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

471–480 of 841 posts

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

#471

Post by Fellshard »

joshuamorton wrote: post #383
Fellshard wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was more specific than that: a cake shop participates directly in the creative effort with the client in the way a software service provider does not.

Software service providers certainly do implement features requested directly by clients.

Features, yes. Are those features directly connected to those clients' work, or is it a more general feature that has to do with the execution of the service?

I will agree that it's dubious that that nuance is reflected in the rulings on the Masterpiece case. I'm trying to follow the same lines set there, though, in my argumentation.

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

#472

Post by karpierz »

umvi wrote: post #453
karpierz wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you're avoiding the question; it's a moral question, not a legal one. Yes, it's illegal. But that doesn't mean it's unethical. I'm asking if it's unethical to sell someone a gun if you're convinced they're going to do something you believe to be unethical with it. I would say yes. I'm not sure if you would say, "no, it doesn't matter if I know they're going to kill children with it", "maybe, if I only think th…

If they are legally allowed to buy it, I would sell it to them but put a waiting period on it ("yep, you own it now. You can pick it up in 5 days"). During the waiting period, if I thought they were going to use it to commit a heinous crime, I would contact the FBI and provide them with all of the buyer's details. I don't like this contrived example though, and I suspect you've only set it up so that if/when I say "n…

Would you put anyone on a waiting period, or only people who were violent?

And would you have the same answer if you believed that law enforcement wouldn't do anything to stop the buyer from doing anything?

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

#473

Post by koheripbal »

Our medium sized company created a simple policy in early 2016 -

No religion - no politics in the office.

I never dreamed that policy would pay dividends so profoundly. The distraction of having activists within your company trying to actively pressure the company via public channels - I mean it's almost unbelievable that this is the new norm. ...an I am so very thankful we seemed to have sidestepped it.

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

#474

Post by koheripbal »

moolcool wrote: post #469
johncena33 wrote: post #2

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…

> I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics Literally everything a corporation does is politics. Every hiring decision, every office they open or close, every client they take on, every vendor they ditch, every ad they publish. It literally all has political implications and messaging. Why is there an expectation on companies to "not be political" whenever one of those inherently politi…

So "You're either with us or against us"? Is that the message?

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

#475

Post by moolcool »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #467
moolcool wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Github/Microsoft won’t serve ICE, someone else will I'm sorry but that's an incredibly spineless take. If people stopped having this kind of attitude, then there would be no "someone else".

I won’t apologize for being realistic.

What about personal responsibility? It's possible to be realistic and principled at the same time. "Sure someone else will do it, but it damn well won't be me!". If nothing else it's applying friction to the process of whatever you're disagreeing with.

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

#476

Post by downerending »

mtgp1000 wrote: post #82
mchanson wrote: post #31

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.

>All corporations are political This is a meaningless statement that people use to justify railroading their personal politics into everything. By making my services available to everyone equally I am emphatically not making a political statement. This same sentiment is effectively turning an increasing proportion of consumers away from entertainment media.

Over most of the last few decades, most corporations' politics were limited to things like United Way drives, etc. Right or wrong, the situation today is very novel, and we may discover why companies were loath to get involved in this sort of thing in the past.

Personally, I'm finding it a significant distraction in my organization. It does leave me wondering if I shouldn't leave for a more neutral one.

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

#477

Post by joshuamorton »

Fellshard wrote: post #471
joshuamorton wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software service providers certainly do implement features requested directly by clients.

Features, yes. Are those features directly connected to those clients' work, or is it a more general feature that has to do with the execution of the service? I will agree that it's dubious that that nuance is reflected in the rulings on the Masterpiece case. I'm trying to follow the same lines set there, though, in my argumentation.

> Are those features directly connected to those clients' work

How can they not be?

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

#478

Post by newman8r »

moolcool wrote: post #454
newman8r wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message I was implying was that github would no longer be seen as a viable option for government agencies.

Would that be such a problem? I use GitHub every day, but if they burn a bridge with the federal government it's no skin off my back.

It wouldn't be a problem for me as an individual user either. Whether or not it's a problem for github's long term business model is another question.

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

#479

Post by toomuchtodo »

moolcool wrote: post #475
toomuchtodo wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won’t apologize for being realistic.

What about personal responsibility? It's possible to be realistic and principled at the same time. "Sure someone else will do it, but it damn well won't be me!". If nothing else it's applying friction to the process of whatever you're disagreeing with.

I focus on the political side the of the equation. You do you, these actions are a waste of time in my opinion.

Not providing version control isn’t going to stop kids from being locked in cages away from anyone they know. Maybe do things that actively fix that.

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

#480

Post by moolcool »

koheripbal wrote: post #474
moolcool wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics Literally everything a corporation does is politics. Every hiring decision, every office they open or close, every client they take on, every vendor they ditch, every ad they publish. It literally all has political implications and messaging. Why is there an expectation on companies to "not be political" whenever one of those inherently politi…

So "You're either with us or against us"? Is that the message?

There's obviously grey area, but a lot of comments in this thread come really close to the definition of complacency
Post reply on HN