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

811–820 of 841 posts

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

#811

Post by LunaSea »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #807
LunaSea wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, which also means that not everyone at GitHub agrees with not working on ICE related projects. I'm even betting that it is a small vocal minority that is against it. So, how should GitHub proceed in your opinion?

You realize that not everyone in an organization would have agreed with not working with Nazi Germany either? IBM literally sold them information retrieval technology they used to keep track of concentration camp inmates. So clearly the important decision-makers did not agree. I guess it is like any other question of what an organization should do. Those with the power to make decisions will decide based on some comb…

Of course opinion about ICE isn't unanimous.

However pretending that a vocal minority trying to push an agenda isn't bypassing democratic decision making is ludicrous.

Of course decision making in companies is not democratic, but if as a partisan employee you're trying to impose your opinion instead of trying to implement some kind of democratic process to consult other employees anonymously then you are no different than any authoritarian movement.

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

#812

Post by jrochkind1 »

LunaSea wrote: post #811
jrochkind1 wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that not everyone in an organization would have agreed with not working with Nazi Germany either? IBM literally sold them information retrieval technology they used to keep track of concentration camp inmates. So clearly the important decision-makers did not agree. I guess it is like any other question of what an organization should do. Those with the power to make decisions will decide based on some comb…

Of course opinion about ICE isn't unanimous. However pretending that a vocal minority trying to push an agenda isn't bypassing democratic decision making is ludicrous. Of course decision making in companies is not democratic, but if as a partisan employee you're trying to impose your opinion instead of trying to implement some kind of democratic process to consult other employees anonymously then you are no different…

I'm having trouble understanding your perspective on what's "anti-democratic".

As you note, neither github nor hardly any company has any kind of "democratic decision-making" at all. It's just not how companies work in America. So I don't understand hwo you can be "bypassing" something that doesn't exist.

When the executive and other decision makers at a company make decisions with no democratic decision making whatsoever, do you think that is "no different than any authoritarian movement"? Personally, I think saying it's "no different" is a bit much, it's a differnet in a bunch of ways -- but I think it's not great, I think we should work to put democratic decision-making in all companies. Do you agree?

In the meantime though, we don't have that. So what are people who want to have impact on the decision-making supposed to do? Even when there is democratic decision-making, it's considered normal to try to convince your fellow-decision makers of things. I don't understand where you are drawing the line between allowable ways to effect decision-making and "like an authoritarian movement". I mean, nobody's threatening anyone with violence, are they? What means of persuasion or pressure are according to you allowed, and what means are not?

It doesn't help that I don't think either of us has actually read the article, because it's behind a paywall? So I actually have no idea what methods or persuasion or pressure they are using. Do you know more than me? If so, feel free to tell me (ideally with a link to another article so I can get it from the source), and explain why you think those methods have crossed the line into "authoritarian"?

Since I don't know specificcally what they are doing, I can't really defend it specifically. Like, if they were beating people up who didn't agree with them, I'd definitely agree that's something authoritarian movements do! (I still don't think I'd agree it's "no different", there are always differences, that's a kind of lazy thing to say, "no different"). But I don't see any reason to think or assume they are doing that? Do you have more information than me? I'm confused why you are assuming they are using unethical methods, or even what you think those methods they are using are. Are you saying just that going to the press makes it "no different than any authoritarian movement", but if you just talked about it quietly inside the company that would be okay? That would seem an odd distinction to me.

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

#813

Post by LunaSea »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #812
LunaSea wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course opinion about ICE isn't unanimous. However pretending that a vocal minority trying to push an agenda isn't bypassing democratic decision making is ludicrous. Of course decision making in companies is not democratic, but if as a partisan employee you're trying to impose your opinion instead of trying to implement some kind of democratic process to consult other employees anonymously then you are no different…

I'm having trouble understanding your perspective on what's "anti-democratic". As you note, neither github nor hardly any company has any kind of "democratic decision-making" at all. It's just not how companies work in America. So I don't understand hwo you can be "bypassing" something that doesn't exist. When the executive and other decision makers at a company make decisions with no democratic decision making whats…

I agree with you but what I'm trying to explain is that complaining about a topic instead of trying to implement a democratic system to do so is the same as ignoring other people's opinion because they weren't loud enough.

If they want their opinion to be taken seriously, they should setup democratic vote among employees to collect votes anonymously about the issue at hand.

Proceeding otherwise is simply trying to convince colleagues but also removes the possibility for other employees to have their voices heard anonymously.

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

#814

Post by toasterlovin »

pmiller2 wrote: post #763
toasterlovin wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that “undocumented” is preferred by people sympathetic to illegal immigrants, but is it actually more correct?

It depends on how you define "correct," I suppose. If you're using it as a term of art, or you're a right wing think tank, then the correct term is "illegal alien." [0] It does not actually appear in Federal law, however. [1] The IRS uses the term "undocumented alien," which is kind of a weird, mixed construction, referring to people as "aliens" (which I always find weird, but, okay), but not "illegal." [2] Other gov…

Thanks for the response. I'll dig in when I have a bit more time, but this may change the language I use.

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

#815

Post by munificent »

rattray wrote: post #796
munificent wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's still politically dangerous, and would earn a company a lot of enemies and mistrust Yes, doing the right thing often is dangerous and earns you hatred from other people doing bad things who love the freedom of hiding amongst a herd of other equally guilty people. The reason we have so much respect for people who take stand and do what they believe is right is because doing so is so hard. That doesn't mean you…

If you're going to risk your business's livelihood to bravely take a stand, it should be in a situation where you can win. Where your bold action will be the turning point towards victory of righteousness. And where the magnitude of that victory is commensurate with the risk of your business's failure. Denying the use of racially biased facial recognition software is a much clearer example where the risks are lower a…

> If you're going to risk your business's livelihood to bravely take a stand, it should be in a situation where you can win.

