Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

theregister.co.uk

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#311

Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. If you disagree I’m happy to discuss this viewpoint rather than being downvoted to oblivion. Lots of issues are deemed “political”, but imagine you fall into one of the marginalized groups: — lgbt: Don’t discuss the possibility about being fired for your sexuality becau…

Completely agree. Besides which it's a hopelessly medieval master-slave attitude to employment - the notion that they're not paying for time, expertise or work, but rather taking temporary ownership of subjects. I would have nothing to do with Gitlab knowing this, as employee or customer.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#312
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify I don't dislike Rogan. I don't always like him either. I think he occasionally makes great points and sometimes says profoundly dumb stuff. The point is he's divisive and I don't wan't this to become a Joe Rogan debate.

I find it interesting that an admittedly not-that-smart (calls himself a moron regularly) fighter/comedian who just talks with all sorts of people is sufficiently divisive enough to merit such asterisks. Strange times.

I think it's because he's not that bright and has one of the most prolific podcasts in terms of listeners that he's divisive. He is mostly uncritical of whatever someone says and isn't that quick on the draw to call people out so he's basically a platform for any mildly famous person to go on the show and spew whatever crackpot theory there is for a few hours unchallenged to his huge base of listeners. He himself is not that controversial but he allows on controversial characters unchallenged.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#313

Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. If you disagree I’m happy to discuss this viewpoint rather than being downvoted to oblivion. Lots of issues are deemed “political”, but imagine you fall into one of the marginalized groups: — lgbt: Don’t discuss the possibility about being fired for your sexuality becau…

"I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work." Can you clarify the meaning? As it reads to me, if one belongs to a marginalized group, one would suffer disproportionately from making such a statement. I'm not quite clear on the semantics I suppose.

On another note, anecdotally, how many people have had a work relationship or project suffer due to discussion of politics at work, or alternatively, improve? (This being a reason not to discuss, it would be beneficial to sample for how likely it is to occur negatively.)

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#314
post #129

I personally think this is awesome. I don't wan't some git hosting startup to be the arbiter of morality for society. The engineers, designers, and PMs shouldn't have an outsized voice in society because they have a specialized useful skillset and ended up on a successful product. If these users are breaking laws, then put them out of business via the courts and sieze the assets (the repos in this case) via legal mea…

Yes. I agree that companies shouldn't become adhoc moral arbiters. beholden to social media campaigns, or the like.

However, the bigger problem is that companies with international presence are going to have an increasingly difficult time navigating legal sanctions or directives from the various countries they may sell to or operate in.

The challenge comes when a company is faced with being closed out of a large market if they don't comply with another country's legal directives. While, the best/right answer might be to ignore those countries, the reality of having to withdraw from valuable markets would be challenging.

Though, while it may seem like new problem, non-digital industries have been dealing with this kind of thing for a long time. Maybe the WTO, or the like, will develop fair trade/IP regime to guard against enabling a country to block or sanction international digital/media companies for violating local laws. But I wouldn't expect anything like to happen soon because countries are not to keen on giving up sovereignty.

Maybe spontaneous digital trade wars will become a thing.

edit: typo as usual

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#315
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the point is McDonalds doesn't empower $villain to do $badstuff (that is, unless he is literally starving - in which case it would be inhumane to not give him food). However, technology empowers us to do things that would not be possible without it. Sometimes, a company can not choose who uses their tools - e.g. if it is open source, you can hardly prevent $villain from using it. This is similar to a ham…

I think the analogy still stands if the goods/service is a commodity. It's not like $evil_corp will just forego using version control if GitLab doesn't offer it; there are tons of version control offerings. The interesting spot is where you're selling off-the-shelf goods/ services that nobody else can provide. I would say that it's morally wrong to provide those services in that case since it's directly attributable…

So if $villain goes to the hardware store, says he needs a good hammer since $villain is feeling like hitting $someone with it - then the hardware store should sell a hammer? After all, $villain may go to the competing hardware store and get a hammer there, or even build his own hammer.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#316

Politics could be discussed at work, if parties didn't decide to go for super extreme, polarizing positions. These days it feels like you cannot speak with the other side of the wall without getting into a fight. What happened to pragmatism and centrists? Politicians need divisiveness to keep their chairs. That said, I would exclude any customer that has extreme views. Why support their platform, especially with a pr…

