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

Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#71

Post by [deleted] »

ssmoot wrote: post #27
petea wrote: post #24

What is actually bad about Google's "corporate mass surveillance"? It sure sounds scary, but when I actually try to think about what it is actually bad about it, I can't really think of any. Every single user Google got, they signed up voluntarily. Google never forced anyone to sign up for their services. Google attempts to learn about its users just like every other companies. It's just that Google does it so much b…

Informed Consent. When I started using Google services many years ago, it definitely didn't occur to me they could basically track you across half the web. And you don't really get much of a choice in the matter. You can actively try to avoid Google sites and they're probably not missing out on a ton. But more importantly, my grandmother certainly doesn't have any idea what they're doing. And to be honest, I'm not mu…

[deleted]

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#72

Post by trhway »

> either I have to stop saying negative things about Code Club sponsors, or resign as a director.

sponsor is basically indirect employer. Don't bite the hand feeding you, it is just unethical. Publicly saying bad things about your employer is a bad thing. Resign and, only after that, say whatever you want as long as you don't violate the non-disclosures you may had signed.

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#73

Post by simondedalus »

facepalm wrote: post #4
simondedalus wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot have a healthy society if only the powerless are allowed to criticize the powerful. She isn't even resigning in protest of Google's involvement, but the board's forbidding her to criticize any of Google's actions.

Why should a sponsor finance a project that tells people the sponsor is evil? I don't really see the problem here. Two parties disagree, so they go separate ways. End of story.

It's worth pointing out that nowhere in her note does she say "Google is evil." In fact, she doesn't even use the word 'evil'.

The only place where an entity's being evil has been mentioned is in these strawman comments.

The issue is not a board member spreading around the opinion that a sponsor "is evil." The issue is whether it's alright to forbid any criticism of a sponsor's actions by board members (or by management, or other high level / prominent figures).

If you choose to argue against, for example, me (since you responded to me), please understand the position. It is not that Google or anyone at all is evil. It's that no one's actions can be beyond criticism in a healthy society (or a healthy business, or a healthy relationship, etc).

Further, it is especially dangerous when people like founders, politicians, board members, etc can't express opinions of the actions of other prominent figures. When that is the case, the only people who can complain are those people whose voices won't be listened to. How does that make society better?

The position I, at least, am arguing for is that it is a socially irresponsible policy to force board members to express uniform approval of all actions taken by a sponsor.

Expressing disapproval of a company's actions is far from saying the company is evil, or that you're too good to cooperate with the company, etc. Please avoid straw man arguments if you want to have useful discussions.

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#74

Post by timigen »

amorphid wrote: post #69
slantyyz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand what the life lesson is. In my mind, the battle with the board should be "either we drop the evildoing sponsors or I quit", not "I want evildoing sponsors' money but I still want to retain the right to criticize them or I quit".

I was on the board of my own company, along with my partner, and an outsider. I learned the role of a board is to represent the interests of the shareholders. If the company CEO is publically undermining the company's partners, which may threaten the company's finances, the board MUST deal with the CEO. Telling the CEO to knock it off or resign was the correct approach in my decision. The CEO's role does not allow fo…

Its a volunteer organization if I am not mistaken. Do they have a board?

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#76

Post by x0x0 »

tptacek wrote: post #32
smikhanov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've left a similar comment below, but out of interest: in light of what you just said, what do you think about Mozilla-Eich debate?

I know and deeply respect people on both sides of that controversy and also believe that the tide of equality for LGBT people is one of the great civil liberties success stories of the last 25 years. Without inadvertently casting aspersions on anyone who holds the opposing opinion, I think running someone out of a company because they hold a political opinion incompatible with your ethics is itself an unethical act.…

That's probably a misstatement of your opinion: you almost certainly draw the line somewhere (or at least I would be quite surprised if you didn't), eg white power advocates, racism against blacks or jews, anti-women's equality, anti-disabled rights; but don't include gay rights as equally important.

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#77

Post by facepalm »

simondedalus wrote: post #73
facepalm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a sponsor finance a project that tells people the sponsor is evil? I don't really see the problem here. Two parties disagree, so they go separate ways. End of story.

It's worth pointing out that nowhere in her note does she say "Google is evil." In fact, she doesn't even use the word 'evil'. The only place where an entity's being evil has been mentioned is in these strawman comments. The issue is not a board member spreading around the opinion that a sponsor "is evil." The issue is whether it's alright to forbid any criticism of a sponsor's actions by board members (or by managem…

She writes: " Even if Google was mostly good, I need to have the right to call them out when they do bad things."

Are you really nitpicking about "evil" vs "doing bad things"?

And everybody can say whatever they want, and criticize whoever they want. But companies are not obliged to keep people on the payroll who use their position to make the same company look bad. The whole assumption is absurd.

Board members forbidding whatever is not the issue at all. The job of the board members is to keep the business afloat and prevent harm from coming to it. Bosses give their employees instructions all the time.

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#78

Post by vidarh »

kjksf wrote: post #44
tptacek wrote: post #28

I probably don't agree with Sandvik about Google's complicity, but that doesn't matter. Silencing her to accommodate a company sponsor is both unethical and counterproductive. There are forms of criticism that are intrinsically not compatible with being a director. If Sandvik was criticizing Google's participation with "Code Club" or making claims directly relevant to the project, that would be germane to the board.…

It doesn't matter that what she says is a lie? It's interesting how you twist yourself into a pretzel (you "probably", maybe, a little bit, think that what she says about the sponsor is a lie) to end up with the conclusion that her actions are somehow justified and the board is committing some terrible crime of censorship. The validity of her complains is very much the core of the issue. She only gave one example (th…

> and the consensus around that is that it's a lie.

Is it?

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#79

Post by facepalm »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #63
facepalm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you employed? Could you tell us some things you really dislike about your company? (Giving your real name and your employers real name) Rolling with the government example: should the government be obliged to fund communists (or other people who think the current government is evil)?

The government funds people who think the current government is evil all the time. They don't fund them because they think the current government is evil, but I can assure you that there are people receiving unemployment benefits, social security, and other "entitlement program" checks that disagree loudly and publicly with the government all the time. (Some of them are probably critical of the same entitlement progr…

They get money to eat and pay rent, not to build ideological organizations with the aim to undermine the government. You are talking about somebody completely different.

Re: Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

#80

Post by facepalm »

rabc wrote: post #15
Someone1234 wrote: post #2

I'm conflicted. I respect someone for standing up for what they believe in (freedom to express their views) but this also seems like one of those "pick your battles" situations. Google like it or not are a key sponsor of Code Club. They do some good and some evil, but they're a key sponsor, and as the director you need to put the organisation ahead of your personal issues/complaints. The complaints might be entirely…

"Here, take all this money and be quiet about everything we do". That's not how a healthy society works. Google are sponsoring Code Club not because they're good guys, but because they have some business interest in it. They must be accountable for their actions, good or bad. Linda Sandvik expressed her believes as a person and she did great not accepting being silenced just because she was hurting the feelings of a…

"because they have some business interest in it."

The business interest might be conveying a positive image of Google. So using the code club as a vehicle to paint a bad image of Google would be detrimental to the business interest. Why then should they pour more money into it?

Post reply on HN