I fundamentally disagree with this. Your argument is akin to stating that there should never be any casualties in a war. There is no way to effectively win a war without sometimes sending some troops into situations where you know they will die.

Compared to soldiers who knowingly lay down their lives in losing battles to help win the war, choosing a moral course of action that merely ends a company seems like a pretty cheap sacrifice.

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

#816

Post by staticassertion »

manigandham wrote: post #731
staticassertion wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft already banned the police from using Rekognition. I think if the bar is "don't kill minorities" people are mostly going to be OK with you cutting the contract.

I'm a minority who is tired of people using that term without any distinction. Please be more specific because "minorities" are not being randomly killed. We’re doing just fine.

Don't kill anyone en masse.

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

#817

Post by mijamo »

kelnos wrote: post #604
brabel wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am strongly against a private business being able to refuse service to a person/organization on political grounds, even when the "victim" may seem to be performing evil actions, as long as it is not breaking any laws. One should not discriminate on the basis of race, political orientation, gender, origin or religion. Refusing service is clearly a form of discrimination. When you aim that towards your own Government…

Your argument is full of false equivalencies. A government agency cannot be a victim of discrimination, at least not in any way that matters. It is not a person, and does not have rights. A government agency refusing to follow its orders is in no way parallel or analogous to a private company refusing to serve a particular customer. In the first case it's an illegal act, where the result will be the firing/jailing of…

This is not an absolute truth, and many countries would disagree with your interpretation of discrimination.

For instance in France regarding B2B sales:

"Constitue également une discrimination toute distinction opérée entre les personnes morales sur le fondement de l'origine, du sexe, de la situation de famille, de la grossesse, de l'apparence physique, de la particulière vulnérabilité résultant de la situation économique, apparente ou connue de son auteur, du patronyme, du lieu de résidence, de l'état de santé, de la perte d'autonomie, du handicap, des caractéristiques génétiques, des mœurs, de l'orientation sexuelle, de l'identité de genre, de l'âge, des opinions politiques, des activités syndicales, de la capacité à s'exprimer dans une langue autre que le français, de l'appartenance ou de la non-appartenance, vraie ou supposée, à une ethnie, une Nation, une prétendue race ou une religion déterminée des membres ou de certains membres de ces personnes morales."

This clearly states that you cannot refuse to sell a product or to a company on political grounds, just like you can't refuse to sell to a Jewish association because they are Jewish, or to a Italian company because you don't trust Italians.

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

#818

Post by kennywinker »

LunaSea wrote: post #799
kennywinker wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As we are about to see in minneapolis, just like defund the police doesn’t mean no law enforcement, abolish ice doesn’t mean an open border. It means ICE is a structure that is harming american values (liberty, justice, due process). And the idea here is to apply pressure any way possible. Maybe losing github doesn’t practically change much, but if I was working somewhere and companies started cancelling contracts du…

Should GitHub employees refuse to work on legal related matters to put pressure on the government to prosecute BLM protesters that recklessly put lives at risk during a pandemic?

1. Given that black lives are disproportionately effected by covid (well documented) it seems like it’s more their risk to take than yours to criticize. But whatever the risk created by protesters, the teargas and “crowd dispersal” methods used by police forces will be responsible for way more spread than a bunch of people marching wearing masks.

2. If we had not been devaluing black lives and letting off murdering cops for hundreds of years, we would not be seeing protests in the streets. This was entirely preventable: just dismantle systemic racism, like yesterday.

3. If the majority of github’s employees shared your skewed view of the blm protests, they might apply pressure on their employer, yes.

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

#819

Post by rattray »

munificent wrote: post #815
rattray wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to risk your business's livelihood to bravely take a stand, it should be in a situation where you can win. Where your bold action will be the turning point towards victory of righteousness. And where the magnitude of that victory is commensurate with the risk of your business's failure. Denying the use of racially biased facial recognition software is a much clearer example where the risks are lower a…

> If you're going to risk your business's livelihood to bravely take a stand, it should be in a situation where you can win. I fundamentally disagree with this. Your argument is akin to stating that there should never be any casualties in a war. There is no way to effectively win a war without sometimes sending some troops into situations where you know they will die. Compared to soldiers who knowingly lay down their…

Within this analogy, I was saying you shouldn't start a war you can't win. It's typical for winners to sustain casualties.

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

#820

Post by jancsika »

mc32 wrote: post #617
jancsika wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it within their moral rights for backhoe operators demand manual ditch digging too because that will benefit their friends who lost jobs to powered equipment? This seems like an unfruitful digression. OP already agreed that the actions of ICE are immoral and that this action is within the moral rights of the workers. The main question is about efficacy. That isn't elucidated by introducing a thought experiment w…

For most Americans and, I’d guess most citizens of most countries, enforcing immigration laws isn’t a big debate and enforcement is routine and companies don’t question enforcement by their government. So the question is can employees who have diverging moralities have direct input on what a company considers moral and immoral outside the common take of the population at large?

> For most Americans and, I’d guess most citizens of most countries, enforcing immigration laws isn’t a big debate and enforcement is routine and companies don’t question enforcement by their government.

At least for Americans you are wrong on all three counts, and that may be where the confusion is coming.

The workers (and as I already stated, the OP) all agree that there are actions done by ICE that are not only unethical but morally reprehensible. One of the (only) two major parties officially agrees as do a large portion of their constituents.

So your question about views "outside the common take" is interesting but not relevant to this discussion.

Post reply on HN