11–20 of 841 posts
Is GitHub a hug part of what ICE ... does? Personally I wouldn't want to work for a company actually detaining people, but call me terrible but I'm not sure I'd feel the same about letting them pay to host some code...
It is about time that corporations, with GitHub here as an example, noticed that backing this or that or another minority or "trying" to solve some medial issue only where it suits them PR-wise is simply abusing that minority in yet another way; it is a means of using that minority, and all the people who constitute that minority, as a tool for public relation stunts and political "but we support X, see?" newspeak that brings no actual change.
I'm genuinely curious if GitHub does support Black and Brown people enough to actually make that support noticeable for everyday lives of these folk.
If you are not quitting then you are also profiting form ICE contract.
I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies).
But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. It'd attract extreme negative attention from the rest of the government, and great fear from all paying customers that an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time.
We should absolutely be lobbying hard for changes to immigration law, the restrictions placed on ICE, and justice for their wrongdoings.
But I can't see how this helps improve immigration, and it certainly seems likely to cause a lot of negative consequences for GitHub. The employees are putting their employer in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I love the vision of a world where executives don't take actions their workers will protest. I think that in order to get there, the protests need to be reasonable, and I think this one isn't.
EDIT DISCLAIMER: I own a small amount of MSFT stock, which was not on my mind as I wrote this. I use GitHub's free service and have no other relationship I can think of with MSFT or GitHub.
I would have thought that the workers at GitHub would know as much as anyone that restricting access to one Git service would have a negligible impact on ICE. The real impact would be on GitHub themselves, as they would lose any opportunity to help guide policy or technology at ICE or any other government agency. It may feel better to watch and yell from the outside, and you may have the moral high ground in doing so…
I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics. Because once you set a precedence then people will use that as to push their own political agendas. I personally don't like the slippery slope argument since it's very lazy and justifies inaction in many cases. But at the same time when I see news like this, I just wonder how long it will take two different subgroups trying push their own confl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slippery slopes are not always a fallacy, roughly the same way appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert. Relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-...
> when the authority is indeed an expert. can someone be a considered authority without being an expert. edit: I am using authority from the example in wikipedia "One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[20] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[21][22] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slippery slopes are not always a fallacy, roughly the same way appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert. Relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-...
> when the authority is indeed an expert. can someone be a considered authority without being an expert. edit: I am using authority from the example in wikipedia "One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[20] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[21][22] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From t…
I would have thought that the workers at GitHub would know as much as anyone that restricting access to one Git service would have a negligible impact on ICE. The real impact would be on GitHub themselves, as they would lose any opportunity to help guide policy or technology at ICE or any other government agency. It may feel better to watch and yell from the outside, and you may have the moral high ground in doing so…