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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Drop Dropbox

#981

Post by tripzilch »

yypark wrote: post #969
stormbrew wrote: post #959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we used a boycott at every opportunity, at every disagreement, where would we be? If we used a slippery slope argument at every opportunity, at every disagreement, where would we be? Would we be able to buy milk for fear of the veritable avalanche of milk we may end up buying in the future? Could we stand the idea of going to work one day under the contemplation of spending the next thousand years, every day, go…

The point is not the slippery slope of "all boycotts are bad" or "boycott everything!" but rather that we've become too trigger-happy and insular in boycotting non-tech political opinions that while mainstream outside of Silicon Valley, are not inside. The entire debate is on when a boycott is appropriate and grellas is arguing to draw the line farther than the current one that's solidifying in tech. Cynically, it ju…

> what happens when you're in the moral minority?

in the moral minority where people in positions of power think torture is a-okay?

I think you'll find yourself shit out of luck regardless of your past choices in boycotting or not.

It does, however, have a tiny influence on the chances of actually finding yourself in this unenviable position in the future.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#982

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

pbreit wrote: post #562
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about she has a questionable approach to privacy and Dropbox is an application where privacy is key?

How about, she's in a remarkable position to help Dropbox become the leading provider with respect to privacy?

She could join Amnesty and be in a remarkable position to campaign against torture but her history suggest that isn't something she is remotely likely to do.

Similarly her history suggest that she is not a proponent of individual privacy where it conflicts with the perceived need of the state so I'm not sure why you think it's something she'd do now.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#983

Post by tripzilch »

theorique wrote: post #952
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…

Rice is a war criminal who happens to have not been prosecuted. That's a pretty serious claim, and more a matter of opinion. Depending on the situation, one could point such a charge at any person who was in a position of authority in a government of a nation that was fighting a war, if one were so inclined. Shouldn't a person's status as a war criminal depend on whether they've actually been charged, tried, convicte…

> Shouldn't a person's status as a war criminal depend on whether they've actually been charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced?

The US doesn't recognize or allow jurisdiction by international organisations that try for war crimes, such as the ICC.

So if we're going to follow your definition, US politicians would be immune to war criminal status.

> Depending on the situation, one could point such a charge at any person who was in a position of authority in a government of a nation that was fighting a war, if one were so inclined.

Not really. It's entirely possible to wage war without committing war crimes. In fact that's part of the reason why the term even exists as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the ICC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes

Regardless, the US has committed war crimes in the "War on Terror". The following link lists a couple of situations and events that have factually happened and fall under the definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#.22Wa...

Then there's Condoleeza Rice's role in this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Role_in_author...

Re: Drop Dropbox

#985

Post by ajsharp »

equalarrow wrote: post #90
ajsharp wrote: post #20

This is just silly.

How so? So it's ok to be a part of the team that was responsible for killing many men, women, and children and not only not answer for it, but move on to be on company boards where you can be a part of some serious collection of money at some point? Wow, ok. We must be living in different realities because those years that she was part of will be looked at (or already are) as some of the worst - if not the worst - in…

While convenient to paint a picture of everything being messed up and different than previous generations, none of this is at all accurate. The difference is that we lived through the Bush administration, remember it vividly, and many of us disagreed with nearly everything that happened during those 8 years. And it just happened, so it's still fresh(ish). As the saying goes, "everything's different, everything's the same." I agree those years were really bad; whether they were the worst or whatever is relevant only to someone trying to make a broader point (which I'm not).

Personally, in most cases, I don't have a problem with hiring someone based on their merits, despite what their past job was, or even what their political beliefs are (see: Brendan Eich). Apparently Condoleeza Rice is extremely smart, capable, and, as the former Secretary of State, obviously well-connected in the international community.

And while you made a pretty good attempt at equating her to Dick Cheney, she's just not Dick Cheney.

At the end of the day, this is about Dropbox, not the Bush administration, and if Drew Houston has a spine, nothing will change about this situation.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#986

Post by jnbiche »

jshen wrote: post #861
jnbiche wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to the Obama administration's assertion that it can kill any American it wants without trial? Here's are reports on this policy from two traditionally liberal news organizations (the conservative ones are equally damning): 1. http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/ 2. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/obama-assassin... Don't get me wrong, I believe the Bush administration was horrific.…

I was replying to the implication that the bush admin was just your typical political sin of power. Why you viewed that through a partisan lense I do not know.

