Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

theregister.co.uk

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

When people go and talk to women who started out in the tech pipeline but left, many say that the reasons they left are that they felt unwelcome in some way: they were harassed, under-valued, talked over, stalked, underpaid, etc. Too many women choose to leave not because they didn't like the work, but because they didn't like all the bullshit they were implicitly asked to put up with, in order to do the work. If ver…

I've heard this hypothesis a lot, but there's something that bothers me about it.

If you've ever been passionate about something, something that's hard and takes a lot of effort and practice to become good at, would you really let microaggressions stop you from doing that thing? I mean, being a programmer is not exactly a high status thing for white males either. If I tell people I'm a programmer, I generally am competing with the perception that I am socially awkward. People assume I'm like some Big Bang Theory character until I prove otherwise. I don't like that stereotype, but it never stopped me from learning to code, or even was a thought that crossed my mind.

Also, how many other industries are or have been actively hostile towards women and still have plenty of females in it? Show business is an obvious example.

I'm not saying that things can't or shouldn't be improved, but I feel like the argument that goes "well the nerds are making women uncomfortable" is just a cartoon with very little evidence other than anecdotes.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#742
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software development is not actually a profession , it's just an occupation. That's not necessarily a bad thing but let's not pretend that it's something that it isn't. In order to be a profession on the level of law, civil engineering, medicine, arms, accounting, etc it would need — among other things — a clear code of ethics. Years ago the IEEE made some tentative steps toward turning software development into a pr…

I think you're confusing "being a profession" with "having the trappings of a profession".

No I haven't confused anything at all. Perhaps you misunderstood my comment.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#743
post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

The news feed does not editorialize. It doesn't edit the content itself. It's automated curation. Furthermore this whole "publisher" vs "platform" argument is not nearly as relevant as people make it seem. Contrary to popular belief, tech companies describing themselves as publishers instead of platforms does not affect the fact that they are not held liable for user generated content (so long as they meet reasonable…

[deleted]

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#744

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.…

There should be only once choice, either you're a platform or a publisher. A platform should be open, and only illegal stuff should be removed. No preferences, no nothing. A publisher can be closed, can be whatever they want it, can filter whatever, promote whatever and censor whatever. ...but! If you're a publisher, you've decided what to publish, and you should be responsible for all content published on your webpa…

The "illegal" criteria seems rational for countries that have rational laws but in many countries there are laws against political speech or criticism of people in power. By removing that 'illegal' speech in those countries the platform is in effect working as a government actor to police customers in those nations.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#745

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.…

They did this for many years - when I moved to Silicon Valley in 2009 tech's attitude was "We just provide the mechanism, we let our users determine policy". My first couple years at Google (09-10), management was very insistent that "We don't take sides - we show the user the best result for their query regardless of how much we dislike it." There were examples like literal searches for Nazis where the top result wa…

Google listed its own services high in search results in order to promote and show favor to those services. Why shouldn't people use this same logic to criticize Google for effectively promoting hate groups?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#746

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…

Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work ? There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace. Some employees are uncomfortable with discussing politics at work as it may create unnecessary tensions. Those who like debating about politics can always gat…

> "Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work? There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace."

In the United States, right now, trans people can literally be fired for being trans. The "laws against discrimination" that you refer to do not protect trans individuals, and those laws themselves the product of people organising together and deciding that certain kinds of discrimination should not be allowed.

That you included trans people in your example suggests you are currently unaware that laws against discrimination do not provide trans people the protections given to other groups.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#747
post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

The news feed does not editorialize. It doesn't edit the content itself. It's automated curation. Furthermore this whole "publisher" vs "platform" argument is not nearly as relevant as people make it seem. Contrary to popular belief, tech companies describing themselves as publishers instead of platforms does not affect the fact that they are not held liable for user generated content (so long as they meet reasonable…

“Facebook, [company attorneys] repeatedly argued, is a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#748
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…

Maybe they are not "infrastructure". Maybe they are actually middlemen.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#749
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…

>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

So do you also feel that billionaires shouldn't have an outsized voice in society?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people go and talk to women who started out in the tech pipeline but left, many say that the reasons they left are that they felt unwelcome in some way: they were harassed, under-valued, talked over, stalked, underpaid, etc. Too many women choose to leave not because they didn't like the work, but because they didn't like all the bullshit they were implicitly asked to put up with, in order to do the work. If ver…

I've heard this hypothesis a lot, but there's something that bothers me about it. If you've ever been passionate about something, something that's hard and takes a lot of effort and practice to become good at, would you really let microaggressions stop you from doing that thing? I mean, being a programmer is not exactly a high status thing for white males either. If I tell people I'm a programmer, I generally am comp…

I think “microagressions” is a bit of an understatement. Also not sure that being stereotyped as “socially awkward” is comparable to experiencing or even just witnessing sexual harassment.

Women in tech report more mistreatment than in many other male-dominated industries. See: https://www.axios.com/tech-sexual-harassment-women-silicon-v...

Post reply on HN