151–160 of 1001 posts
Weren't John Kerry and Hillary Clinton arguably equally responsible for any war that Condy supported? The voted for the funds that made it possible, how is that less responsible for the results?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like holding non-profits to higher standards than corporates. That seems a strange and grossly unfair thing to do, ultimately counterproductive to the very purpose of non-profits. Of course, when it comes to their core values you have to hold non-profits to high standards - e.g. Mozilla on the open web. But when it comes to things unrelated to their mission... Why should they be any more perfect than a fo…
This is rapidly turning very ugly, and I can't stand it. Is being "anti-gay" or "pro-war" or even just "republican" the new Communism? The new witchcraft?
I prefer to remain non-partisan and instead look at things as a complete outsider, just as a regular human being without any rooted loyalty in any one system or another.
If a company hires a shitty person, and people start dropping their service like flies, and that company reconsiders, then we're moving in a good direction, and I view my "vote" of not sticking with Dropbox more as a single ballot to living in a more informed and refined society.
I really hope somebody replies and lets me know why I'm wrong rather than just sitting here at -2. Please don't turn HN into Reddit :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like holding non-profits to higher standards than corporates. That seems a strange and grossly unfair thing to do, ultimately counterproductive to the very purpose of non-profits. Of course, when it comes to their core values you have to hold non-profits to high standards - e.g. Mozilla on the open web. But when it comes to things unrelated to their mission... Why should they be any more perfect than a fo…
This is rapidly turning very ugly, and I can't stand it. Is being "anti-gay" or "pro-war" or even just "republican" the new Communism? The new witchcraft?
Dropping Mozilla because Eich is anti-gay-marriage made sense to me because Mozilla is the beacon of open source. Mozilla belongs to us in a very personal way, many of us have contributed code to Firefox personally. But Condi Rice joining a completely private Dropbox as a board member - this is a non-issue. I'm as strongly anti-Bush administration and anti-war in general (especially the Iraq War - good grief) as anyo…
Can't we just keep software and politics separate? Do we really need to divide ourselves in yet another area because of differences of opinion?
EDIT: This is a general point, not an opinion on the current issue.
It has become an article of faith that the Bush administration acted in bad faith about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong.
How intelligent, well educated people be so wrong, unless they were secretly evil? Groupthink for one, and in particular a failure to consider alternatives because of assumption of bad faith on the part of those who disagree with them.
I really don't care one way or another whether Condi is on the board of Dropbox or not, and I applaud you for refusing to do business with a company you believe is immoral. But I would be surprised (pleasantly) if this was a standard you were applying consistently, thoughtfully and evenly.
This is one of many unfair generalizations about energy companies. In reality, Chevron is one of the greatest contributors to alternative energy research. Without it and ExxonMobil, there wouldn't have been half as much progress toward sustainable power.
When looking to grow our board, we sought out a leader who could help us expand our global footprint. Condoleezza sure left a global footprint in the Middle East alright. Hate do this Dropbox, but time for me to move on. Edit: Suggestions for a Dropbox substitute?
http://titansgroup.com.br/cloud.php
It's currently aimed at telcos (América Móvil used it in Latin America) but IIRC they rolled out their own product, at least for internal use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this feels totally different from the Eich case. His political beliefs has nothing to do with Mozilla's product. However, giving someone who approves of wiretaps an important position in a company that people trust with their data, seems like an unbelievably bad idea. It's not just about whether someone in the company has an opinion I find despicable, it's about whether my own data is still safe.
[deleted]