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

481–490 of 841 posts

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

#481

Post by cco »

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…

Sure, but in those two examples the behavior isn't actually immoral, so the work of those companies doesn't increase immoral behavior at all. They can rest easy that gay people will marry with more efficiency and no increase in immoral behavior occurred.

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

#482

Post by moolcool »

overgard wrote: post #461
moolcool wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So who decides? Do companies now need a chief political officer? Companies make "political" decisions every single day, in literally everything they do. Just as Apple and Nike make the _decision_ to employ the questionable overseas labour practices, providing services to them is also a _decision_. The whole point of the corporate executive branch is to make decisions for the company, it's the difference between McD…

How many large corporations really have a spotless record? (At least from the point of view of activists). You could also not sell to microsoft because of antitrust, or Google and Facebook for privacy issues, or boeing because of how executives made bad decisions around safety, or McDonalds over pay, or.... pretty much every company does something people wont like. I just think it's a slippery slope and not every com…

Of course, there's a million little compromises in any decision. That doesn't mean you can't draw a line in the sand.

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

#483

Post by toby »

roenxi wrote: post #409
VBprogrammer wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is that someone else will realize there is now an under-served market, and create a business to fulfill that need. That is a childishly simplistic understanding of how free markets work. There is no way a retail business would be established to service the needs of 2% of the population who are wheelchair users for example, when they could easily make their stores considerably more efficient by making the aisles a l…

> There is no way a retail business would be established to service the needs of 2% of the population Slow down there, you're going to need more evidence than that to claim that an underserved segment of the population isn't an attractive commercial target. I agree that wheelchair users might be comparatively expensive customers, but if that 2% stat is correct they would be profitable to someone. A business with 2% o…

Your argument from first-principles makes sense, but I just don't think a lot of us are comfortable living in a world where disabled people have to pay twice as much (or whatever the additional cost would be) for groceries. The fact that there's no movement to repeal the ADA would suggest most people feel that way.

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

#484

Post by gerbal »

google234123 wrote: post #448
shuntress wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not too long ago the company where I worked was having a similar debate concerning services provided (through an intermediary) to ICE. One particular facet in the discussion that stuck with me more than the rest was a comment by a co-worker who was visiting from the Berlin office. They talked briefly about small monuments on the street by their home marking the spots where people were arrested and taken to concentrat…

If ICE becomes a nazis then America will have also have become the same. I don't think it's fair or makes sense to single them out. Anyway, dealing with illegal immigration has popular support.

> dealing with illegal immigration has popular support.

You presume that "dealing with illegal immigration has popular support" is the same as "the public broadly supports arbitrary cruelty to illegal immigrants".

The US population (~80%) appears to think "dealing with illegal immigration" should mean "provide a path to citizenship" [1]

1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

> I don't think it's fair or makes sense to single them out.

ICE has earned all of the scrutiny they get. ICE does not seem to care about the welfare of the people in its care [2]. It does not seem to care about US immigration law [3]. Or the rights of legal immigrants [4]. ICE employees say ICE prioritizes rounding up law abiding families over criminal investigations [5].

[2] https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-se...

[3] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-15/asylum-off...

[4] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/ice-is-out-of-co...

[5] https://www.texasobserver.org/ice-hsi-letter-kirstjen-nielse...

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

#485

Post by moolcool »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #479
moolcool wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Seek responsibility, not power.

> Be kind, be bold, never yield

> I’d provide services to ICE

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

#486

Post by astine »

cco wrote: post #481
umvi wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, but in those two examples the behavior isn't actually immoral, so the work of those companies doesn't increase immoral behavior at all. They can rest easy that gay people will marry with more efficiency and no increase in immoral behavior occurred.

This line of reasoning begs the question. Yes, according to your moral framework, one is actually immoral and the other isn't, but living in a pluralist society requires leaving room for people to have and live by very different moral frameworks. There isn't a universally acknowledged objective standard of morality by which we can judge all actions and beliefs in a society so we need to structure the rule by which we settle moral disputes in a way that doesn't create moral hazard down the line.

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

#487

Post by kuzimoto »

drekembe wrote: post #301
jobeirne wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In societies that have full respect for private property, I should be able to refuse to do business with you for any reason, including the color of your shoes, the kind of music you listen to, or your marital preferences. Whether it is wise or rationally self-interested to do so is a different question.

Maybe, but I would rather live in a society that has full respect for people than full respect for private property.

Unfortunately you can't make everyone have respect for one another. If you force them via laws, that would probably just make them more resentful.

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

#488

Post by philwelch »

empath75 wrote: post #464
philwelch wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re referring to the Nazi movement in general, probably the point where they openly campaign against the concept of liberal democracy or use street violence (roughing up opposing groups, smashing windows, attacking/commandeering government facilities) as a means of social protest. Those are all pretty big warning signs that were present in the Nazis long before they seized power let alone built concentration ca…

No I'm referring to the German law enforcement agency that eventually ran the death camps. At what point in their journey toward the gas chambers do you say enough is enough. I would suggest that separating families and putting children in cages is far enough. Trump repeatedly asked his followers to rough up protestors 4 years ago .

> No I'm referring to the German law enforcement agency that eventually ran the death camps.

You placed your question in the 1920’s. The SS was founded as a bodyguard unit for NSDAP leaders in 1925 and remained purely an organ of the party until 1933 when Hitler became chancellor and the Reichstag passed the Enabling Acts. Up to that point, most of the political violence was carried out by the SA, which was likewise an organ of the NSDAP rather than the government. After the Enabling Acts, the Nazi government deliberately blurred the lines between the German government and the NSDAP, but that is well outside the timeframe you suggested.

To answer your question, I would probably not do business with any part of NSDAP starting in the 1920’s on account of their history of street violence and their platform of abolishing democracy. I would similarly refrain from doing business with the German government as soon as the Reichstag abolished democracy and outlawed every political party other than NSDAP. This would extend to the SS although the SS itself was not especially involved in any of these events.

As you can see, this isn’t a particularly relevant analogy.

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

#489

Post by tomjen3 »

Wohlf wrote: post #246
jrochkind1 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So not to go all Godwin, but take an extreme example... Do you think a company in 1930s Germany should have ethically refused to provide software that was used in concentration camps? [In fact, there was a bit of "IT" then, used for such, but it was provided by IBM. But to make the analogy closer, let's imagine a hypothetically Germany company]. ("Companies" don't do anything by themselves, so I guess the question is…

I think your argument is a better fit for the Chinese government which is currently running concentration camps for Uyghurs.

The (ilegitimate) China government should under no account be permitted to buy anything high tech from the US so long as they are the oppressive regime that they are.

However that is a dicussion that is, at most, tangential to this one.

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

#490

Post by monocasa »

dnautics wrote: post #462
monocasa wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't that strategy work for black people in the 1960s? Or LGBT more recently?

My claim is it didn't. You don't think black people were discriminated against in private locations well past the 1960s? What absolutely worked in the 1960s, was the banning of government REQUIRING segregation in private entities by law (which by the way, many companies absolutely chafed at, because quite frankly segregating your business is a cost-sinking pain in the ass to arrange and enforce). Nobody is disputing…

If that were the case, then de facto segregation wouldn't be increasing even to this day. Without the government enforcing segregation, people started separating themselves physically. Schools for instance are more segregated than they were in 1975.

Segregation wasn't a case of the government pushing these ideas on to unwilling populace.

Post reply on HN