Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work • Hacker News Board

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#401

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

anarchodev wrote: post #331

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 othe…

> 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?

You're thinking in terms of fighting the last war. Companies of today know how to work around things at risk becoming illegal. Today, a more effective strategy to persuade your boss about an issue is to spin it as something outrageous on social media, in hope that news portals will pick it up. This power is very much available to a Gitlab employee.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#402

Post by kelnos » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #353

padraic7a wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a publisher might get you off in the States, but in a lot of countries publishers are held to be legally culpable for material they publish. So publishing nazis, online abuse, illegal content etc is a legal issue.

> If it's illegal, we'll take it down. Give us a court order. Otherwise we don't touch it.

What about jurisdictions where the act of allowing something to be published will trigger a fine or other bad consequences? Doesn't it make sense to pro-actively remove things then?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#403

Post by mch82 » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

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.…

Edit: I see the Naval quote is from the Joe Rogan podcast (which I often enjoy). I haven’t listened to the episode, so don’t have full context but Naval seems to have the timeline, “publisher”, and “platform” confused.

Facebook, Google (YouTube), and Twitter have historically claimed to be “neutral tech platforms” like phone utilities or internet service providers. They maintained that claim so that responsibility for content would be on the user/sharer and so they could avoid regulation.

More recently, at least Facebook has claimed (2018) it is a “publisher”. They updated their claim in order to justify the right to editorialize & choose what content people see on Facebook.

The shift to “publisher” aligns with the reality that the news feed algorithm is a form of editorializing. The algorithm decides what you see. It doesn’t matter if a human or a computer is making the decision.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#404

Post by AmericanChopper » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #134

vowelless wrote: post #18

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…

>America has sanctions. If the public wants corporations to not interact with certain countries, they can ask their legislators to fascilitate passing of sanctions (like we have today against Syria, making it illegal to provide services to them). This is a very confusing position to me. It is a bad thing to pick and choose your customers based on moral agreement, unless that morality is defined by the government in w…

Trying to choose your customers based on some moral framework is entirely pointless in most situations. Putting aside the fact that whatever framework you decide upon is going to be completely arbitrary. If you take the position that you should only do business with people who’s values are consistent with yours, then you can’t stop at your customers. You need to examine the customer base of your customers, and the customer base of the customer base of your customers, and your entire supply chain, and the supply chain of your supply chain, ad infinitum. To apply this idea consistently is impossible, and to apply it inconsistently is just meaningless virtue signalling.

The idea that you should never do anything that provides utility to any party who’s values are incompatible with your own is not tenable, and it’s simply incompatible with any sort of open or tolerant society.

I think it’s much more sensible to look at the impact you’re having on society as a whole. I wouldn’t work for Facebook or Google, because I disagree with what they’re trying to achieve. But I’d sell them a service if I was offering one on the open market. If I ran a gun factory I probably wouldn’t want to sell them to , because I know they’ll take that product and do evil things with it, but I’d sell that same government an SCM service.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#405

Post by JohnFen » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #59

JohnFen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every place I've worked at (in the US) over the last 20 years has had an explicit prohibition against discussing politics or religion in the workplace. I'm not saying if it's OK or not as a philosophical matter, but it does help make the workplace more pleasant.

Which is great, right up until you work with people that aren't straight cis white men. Nonaction is and always will be political; it's just the politics of upholding the status quo. When a regular political talking point is whether it's ok to fire you for existing the hypocrisy of the "don't put politics in my " becomes painful (and certainly less than pleasant). Companies should be free to declare they support the…

> Which is great, right up until you work with people that aren't straight cis white men.

I find it interesting that you make such an assumption about the places that I've worked.

Also, I should mention that I absolutely have had numerous political discussions with coworkers. They just don't usually happen in the workplace itself.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#406

Post by mch82 » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

padraic7a wrote: post #322

neonate wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Being a publisher might get you off in the States, but in a lot of countries publishers are held to be legally culpable for material they publish. So publishing nazis, online abuse, illegal content etc is a legal issue.

This is also true in the US. See my reply to the parent. The Naval quote is wrong.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#407

Post by midnighttoker3 » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

friedman23 wrote: post #382

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…

It seems to me what you want is not to discuss politics at work but dictate politics are work. Unless you are perfectly okay with your co worker coming in with a MAGA hat every day and explaining to you why they think LGTB people don't deserve the right to marry.

Nah, I'd rather see such a person beaten and ridiculed. Whch they would 100% deserve and I feel zero guilt about saying.

Which is why I don't actually have an issue discouraging discussion of politics at work. it causes problems.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#408

Post by viraptor » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

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.…

> We're publishers. Whatever goes through our pipes goes through our pipes. If it's illegal, we'll take it down.

That's a great way to lose users though. They need to provide some limit for abuse. That means either good moderation tools for end-user (which I don't see how they could scale without also providing bad-people-lists) or moderation on their side. Otherwise you end up with /b/ or worse.

If they want their users (and advertisers) to stay, they need to filter content. They're social networks, not limited-scope opt-in party lines.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#409

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #370

alkonaut wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely right. Saying “don’t talk politics at work” seems to assume that politics is something that goes on on the outside. A stream of news on divisive topics. In reality, politics happens everywhere and you can’t really avoid talking about it. “Don’t talk about politics not relevant for the workplace” could be reasonable (most poltics is after all not related).

To me this (news not your comment) sounds like a very slippery slope. What happened to freedom of speech? And who is to decide what is "political" what is not? As long as speech is not offensive, I think it should be protected.

> As long as speech is not offensive, I think it should be protected.

Speech that isn’t offensive usually doesn’t need protection.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#410

Post by buboard » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

oneepic wrote: post #34

O/T: the "Blood Money" part of the article title is why I hate news media in general. Sensationalizing, editorializing headlines marked as "news" and not just opinion.

They should have tried something far worse, this is not funny enough. I suggest "Gitlab: Eating babies is fine"