I didn't view it through a partisan lens. I don't give a damn what party Bush or Obama belong to -- they've both been horrible presidents from an international relations and domestic privacy/constitutional rights perspective, regardless of what letter comes after their name.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#987

Post by eli »

greendestiny wrote: post #976
davidw wrote: post #975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's get this straight: > I think grellas argument is so flawed that the only reason to make it and upvote is as distraction and current best defense while the dropbox team works on something more believable. This is some kind of conspiracy to distract HN, because... DropBox fears HN? And grellas has been hired to carry it out by commenting?

No I think people like to defend things associated with people or startup incubators they like. So in a sea of negativity they latch onto any argument in favour of the thing despite its lack of merit.

I actually just agree with grellas. I'm indifferent to Dropbox.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#988

Post by a8000 »

theorique wrote: post #952
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…

Rice is a war criminal who happens to have not been prosecuted. That's a pretty serious claim, and more a matter of opinion. Depending on the situation, one could point such a charge at any person who was in a position of authority in a government of a nation that was fighting a war, if one were so inclined. Shouldn't a person's status as a war criminal depend on whether they've actually been charged, tried, convicte…

Anyone with a shred of conscience would have resigned from the Bush administration sooner than later. The war against Iraq was against international law, since it was not sanctioned by an UN resolution, regardless of the war crimes commited. Unfortunately US officials are above international law, because the US has not ratified the ICC (international criminal court) treaty.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#989

Post by king_jester »

facepalm wrote: post #526
king_jester wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with most of the opposition to Condi Rice wrt the illegal war, warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. On the other hand, I threw a hissy fit over the opposition to Eich based on his beliefs. I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency. The issue here isn't just about someone's personal beliefs. Eich and Rice…

Gay marriage really isn't such an obvious case. Marriage means subventions by the government. So I suppose you could argue that the subventions are really for promoting families with the ultimate goal of having children. Even though gay families can adopt, you could argue that promoting gay marriage does not bring more children into the world. Not saying that is my opinion, or that marriage is currently perfectly des…

> Marriage means subventions by the government.

Marriage is not a subvention. You are not granted a cash bonus for being married. You access differences in tax consideration, yes, but that is not the same as getting direct payment. Moreover, there are a variety of legal rights that are available to married couples vs. non-married couple and non straight couples deserve access to those rights just the same as anyone else.

> So I suppose you could argue that the subventions are really for promoting families with the ultimate goal of having children. Even though gay families can adopt, you could argue that promoting gay marriage does not bring more children into the world.

> Not saying that is my opinion, or that marriage is currently perfectly designed for that goal (after all, childless couples can marry too and get some benefits). But I can understand if people feel "if I am paying for other people's marriage, I want to pay for more children being brought into the world in my country" - or something like that. Then I think it would be acceptable to oppose (gay) marriage on that ground.

Marriage isn't granted or denied to straight people based on their ability to have or not have children, this argument does not hold water. Also, marriage is not strictly about reproducing anyway. Biology-based arguments of this kind is highly discriminatory in general and shouldn't be allowed as the basis for law.

> It's not a question of denying people the right to be together, but a question of what the community should pay for.

This is not a question of what the community should pay for, the community would pay less if more overall couples and families were stable, this is a question of discrimination of the most basic kind.

> From my European perspective it seems much less ethical to deny people health care (talk about basic human rights), yet I am sure many who support gay marriage are opposed to public health care for a variety of reasons (they don't want to live in a socialist country or whatever).

That there is a bigger problem compared to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that some people are still being denied the ability to marry and access the rights that come with that status.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#990

Post by a8000 »

janj wrote: post #598
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…

Starting an unnecessary war is a big deal. Denying due process and torturing detainees is a big deal. The Patriot Act was one of the most un-American acts of Congress. Rice had a significant role in destroying the values I once thought were vitally important in claiming American exceptionalism. We can never get that back. We are now a country that starts unnecessary wars, tortures detainees and denies due process and…

I think you have misconceptions about what American policy has been in the past. Remember all the US backed coups in South and Central America, accompied by mass slaughter of political opposition (e.g. Contras in Nicaragua) often by groups trained in US military schools, the extensive bombing campaigns in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with 100k-1m lives lost, all the US backed dictators (Suharto, Irans Shah,...), to name just a few.
Post reply on HN