> and help them spread hate

because hate has been extended to include whatever people don't like, i.e. hate. Hate is a particularly bad choice of sieve. Violence is better

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#317
post #203

Without trying to be inflammatory in any manner, I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work. If you disagree I’m happy to discuss this viewpoint rather than being downvoted to oblivion. Lots of issues are deemed “political”, but imagine you fall into one of the marginalized groups: — lgbt: Don’t discuss the possibility about being fired for your sexuality becau…

Preach. Politics being silenced in a work place is so short sighted and dumb. We should strive for a world where disagreement is not the end of a good working relationship, not one where crypto-politics is the new normal in the workplace. Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you're delusional.

Would you please clarify what you mean by, "Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you're delusional?"

Here's the problem: at least in SV, you're going to be restricted to a sub-set of very narrow beliefs which are acceptable to express. I may hold a personal belief that, say, trans-sexuality is not a "real thing" or ought not to be treated with surgery. Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"? You may believe my belief is just too "in-tolerant" or "bigoted" to be expressed, but who are you to be the arbiter thereof?

Now let's take the other side of the coin. If you work in the energy industry, heavy manufacturing, etc., you probably couldn't express support for trans-sexuals without having problems. On the other hand, you'd likely have no issue saying you didn't believe in such a thing. I know someone in energy who wore a rainbow flag pin during one gay month a few years ago; he wasn't fired, but many of his superiors became noticeably cold toward him and he left after realizing he probably couldn't move up at that company. Again, why ought that to be the case?

The biggest issue is that when people start talking politics, you are expected to participate. Some one looks over and says, "Hey Big Chungus, what do you think?" In such a situation, I cannot reasonably say, "Oh, I have no opinion." Certain issues are simply so partisan that such a response, even in the rare circumstance that it is true, will anger both sides and damage me.

So, I avoid talking politics at work and try to work at places where others do the same. People I work with generally never know my politics. I am more than happy to bloviate about political stuff with friends and family, or to go be mad online after work. At work, it is best to stay non-partisan.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#318

I am glad Dang changed the title as the original one was unnecessarily inflammatory. I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that? > Such a declaration could run afoul of legal boundaries in some circumstances. Whi…

I don't think even Google actually encouraged people to discuss politics at work. They never did when I was there. It was more a side-effect of decentralising the power to create forums. Anyone could create discussion lists there without asking permission, this was highly useful for coordination, making it easy to spin up new projects and avoiding siloing of information into people's private mail accounts. The flip s…

>I suspect the shift was caused by Google running out of experienced software engineers to hire, and switching to growing through recruiting new college grads at much greater numbers.

Could this not have easily been a backlash against the companies no longer operating neutrally? You describe a timeline here that goes neutral Google -> hard left because of the employees. That doesn't jive with what I've seen in the news. Google and other tech companies were the ones trying to get into China and building systems that censor users. The big data companies started surreptitiously tracking everyone, whether or not you had agreed to ala Facebook's shadow profiles. That doesn't really mesh up with libertarian ideas of free trade. Based on the employee backlash these all seem like they were management driven decisions that employees didn't agree with. Wouldn't a natural reaction be to push hard in the opposite side of the direction the companies management was going towards?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#319
Not discussing politics at work seems like it's missing a pretty key point here. Saying we will not choose our customers is not a realistic stance in this world. Choices will have to be made and when they are it is helpful to have a framework in place to make them. This just kicks the can down the road. I have no doubt that a future article will feature gitlab in a situation where they have had to choose and find themselves having to wordsmith or spin their way out of it.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#320

I'm sure everyone who has to earn a living to support their family will appreciate this move. Nothing is worse than politics at work, where you may lose your paycheck if you don't align with the correct factions.

"Nothing is worse than politics at work, where you may lose your paycheck if you don't align with the correct factions." I should bring up in this light that its still legal to fire people for being gay in much of the USA and there's a current supreme court case coming up to determine federally if discrimination on the basis of orientation or gender identity is covered under current antidiscrimination law. In that ca…

Right, people should advocate for whatever politics they want... just not at work. The issue you identify is a government one, not an individual workplace one. Even something like that is too much burden to put on your fellow co-workers to have to advocate for or pick a side.
Post reply on HN