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

Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#331

Post by anarchodev »

anm89 wrote: 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…

> 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

Refusing to serve a customer when you disagree with that customer's goal is pretty far from being a "moral arbiter for society." Keep in mind that anyone is free to use other services (or roll their own) and gitlab can't do anything about that. Neither would it be overreaching for the workers building that product to request a say in how it's used.

> 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 means.

Refusing someone a service you provide is a completely legal action. This has never been illegal afaik. In many cases I can think of the users wouldn't be actually breaking any laws, which isn't the same as saying that their actions aren't immoral.

> The tech unicorns screwed themselves over BIG TIME, the second they stopped claiming they were just infrastructure and platforms and got into content moderation. They will now forever be a pawn of whoever has some power and has some agenda.

In this last sentence, who are you claiming has power? It seems to me if I had power I wouldn't bother trying to persuade my boss not to do business with certain agencies, I'd just make it illegal and force them to change. Does that seem like a course of action available to gitlab employees?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#332

Post by xeonoex »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #168

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…

To me, there is a big difference between discussing politics and preaching politics. I do want my company to tell me not to discuss politics with coworkers who are willing to discuss it. Not dicussing politics, especially with people who have a difference of opinion, is what leads to rage filled echochambers that are so common now. However, I do not want people preaching politics unsolicited at work though.

I think politics being a taboo topic is an attempt to keep workers in order and ignore any political or environmental impact that their own company might have.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#333

Post by midnighttoker »

dang wrote: post #2

This is a divisive topic, but the story seems to pass the interesting-new-phenomenon test ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). If you comment, note this guideline: " Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. " We've changed the title in accordance with https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html , but if anyone can suggest a better (i.e. more a…

> We've changed the title in accordance with the site guidelines

You've change it away from the story title, which is normally the site guideline isn't it?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#334

Post by Mvandenbergh »

neonate wrote: post #280
anm89 wrote: 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…

Wow, that is such a clear analysis that someone should transcribe it. Here's the main part of what Naval says: "If Google, Facebook, and Twitter had been smart about this, they would not have picked sides. They would have said "We're publishers. Whatever goes through our pipes goes through our pipes. If it's illegal, we'll take it down. Give us a court order. Otherwise we don't touch it." It's like the phone company.…

The problem with at least Facebook and Twitter (and possibly Google) in this analysis is that their attention-grabbing model requires them to analyse and interfere with the data which is coming through their systems. The only way not to do that would be for FB timelines and Twitter feeds to be strictly sequential feeds which at some point in the past they may have been but they are not now.

Once you start basing your business model on selectively making some content more visible, you have already crossed a rubicon between a strictly neutral common carrier and a publisher.

(There is an error in the quote where they use publisher when they mean common carrier, a publisher is precisely an organisation that does have full editorial control of what they put out which is the opposite of what they intend from the rest of the quote.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#335

Post by midnighttoker »

eindiran wrote: post #49
cbhl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to confirm, "this one" in your comment refers to the original article's title being "really bad"? (As opposed to the editorialized title.)

I think "this one" refers to the original article's title being really bad: "Blood money is fine with us, says GitLab: Vetting non-evil customers is 'time consuming, potentially distracting'"

Are they wrong?

Maybe it's around here already, but I'd like to hear the CEO actually state how the title is inaccurate.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#336

Post by umeshunni »

Gitlab, being a remote first workplace probably has a more politically diverse workplace than most and probably realizes that not everyone agrees with everyone else on many things.

Most SV companies, on the other hand, are political monocultures that assumes that west coast liberal politics is the norm and everyone are just Nazis.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#337

Post by cabaalis »

repolfx wrote: post #225
sytse wrote: post #143

Someone at GitLab just made a suggestion to change the wording of the policy that I merged https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/...

That merge appears to change the policy in ways that render this discussion largely irrelevant (given the current subject line). It used to say: We do not currently exclude anyone from being a customer based on moral/value grounds. followed by a list of reasons why not. It now says: In some circumstances, we may opt to not work with particular organizations, but we assess those on a case-by-case basis. Some reasons w…

It's called a reversal. They went from "we do not currently exclude" to "this list, _not limited to_" which means anything they want it to mean.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#338

Post by duxup »

PunchTornado wrote: post #201
duxup wrote: post #30

I feel like discussing politics at work has always been something most folks try to avoid. On the other hand your company telling you not to is a whole other situation. I'm not sure a policy really solves much. Anyone who wouldn't think twice before discussing such things ... probabbly isn't going to read / care about the policy. It's one of those rules that no matter how well intentioned, I'm not sure it works well…

we discuss brexit every day at work. in my previous job too. i don't believe there is an office in Britain where brexit is not mentioned.

That sounds exhausting.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#339

Post by anm89 »

jtms wrote: post #286
anm89 wrote: 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…

I would advocate for Joe Rogan, he is a voice of openness and willingness to talk about things rather than just shutting down conversations because you might not agree. He is also a great listener. The world needs more people like Rogan.

Actually I generally agree with this. I think he has some distinct flaws too. I just didn't want this to become a referendum on Joe Rogan.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#340

Post by couchand »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #231
kemenaran wrote: post #99

Technical professions are generally held responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medicine: doctors are expected to follow strict guidelines with their patients. Even engineering: implementing a cheating system for diesel tests will (rightfully) get engineers into trouble. But software engineering seem to have a pass on how the things we build is…

> Technical professions are generally hold responsible for what they enable. Not really. Doctors are expected to do the best for their patient without worrying about societal consequences. If Hitler came to a doctor in need of medical help, the doctor would be ethically required to do their best for him, desolate the negative consequences of Hitler to society. Same with lawyers. Even if their client is a serial murde…

> Even if their client is a serial murderer and has co fessed their guilt to them, they still have to do their best in representing them.

IANAL but I believe this is untrue. It would not be acceptable for a lawyer to represent to the court something that they have reason to believe is false.

Post reply on HN