Changes at Basecamp • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#831

Post by CRConrad » Sat, May 01, 2021, 12:47 PM UTC

xpe wrote: post #763

xpe wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's where the whataboutism comes in. I'm not following your use of the word. I think we may have different ideas about what it means. From Wikipedia: > Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3] Where did tyingq say someone…

I'll read feedback in the form of comments. Indirect feedback by way of the down arrow will have no effect whatsoever on my views. So, if you want to persuade, use your words.

FWIW, I don't see a down arrow; it's a minus sign. (Or a hyphen, but the minus makes more sense to me in this context.)

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#832

Post by CRConrad » Sat, May 01, 2021, 12:51 PM UTC

henryaj wrote: post #792

UncleMeat wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Notice how the free speech absolutists are nowhere to be found here.

Pretty sure the free speech absolutists would say that private companies can have whatever rules they like on their platform.

Would, but aren't. Kind of curious in and of itself; usually they not only would but also are.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#833

Post by spopejoy » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

bitexploder wrote: post #817

spopejoy wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that this represents a practical consolidation of power by leadership in tech. While you can't come out and say "hey, we want to corner the market in white male nerds", you can say things like "Mean people suck, why can't we all just get along, no politics on slack, we're good right?" Think of it as the tech-liberal backlash. Tech has been wrestling with representation and diversity for a while now, indeed…

Not everything is racially motivated. They are just making business decisions in a small business. The whole reason they are doing it is probably ridiculous and cynical takes like this.

It doesn't have to have a particular animus to have the effect.

The question is, why make a big blog post about it in the first place? They can't claim innocence, since they followed Brian Armstrong pretty much to the letter, and have the walkouts to boot. So we can assume the attention was calculated.

Just look at how many posts on HN are now like "I want to work there!" Recruitment signalling accomplished.

The backlash is real, and to me the interesting part is it's semi-liberal tech dudes leading the charge.

BTW do you mean to say that bringing up issues of equal pay justify overt censorship as a "business decision"? Just asking because that was the issue I mentioned above.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#834

Post by bmn__ » Sat, May 01, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

CRConrad wrote: post #831

xpe wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll read feedback in the form of comments. Indirect feedback by way of the down arrow will have no effect whatsoever on my views. So, if you want to persuade, use your words.

FWIW, I don't see a down arrow; it's a minus sign. (Or a hyphen, but the minus makes more sense to me in this context.)

You do not have enough karma for the ability to downvote, hence the down arrow is disabled for you.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#835

Post by darthrupert » Sat, May 01, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

mempko wrote: post #636

darthrupert wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any basis for thinking so? What else could explain it?

It's entirely cultural. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Don't you think your theory requires evidence?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#836

Post by GekkePrutser » Sat, May 01, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

I'm very much opposed to this. Society has everything to do with companies, and most of our current societal and environmental problems are a direct result of the way we do business. Externalising environmental and societal consequences for example. Wasting the environment by not taking pollution into account. Having drivers pee in bottles because it's not the company's problem if they can't meet their targets. Bullying of people who are different and HR turning a blind eye.

As an employee I want to make sure the company aligns with my ideas about equality and environmental protection. As a customer I don't want to do business with a company that doesn't. This is why it's important that a company takes a stand on these issues.

Also, it seems to me these things will not be applied equally. Will someone be told off for wearing a cross or a church group badge as much as someone wearing a gay rights ribbon?

Companies are the cause of many if not most of the world's problems and this feels like they're getting back to closing their eyes to them. I'm glad I don't work for Basecamp nor do business with them.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#837

Post by throw000away » Sat, May 01, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

GekkePrutser wrote: post #836

I'm very much opposed to this. Society has everything to do with companies, and most of our current societal and environmental problems are a direct result of the way we do business. Externalising environmental and societal consequences for example. Wasting the environment by not taking pollution into account. Having drivers pee in bottles because it's not the company's problem if they can't meet their targets. Bully…

Saying that companies are the cause of most or all of the world’s problems with is just saying that people are the cause. Which they are. People are the problem. All have been, always will be. In all their institutions that they occupy or by themselves.

So what? It’s not a very useful observation. If we are going to live together in peace we have to accept each other and move on with life. We have to move past seeing others who have different views, culture, and beliefs as an existential threat. Continually pointing at people and calling them an existential threat is terrifying and wrong. Stop doing it.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#838

Post by bluedino » Sat, May 01, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #699

busterarm wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved everything about what I read here. I'm not surprised at the backlash as most of the Ruby community in the west has been extremely political.

#ruby-lang is famous for K-lining people who say "guys", for example.

Like “hey guys, can anyone help me with x?”

That’s annoying.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#839

Post by Breza » Sat, May 01, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

agd wrote: post #11

Think we'll see a lot more companies coming out with statements like this. Who wants their work slack to look like the worst parts of Twitter and Facebook? With employees cancelling each other and demanding they recognise various political points? Not me. You can tell there have been a lot of difficult discussions with various employees behind the scenes. It's all a distraction. Work should be about work.

I have a dumb question. How common are political chat rooms at companies? When I read books like Billion Dollar Loser, it sounds like lots of tech companies encourage employees to have semi-public discussions via Slack on company time about things completely unrelated to work. I work for a tech company and I can't imagine my employer doing that.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#840

Post by GekkePrutser » Sat, May 01, 2021, 8:11 PM UTC

throw000away wrote: post #837

GekkePrutser wrote: post #836

I'm very much opposed to this. Society has everything to do with companies, and most of our current societal and environmental problems are a direct result of the way we do business. Externalising environmental and societal consequences for example. Wasting the environment by not taking pollution into account. Having drivers pee in bottles because it's not the company's problem if they can't meet their targets. Bully…

Saying that companies are the cause of most or all of the world’s problems with is just saying that people are the cause. Which they are. People are the problem. All have been, always will be. In all their institutions that they occupy or by themselves. So what? It’s not a very useful observation. If we are going to live together in peace we have to accept each other and move on with life. We have to move past seeing…

Companies are led by people, but in the neoliberal society we have elevated companies as an entity above people. Companies have more rights and less responsibilities than people, and more influence due to lobbying.

As well as being bound by certain rules (making profit for shareholders, due diligence) that binds them to certain decisions even if the people leading them want to do differently. It binds them to prioritise profit over any other concern.

So I do think companies are a different force than people yes. This is why I thought it was a great thing that companies were developing an identity and a conscience. Due to the power I have I want to target my buying decisions to companies which are aligned with my ideals.

This new direction takes them back to being just money makers which IMO is a bad thing. It's not all about money, considerations like environmental impact are more important right now, on the verge of a climate crisis. I want companies to have a stance on this so I can stimulate the ones that do well on this front. That in itself makes their social/environmental identity an influence on their profits.