Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 841 posts

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#321

Post by dominotw »

sangnoir wrote: post #253
dominotw wrote: post #13

i wish someone of these workers quit. Tons of IT jobs even in covid. If you are not quitting then you are also profiting form ICE contract.

> If you are not quitting then you are also profiting form ICE contract. This is reductive, right up there with "Why don't you move to Canada?" Do you agree with every single action done by all entities you belong to: family, employer, HOA, neighborhood, city council, state/province, and country? If you disagree with the actions of a family member - is your solution to cut them off immediately without talking to them…

> If you disagree with the actions of a family member - is your solution to cut them off immediately without talking to them?

I don't think your employer is like "a family member", this analogy is too absurd to counter.

> family, employer, HoA, neighborhood, city council, state/province, and country?

one of these is not like the other. you get to participate in decision making process via voting in HOA, country ect. Employment is purely transactional like getting coffee from a coffeeshop, you have no say in what kind of beans to pick.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#322

Post by duxup »

dastbe wrote: post #267
duxup wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If your government isn't willing to compromise with you I'm not sure I see a reason that the government must compromise with a give company. If Boeing decided that ICE should behave even worse, would we cheer on ICE for compromising? I think we'd argue that the right place for that sort of thing is at the ballot box.

You're conflating the end result and the means. I wouldn't cheer on any company doing that, just like I don't cheer on companies when they donate to campaigns for racists or people who vote for racists. The government also doesn't have to compromise. Maybe there's a competitor who is less particular about who they do business with or in fact thinks the cruelty is actually cool and good. gitlab is 100% neutral on who…

>I wouldn't cheer on any company doing that,

You would cheer on Boeing for asking that ICE be more cruel?

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#323

Post by kuzimoto »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #257
jobeirne wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope - in free societies you should be able to refuse service on any grounds, including those things. Otherwise you're permitting the government to forcibly compel you to allocate your time and resources to ends they define. In free societies, governments should only be able to forcibly compel people not to do things (murder, threaten, steal, etc.) - see the concept of "negative rights."

I mean this in the nicest possible way; have you ever faced discrimination based on the colour of your skin, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities or anything else which is protected by law in most civilised countries? If, like a significant portion of the HN audience, you are straight, white, middle class and male it's probably easier for you to dismiss the right to fair treatment than it might be for individuals…

I don't agree with discrimination, and would never seek to engage in that myself.

With that being said, in the private sector, there really is no "right to fair treatment" with exceptions for anything required by law for affirmative action. By forcing fairness (where a business must provide service to someone it doesn't want to), you are simultaneously removing the freedom of association [0].

[0] While not explicitly stated in the US constitution is argued to be a fundamental human right.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#324

Post by danudey »

overgard wrote: post #237
shaggyfrog wrote: post #77

There are a few comments in here already decrying “politicization”. Guess what? Politics are interwoven in every aspect of our lives. You cannot choose to “avoid” them; even suggesting you can be politically neutral is a political stance that comes from a place of privilege, because only the privileged can avoid experiencing negative political consequences inside their bubble. Collaboration with ICE is collaboration…

So who decides? Do companies now need a chief political officer? Do they do some sort of political review of each new customer? What issues do they use to decide on? Do they deny Apple or Nike because of overseas labour conditions? IMO it's foolish for a company to wade into these waters at all unless activism is part of their brand. If you signal you're going to take a stand it ends up having to be around everything…

Companies can start choosing based on what they feel is right, rather than what is just immediately financially beneficial, since there is no such thing as not "wading into these waters". When presented with the option to sell services to ICE or facial recognition to abusive and murderous police departments who do everything they can to avoid accountability, the executives of that company are explicitly making a choice. Are we okay with our software being used to detain and abuse immigrants? Are we okay with our software being used for targeted harassment and state violence against people whom the state has targeted?

