91–100 of 841 posts
Corporations are people. If they don't act ethically, we can't expect people to act ethically. Ending a contract with an agency that runs concentration camps is good. Better, though, is to not accept any contracts with any government that runs concentration camps. Small steps are good. Big steps are better. PS: great fear from all paying customers that run concentration camps that an internet mob could separate them…
What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. 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 pri…
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...
There's a big strain of consequentialism running through the modern left - no neutral service is held as neutral if it permits the 'wrong' customers.
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 makes for a very slippery slope
What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. 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 pri…
Replace ICE with "the SS" and see how your comment reads. I was working on a DHS contract and quit the second I found out they were putting children into cages. I'm under no obligation to work at a company that contributes in even a tiny way to an atrocity. A company I work for is free to take the contract, and I'm free to tell them I don't want to work for them any more because of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. Um, think you've got this backwards. Private entities shouldn't have to take on anyone they don't want as customers (for whatever reason - do you have to justify who you do or don't want in your livingroom?), but publicly-funded institutions shouldn't be able to deny service o…
What about anti-discrimnation laws? Where do you stand on the issue with the baker refusing to bake a cake for the gay couple?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are going through a very strange and extreme period in US History. Corporations are a huge part of the political landscape. Of course workers who are powerful will demand things of their workplaces. All corporations are political. By accepting the ICE contract previously it was political. Now by reversing they would be changing sides. They were already in the political fray.
"By accepting the ICE contract previously it was political." Just a reminder that government entities like ICE are executing the current laws of the land.
I'm sympathetic with those who point out that corporations typically have more leverage than individual employees, and that changing jobs is not so easy for those who are less privileged. That category, though, of "less privileged" with regards to employment flexibility simply does not apply to the average Github employee, at all, as sircmpwn frequently points out.
Furthermore, regardless of which side of this debate you stand on, it is definitely disheartening to see people so vehemently against this relationship yet do NOT back up their feelings with actions. I cannot help but scoff when I see people on Github with "stop ICE" profile pictures. It's nothing but a profound selfishness: wanting to be on the self-perceived "right side of history" but not so much so that you set your origin to Gitlab or SourceHut instead...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Using Microsoft as your canonical code repository is already a meaningful risk to your business. It's nice that more companies are recognizing this. They're building nice new features with their ecosystem, too, in traditional Microsof…
Right, storing your code anywhere presents risk (including self-hosted on a FOSS stack). With GitHub/MSFT, that risk includes "they decide they don't like you anymore" amongst others. How high is that risk? You'll think it's a lot higher if GitHub were to kick off ICE. (disclaimer: I hold a small amount of MSFT stock, though this was not on my mind when I wrote my original post - thanks for the reminder).