for capitalism to be anything other than an amoral system we should be ashamed of. Vote with your dollar. You're allowed to make your own moral choices and refuse to contribute to evil.
Capitalism is nothing but an economic system where you own the means to production. There is no inherent morality. Nobody has an issue with you making choices and voting with your dollars. The issue is forcing those choices on everyone else (as in a business, especially as a non-owner) through your own interpretation of morality.
Not inherent; we have to make it so.
Capitalism dominates, what, 80% of our waking lives? The idea that morality should only be relegated to the other 20% is madness.
Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract
#650Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But people you utterly hate have friends too, and they see something different than you do, and we do not have a singular moral world-view. So because shitty people have friends, we should throw in the towel and refrain from enforcing moral codes in our own lives, behavior, and economic decisions? That's pretty weak stuff.
People who have different views than you are “shitty”?
We're talking about concentration camps for children, not monetary policy.