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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#451

Post by jacquesm »

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' is exactly the wrong thing to say. Publishers have some responsibility over what they publish.

The smart thing to say would have been 'we're common carriers'. And then to actually behave like common carriers.. At least that would have gotten them to first base. Now they look like heavy handed censors with a stake in the game.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#452

Post by drak0n1c »

johnzhou wrote: post #427
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.…

That's a great way to lose advertisers. Case in point: Youtube's demonetization policy.

Advertisers didn't care for over a decade until partisan agitators such as Media Matters and Vox methodically cherry picked screenshots of brands next to maligned youtube channels, and then contacted brands threatening to publish names and shame if they didn't pull their advertising.

The result of this short-sighted crusade was Youtube becoming unprofitable for millions of small creators around the world, and people of all sides of politics suffering including non-political LGBT creators.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#453

Post by ahnick »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #334
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.…

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…

I think it depends on how the recommendation algorithms are implemented. (I have no idea about how Facebook and Twitter recommendation algorithms work)

Let's say for example you have a community contributed labeling system that allows users to label content. A recommendation algorithm might then be written that simply pulls the top 10 highest number of viewed pieces content that have the same labels as a piece of content the viewer just viewed. In this case, there is nothing in the algorithm that evaluates the content itself. The evaluation was done by users of the software, not the software itself.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#454

Post by bcrosby95 »

madrox wrote: post #385
anarchodev wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Refusing to serve a customer when you disagree with that customer's goal is pretty far from being a "moral arbiter for society." This sounds really good until someone refuses to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they're gay. The supreme court ruled in favor of the baker. You're advocating for a world where that's ok. Is that the world you want to live in?

Same sex marriage wasn't even recognized in Colorado at the time. Your ire would be better directed elsewhere, such as the state where the action they wanted to celebrate wasn't legal. Especially a state where you can penalize someone for not baking a cake for an event that isn't legal in the first place.

The whole case was a ridiculous hit job.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#456

Post by galaxyLogic »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #409
galaxyLogic wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't that the case here? A company is suppressing all speech about politics?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#457

Post by manigandham »

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…

In your "neutral" comment, you're already taking a stance on the topics and automatically defining marginalized and privileged. People are far more complicated than that.

That's why these discussions aren't a good idea. Companies are paying you for productivity and ensuring a calm environment is important. You have plenty of opportunity to discuss and create all the change you want elsewhere.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#458

Post by burtonator »

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 wish it was that simple honestly.

If Google is doing business with nazis then as a consumer I have absolutely every right to boycott Google.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#459

Post by LeonB »

archi42 wrote: post #315
ajhurliman wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If $villain has outright said he’s going to do that with it, then the $salesperson might still sell the $hammer if their personal safety is endangered. But they should also notify the $police so that $someone can be warned and $villain can be apprehended.

I think this $scenario is outside the $effective area of the $metaphor.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#460

Post by [deleted] »

xenocyon wrote: post #400
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…

Counterpoint: many tech workers want some agency over what they are building and don't want to be forced to work on nefarious applications. I don't seek an outsized claim on society but I do reserve the right to decide what my hands will - or won't - build.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN