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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#501

Post by rolltiide »

I agree with that statement. California's collective conscious has been such a mess after the democrat loss. Everyone my colleague's vilified who knew how to play the game was temporarily promoted to powerful positions. Thinking Peter Thiel specifically.

Administrations globally change all the time.

When I enter a new market I'm just excited to be there and figure it out, I don't stop and say "waaait a minute, did extremists just come into power here?" I think, looks like there's some opening in high level positions.

But if you do ask yourself that and prefer to do something about it, don't bring it into the workplace.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#502

Post by jetpks »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #465
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…

> We can’t improve without discussion, and it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive. Except Cancel Culture is making it that these can't be discussed without complete agreement. Take for example, "Women in Tech", personally I don't see underrepresentation of women in tech as a problem that can be or should be 'solved'. For the better part of 15 years, there has been a massive movement to encourage w…

Women were barely allowed into workplaces in general within the last 50 years and are still fighting biases that have existed for millennia. Fixing the lack of women in tech is a multi-century process, not something that's just knocked out in as little as 15 years. We'd be lucky to start seeing the needle move in such a short amount of time.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#503

Post by dangthecoward »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #19

Good to see that the very non-controversial opinion of “be neutral at work and treat customers equally” is being used to compare GitHub to IBM during Nazi Germany. Why can’t GitHub just provide code version control systems without concerning itself with who is writing code? Given the recent implosion of StackOverflow, less politics in tech is probably a good thing.

The stated policy is that they would take nazi money.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#504

Post by IAmEveryone »

clairity wrote: post #424
graeme wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised at what is "not illegal". Every community moderates. You can make an argument that some sites have moderated too much, or been too overtly political. But every community moderates, and has to. This can be demonstrated with a simple example. Guess what isn't illegal? Spam! It should be obvious that FB and Twitter etc have to take spam down though. Then there's abusive behaviour. Stalking, harassment…

good point, but from a tactical perspective, not moderating might have made sense, to force lawmakers' hands in passing stronger laws about spam, harrassment, propaganda, etc. they'd have a regulatory shield and probably retain carrier status, rather than sticking their necks out by selectively moderating content. a moderate amount of moderation is my preference, but i see the value in freer speech zones on the inter…

The US government is practically incapable of taking on that role because that actually would make it a First Amendment issue.

But, as graeme has pointed out, this idea of any moderation increasing a platform's liability is as wrong as it is widespread.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#505

Post by radarsat1 »

kelnos wrote: post #415
madrox wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I think these bakers suck, but I do agree with the Supreme Court. A private business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers for whatever reason they choose. The only exception should be legal monopolies; they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, because there are otherwise no other options.

> A private business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers for whatever reason they choose.

So you're fine with "whites only" signs in shops?

Hope that doesn't sound too extreme but while I understand where you're coming from I think it's important to acknowledge where the rhetoric about not distinguishing your customers based on their personal characteristics comes from.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#506

Post by MuffinFlavored »

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.…

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

I think that works better on paper than in practice. If I get offended enough by something, can't I go try to sue under the premise of defamation?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#507

Post by clairity »

graeme wrote: post #448
clairity wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

good point, but from a tactical perspective, not moderating might have made sense, to force lawmakers' hands in passing stronger laws about spam, harrassment, propaganda, etc. they'd have a regulatory shield and probably retain carrier status, rather than sticking their necks out by selectively moderating content. a moderate amount of moderation is my preference, but i see the value in freer speech zones on the inter…

They do have a regulatory shield though. Section 230 allows platforms to moderate their sites, while leaving them not liable for any content they do leave up. It's considered speech of the user. This has come to a head as plarforms have grown larger. Note that even if some platforms were strictly neutral, they'd still be affected by the changes the government is proposing. It would have been very unlikely that none o…

i realize it's hard to draw a bright line on acceptible moderation, but then, is it fruitless to strengthen such laws?

seems like a lot of lawsuts and not a lot of legislating, from the wiki.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#508

Post by ericdykstra »

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.…

This sounds right, but what if the corporations are more powerful than the government? What if they have enough money to collectively rent enough politicians so that they never have to face the scrutiny that Naval is talking about here?

If social media platforms are picking the next congressmen and next president, and you’re in Congress vying to keep your seat, do you really want to introduce or sponsor legislation to upset these companies?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#509

Post by jimbobimbo »

oarsinsync wrote: post #411
jimbobimbo wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morality is not defined by the government - legality is. There're a lot of things that a lot of different people deem immoral - based on their religion, upbringing, media consumption and whatnot - which are not illegal. There's nothing wrong with the company conducting business compliant with the law, even if it may be viewed immoral from someone's point of view. It's a free country after all.

> There's nothing wrong with the company conducting business compliant with the law, even if it may be viewed immoral from someone's point of view. Right and wrong are subjective, legal and illegal are objective. From the perspective of the business owner who is focused primarily on maximising revenue / profits for their business, there is nothing wrong with simply focusing on legal compliance. From the perspective o…

I'm not sure if we're in disagreement about what living in a free country means. Everyone has their opinion on right and wrong, but as a society we agree that there's a specific set of laws that we all follow, so we all could get along.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#510

Post by Fej »

Foreword: I am not suggesting that general political discussion should be allowed at work; it has traditionally been taboo since it gets people riled up.

I am concerned that developers and companies are attempting to somehow opt out and divorce themselves of ethics, and to be amoral. This is not possible.

Ethical considerations are present in all work, especially ours - our work as programmers, leaders, technologists, and so on has the potential to affect large masses of people, even indirectly. Society has rapidly changed due to the advancement of technology and it will continue to do so. I'm not suggesting that every single agreement or project needs to be deeply evaluated for its ethical implications, but projects or sales for questionable organizations ought to have some thought put into them.

I will give an example: should GitLab sell its product to the American Nazi Party, or other fascist organizations across the globe, should they request? It is reasonably uncontroversial to say that fascist parties are vile, wrong, unethical, even evil. Therefore, aiding these organizations and their missions by selling them helpful products is unethical. Saying "we sell to everybody" does not magically make the sale ethical.

To suppress the discussion of ethics as it pertains to a company and its actions is itself unethical, as the impact of a company's actions can be wide-ranging and the implications cannot be divorced from ethics.

Post reply on HN