The only people who consider that "not taking a stand" are the people who don't suffer as a result of that choice. Thus, as the parent poster said, this is a support of the status quo (or an escalation of it) by privileged people who will never suffer the consequences of that choice. Saying "the abuse of police power and the imprisonment of asylum seekers has nothing to do with me or my company" is saying "I'm okay with all of this because it doesn't affect me directly".

As we've seen with Facebook, trying to "not take a stand" is actually taking a stand, and saying "we won't fact check obvious lies or take down calls for violence by the military against our own citizens" is saying "we're okay with our platform being used to erode democracy and threaten people's lives". We're seeing now that Zuckerberg, then, is completely okay with the effective dissolution of everything that the US claims to stand for, as long as it means that Facebook won't be broken up as a result of their unethical and illegal business practices.

In this way, Facebook isn't "not taking a stand", they're specifically taking a stand against corporate and social accountability. Because of their position in the market that means that they can directly and indirectly affect what news people see, what groups people are recommended, and what politics people have, and they don't want to give up that power, so they'll implicitly support a government which will let them keep it, no matter what the consequences to anyone else.

There's no such thing as not "wading into these waters"; only following your ethics vs. signing another contract and making a few million bucks from it.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#325

Post by shay_ker »

Just food for thought:

If Github backed out, wouldn't someone else fill their spot by using Gitlab? And if so, isn't that transition cost paid for by tax payers?

I'm mostly wondering what's the material impact of Github backing out, outside of optics.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#326

Post by flamble »

umvi wrote: post #121
karpierz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose that: 1. You provide tools to a group. 2. You believe (in a informed way) that the group intends to act immorally. 3. Your tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally. Do you have any responsibility for what happens?

Suppose that I'm highly religious: 1. I make tools (wedding planning software) 2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my tools to plan a gay wedding) 3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally Do I have any responsibility for what happens? Or (alternatively): 1. I make tools (highly specialized chemicals) 2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group inte…

In both cases, you very clearly have some responsibility. In an incredibly straightforward and unambiguous way.

I'm struggling to see how this is intended as a counterexample. Is it because disapproving of homosexuality is wrong? That doesn't at all change the entailment of responsibility by the conjunction of foreknowledge of consequences with uncoerced action.

If you walk out into a public street and fire a pistol around you randomly, you are clearly responsible for any death or injuries thereby caused (given that you were aware of the likely outcomes), even if it is through negligence or indifference rather than deliberate intent.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#327

Post by lurknn »

shaggyfrog wrote: post #308
lurknn wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once met a man who was a who believed deeply in aestheticism. His perception was that the only thing that mattered was the aesthetics of the thing, nothing more. Morality took a second seat, as did everything else. I could not, for the life of me, convince him that life is a bit more multidimensional than that. With each topic, he would aestheticize it, if you will, then speak of how his aesthetization of the topic…

Politics is the process of making a decision, so my point is that decision-making is inherently political. Your comment — and subtle trailing insult — is not constructive and non-sequitur.

Your definition is a bit circular, friend. :)

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#328

Post by [deleted] »

phoe-krk wrote: post #177
Foxheart wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... and Black folk are still much more likely to die during police interventions." Care to link to a source?

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793 From Significance, right at the top: "(...) Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men."

[deleted]

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#330

Post by throwaway0a5e »

elicash wrote: post #111
marpstar wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP didn't say they should be required to work with certain entities, only that it could jeopardize their stance with other, less controversial, entities.

> could jeopardize their stance with other, less controversial, entities That would, of course, be a terrible and illegal abuse of power and essentially be the government policing political speech by private individuals. What an indictment of our government (and I don't mean a single person, but of the system itself) that this seems to be an uncontroversial statement. Because I agree, it's true, and it's the mark of…

The likelihood of a potential vendor to actually be able to supply what they say they will has long been a consideration for government agencies. The novel thing here is that "political winds may change" is not normally considered a good reason to have that doubt for a US based company.
Post reply on HN