Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

Post by DATACOMMANDER » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 5:51 AM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #498

Karunamon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We literally have no practice handling differences regarding the very items people are passionate about. Looking at it from the employer side, that passion is precisely why these policies are being enacted. Were I employing someone, I'm required to not have a hostile work environment, which includes certain jokes (because people may be offended), and now includes politics (because people may be offended), and peopl…

IANAL, but I don't think a hostile work environment means "no one ever says something that is offensive", but rather an environment where that is normal and accepted. If we learn how to be more adult in our conversations, which includes: * Trying not to offend * Being open to accepting that we have * Try not to repeat * Accepting that others will make mistakes and can change their ways ...then we're not hostile. (But…

Post by gbanfalvi » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 6:04 AM UTC

wolco wrote: post #680

gbanfalvi wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. They built these services. They are, ate least in part, responsible for how they work and the consequences of what they built. The content they’re serving and data has a meaning to us. You can’t pretend that a social network doesn’t have a role in bringi…

Social networks bring people together. Advertising sends a message to groups of people. Roads allow people to travel by car. Roads are being uses to bring people to places where murders happen. You can't pretend that roads have no role. So many things had a role.. power, internet, the company who made the computer they used, teachers, friends (or lack of), parents.. why decidd that social media or ads is the problem.…

Post by pgcj_poster » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 6:07 AM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #664

slg wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>personally I don't see underrepresentation of women in tech as a problem that can be or should be 'solved' I say the below not as an attempt to criticize you for this viewpoint, but as a way to try to explain why this viewpoint is often interpreted as sexist. The question is why do you believe this? The possible explanations for why women are underrepresented in tech basically comes down to either nature or nurture.…

There's something fundamentally different about women that enables them to give birth to children. Humanity has been discussing the differences in behaviour between these two groups for literally millennia. Are we really going to just decide by fiat that there is zero possibility of a difference in inclination or ability that lends itself to women simply not wanting to be in this field as much as men? You essentially…

Post by manicdee » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

wolco wrote: post #680

gbanfalvi wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. They built these services. They are, ate least in part, responsible for how they work and the consequences of what they built. The content they’re serving and data has a meaning to us. You can’t pretend that a social network doesn’t have a role in bringi…

Social networks bring people together. Advertising sends a message to groups of people. Roads allow people to travel by car. Roads are being uses to bring people to places where murders happen. You can't pretend that roads have no role. So many things had a role.. power, internet, the company who made the computer they used, teachers, friends (or lack of), parents.. why decidd that social media or ads is the problem.…

Post by dmode » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 6:17 AM UTC

neonate wrote: post #608

dmode wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naval, like most VC investors, think too highly of themselves and go on twitter tirades in areas where they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. The quote above is a real example. Their views are tinged by living in advance Western societies, and in their libertarian bubbles. In real life, a platform like Google and Facebook, that has unprecedented reach globally, is the opposite of a private phone ca…

If I understand the argument, he isn't saying that those horrible things are fine and should be allowed. He's saying that it's the government's job to do something about them. Once the tech companies took a bite out of that poisoned apple, their fate was sealed, to become government-controlled.