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

Drop Dropbox

drop-dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Drop Dropbox

#901

Post by EliAndrewC »

supersystem wrote: post #899
EliAndrewC wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debates on Brendan Eich and Condoleezza Rice seem to boil down three separate questions: 1) Is there any belief or action not directly related to someone's job that should disqualify them from their position? 2) If the answer to #1 is yes, does this specific issue cross that threshold? 3) Does the answer to #1 change based on their position within a company, e.g. a regular employee vs a CEO? I've seen well-reasoned a…

> Since grellas' post was an argument about question #1, I hope people are able to recognize that and tailor their responses to the argument he is actually making, in the spirit of "colleagues trying to reason out the truth together". I think grellas comment was tactless. He used his karma to publish a largely meta argument, ignoring the debate as well as the link and not responding to anyone else afterwards. This is…

grellas' argument doesn't sit right with me either, but I disagree that his argument was tactless or intended to derail anything. When grellas writes:

> Principle is more important here than a particular outcome. What happens with Ms. Rice is not the issue here.

I get why you'd see that as trying to derail more specific discussion, and why you'd disagree with that statement in general. However, I see it as part of a good-faith argument that blocking employment based on political beliefs (or even actions) is generally harmful to society, even if we feel we have valid reasons in a specific case.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#903

Post by vacri »

grellas wrote: post #538

Think about what it means to the HN culture to have a subject that normally would have been flagged out of existence as overtly political suddenly be featured front and center in the apparent belief that ideological purity is now a litmus test for who can serve on a board of directors in the startup world. In a free society, people can unite in their business ventures even though they might be far apart in how they v…

Her track record is detestable, but there is a very salient issue that is relevant to her being a director of a data holding company: her previous authorisation of data invasion.

Whether or not you are for or against her other activities, they are irrelevant to her position as director. But taking data without warrants? That is something that is directly relevant to Dropbox's core product.

That's not a matter of 'free opinion', it's a serious warning for clients of the company, that there is a new director that is personally responsible for expanding surveillance and authorising the taking of private data without due process.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#904

Post by ForrestN »

pauleastlund wrote: post #646
ForrestN wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is proposing laws about who can hold given positions. There is no free speech angle here. What's happening on HN is exactly what our system wants to happen: answer speech you don't like with more speech! There's a lot at stake here, which is why people are reacting so forcefully. What kind of values does the SV community have? What kind of values do Y Combinator and HN have? People are coming here because HN a…

> No one is proposing laws about who can hold given positions. There is no free speech angle here. This is a total straw man. The comment you are responding to does not mention "free speech" once. The point is: you are part of a significant, vocal group that is enjoying using its clout to blackball public figures from the tech industry over certain political views that are only held by a minority in tech. Should any…

Straw man?

"In a free society, people can unite in their business ventures even though they might be far apart in how they view the world generally."

This is in contrast with what the author sees as the harrowing implications of user outrage about Rice: ie., an un-free society in which people cannot unite. He describes "rules" as if the mob is somehow enforcing a tyrannical reign over businesses like dropbox.

I'd say it differently: I'm part of a significant, vocal group that has strong opinions about the ethics of its members. This isn't "us against them," it's us holding ourselves to higher standards. The problem isn't that we disagree with Rice. The problem is that when given power she repeatedly took actions that harmed both the united states and the world that many other people knew at the time she shouldn't have taken.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#905

Post by mmanfrin »

grellas wrote: post #538

Think about what it means to the HN culture to have a subject that normally would have been flagged out of existence as overtly political suddenly be featured front and center in the apparent belief that ideological purity is now a litmus test for who can serve on a board of directors in the startup world. In a free society, people can unite in their business ventures even though they might be far apart in how they v…

    What matters is upholding the abiding principle (precious in a free society) that people can hold divergent views on such topics as politics, religion, and society
There is a wide gap of difference between holding a specific political view, and being a part of an administration that pushed and enacted a specific political agenda that did actual harm to our country/world.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#906

Post by twoodfin »

mikeash wrote: post #625
notahacker wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, the one tactic that might be more effective than the ballot in deterring bad leadership is hitting bad leaders in the pocket by.... making them into pariahs that corporations don't want to associated with.

Indeed, making it a common think that a company suffers when they donate to causes that their customers disagree with would be a great way to curb the huge increase in the influence of money in politics.

Would you apply this standard for encouraging suffering to your local pizza place? Your neighbors? Your kid's teachers? They're probably the political actors over which you have the most leverage.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#907

Post by fredophile »

callmeed wrote: post #605
VikingCoder wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a company to actively fight the government's intrusion into my data, to ensure that my rights are defended. With this appointment, I have no faith that the Dropbox Board of Directors see their role this way.

If you want that from a company, isn't having someone who used to be deeply involved in the other side a great way to do it? I'm not saying that's what they'll do, but we don't know either way do we?

Do you really believe that that's what she'll do now that she works for Dropbox?

Let's try a similar but different example to see how this works in practice. The SEC enforces laws on Wall St. There's a revolving door between Wall St firms and the SEC. Do you believe this leads to better enforcement?

Re: Drop Dropbox

#908

Post by vacri »

viggity wrote: post #476
_hgt1 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike Eich, Rice went far beyond simply holding beliefs and making donations. She held real power and used it in unconscionable ways. Given the current climate, I find it incredible that a cloud storage company would be involved with someone who actually wiretapped members of the UN Security Council. It's almost like they're saying "thanks for all the data, oh and f * you".

> Wiretapping members of the UN Security Council You realize that is part of the reason we have the NSA, right? Only in a fantasy world do the other members not attempt to spy on the US. The reason why the NSA spying issue is wrong is because they were violating the consitutional rights of US Citizens. The German Chancellor is not a US Citizen and we have every reason to spy on her, the same goes for every other coun…

What you're saying doesn't change the point that someone who promoted mass surveillance is now a director of a data storage and security company. These are directly opposite ideals.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#909

Post by vacri »

HNJohnC wrote: post #551
sreya wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe every country in the world doesn't try to bug any country they have an investment in, rather it be ally or enemy, you're naive. I can't believe it even came as surprise that US bugged its allies, you don't believe our allies do the same thing, or at least try to, to us?

"Everyone else does it so it's ok". Well we know where your moral compass points at least.

That's how it is in the spying world. You spy on everyone, including your allies. The caveat is that if you get caught, your ally gets to raise a public stink.

This being said, having a spymaster that previously worked towards questionable goals (on a scale rarely before seen) as your new director of a data storage company? Not a good idea.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#910

Post by Turing_Machine »

fredophile wrote: post #900
Turing_Machine wrote: post #866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing free speech and the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects free speech against the U.S. government, but governmental control is not the only aspect of free speech. Free speech is a larger issue. Edit: if what you are saying were true, there wouldn't be any free speech issues in any country besides the United States. Clearly that is not the case.

It sounds like you're saying that if there are any consequences for speech then it isn't free. This probably isn't what you really mean so please feel free to clarify your argument. I'd rather debate your real position than rip apart a strawman.

I said nothing of the sort.

What I said was free speech and the First Amendment aren't the same thing.

Are you claiming that they are? If you are, we can have a debate. If not, there's no issue here to debate.

Post reply on HN