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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#901

Post by asjw »

akersten wrote: post #694
Gunax wrote: post #512

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." Keep in mind that anyone is free to use other services (or roll their own) and gitlab can't do anything about that. Neither would it be overreaching for the workers building that product to request a say in how it's used. I think this is the crux of the issue. Anyone is of course free to…

Or, just break up the alleged monopoly under existing anti-trust regulation, instead of welcoming a terrifying new power of the government mandating that private business serve customers they disagree with?

The world has changed, USA are no longer the center of it, FB is not a giant if you compare it to WeChat

Now try to apply US anti trust laws to it.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#902

Post by fake-name »

doubleunplussed wrote: post #793
empath75 wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, as a user, and as an employee am going to refuse to do business with nazis or do business with people who do business again. It’s a free country and I’m allowed to do that, and companies like GitLab can do whatever they want with that information. I’m not the only person like me, and they’re going to have a choice as to whether they want to do business with nazis or so business with people like me. They don’t get…

If someone replies to this comment saying they are a Nazi, are you going to stop using hacker news? Perhaps you're restricting yourself to only paid services, but that still doesn't seem like a tenable plan. Nazis buy coffee from the same cafés as you, they ride the same trains as you. If you think people should be removed from society altogether, you should vote to make what they're doing illegal so they can all be…

> If someone replies to this comment saying they are a Nazi, are you going to stop using hacker news?

If someone from $ORGANIZATION made it clear that people that work for them and don't like Nazi's aren't welcome to be clear they don't like Nazis, I'd certainly consider dropping $ORGANIZATION.

> you should vote to make what they're doing illegal so they can all be thrown in jail.

What? There's a broad spectrum of things I personally don't like, or even think are odius that I'm not seeking to make illegal. The law is not a reflection of morality. I'm not seeking to impose my own value judgements on others (excepting murder, etc...), but the illegality of something has no substantial bearing on what I view as right.

What do you think the laws are for, out of curiosity? I assume you don't think they're supposed to reflect morality?

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#903

Post by uchman »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #334
neonate wrote: post #280

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.…

The problem with at least Facebook and Twitter (and possibly Google) in this analysis is that their attention-grabbing model requires them to analyse and interfere with the data which is coming through their systems. The only way not to do that would be for FB timelines and Twitter feeds to be strictly sequential feeds which at some point in the past they may have been but they are not now. Once you start basing your…

He oversimplified the issue. Phone companies don't make money through ads. FB/Twitter/Google make money by "getting into the weeds". They chose a business model with much more reward (hence much more risk). They're basically running ads businesses. You post about shoes, they sell you shoes. You talk about unemployment, they sell you a candidate ? Gitlab/Microsoft et al have slightly less dependent business models that aren't dependent on ads (for the most part).

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#904

Post by fake-name »

prepend wrote: post #634
adamsea wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote someone quoted in the article, "As a commenter identified as "casiotone" observed, "If your values aren't used to inform who you're doing business with, why do you bother pretending to have values at all? This [merge request] demonstrates that you don't have any values except 'we want to make money, and it doesn't matter who gets hurt.'""

Because values are useful for different things. I think casiotone is confusing lack of values with specific values. GitLab has values but they don’t include stopping specific companies or orgs from using their service, other than illegal stuff. They even call out efficiency as a value. That’s not the same as “we want to make money.” An artist may value art more than relationships so they are a jerk to helpers. This d…

Saying "we don't care about anything but whether it's legal" is a value. Not deciding is a decision, here.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#905

Post by kemenaran »

justapassenger wrote: post #152
kemenaran wrote: post #99

Technical professions are generally held responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medicine: doctors are expected to follow strict guidelines with their patients. Even engineering: implementing a cheating system for diesel tests will (rightfully) get engineers into trouble. But software engineering seem to have a pass on how the things we build is…

How does arguing if politician X or politician Y is better makes tech more responsible? Supporting politician X doesn't make person more moral or ethical. Same as believing in god A over god B. Politics discussions are just tribal wars.

It seems you are understanding "politics at work" as "discussions about political parties, candidates and elections".

IMHO, politics is much more than partisan politics. In the broad sense, it is reflecting and deciding on how live together. And parties and candidates are only a part (maybe the most divisive) of it.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#906

Post by kemenaran »

buboard wrote: post #362
kemenaran wrote: post #99

Technical professions are generally held responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medicine: doctors are expected to follow strict guidelines with their patients. Even engineering: implementing a cheating system for diesel tests will (rightfully) get engineers into trouble. But software engineering seem to have a pass on how the things we build is…

> hold responsible for what they enable. That's irrelevant. The rules are for conducting responsible research, not for pondering the potential misuse or evil use of whatever technology. Physics and bio have a far greater record of evil uses, and it was never questionable. It was accepted that scientists do science, and ask questions later. The before-the-fact crusades are a very recent (like, 10 years) phenomenon lim…

> limited to the west coast of the US

I'm from Europe, for the record :)

That said, you're right, of course there are no laws regulating the potential misuse or evil use of research results.

However I feel we, as societies, tend to feel that researchers have some kind of moral responsibility in the use of their discoveries. That somehow, the researchers working on nuclear bombs are not entirely unrelated to its use – and, on the other side, that Alexander Fleming deserves some moral credits for the uses of penicillin.

My point is that in software engineering we are usually held responsible neither by law or by this shared understanding.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#907

Post by trickstra »

prepend wrote: post #634
adamsea wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote someone quoted in the article, "As a commenter identified as "casiotone" observed, "If your values aren't used to inform who you're doing business with, why do you bother pretending to have values at all? This [merge request] demonstrates that you don't have any values except 'we want to make money, and it doesn't matter who gets hurt.'""

Because values are useful for different things. I think casiotone is confusing lack of values with specific values. GitLab has values but they don’t include stopping specific companies or orgs from using their service, other than illegal stuff. They even call out efficiency as a value. That’s not the same as “we want to make money.” An artist may value art more than relationships so they are a jerk to helpers. This d…

> I think casiotone is confusing lack of values with specific values. GitLab has values...

Yes, as pointed out above, the value is demonstrated to be "we want to make money, and it doesn't matter who gets hurt". Casiotone didn't say they don't have any values at all.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#908

Post by oever »

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.…

People working for Google, Facebook, and Twitter are smart. They understand this and have used the argument of being just infrastructure in the past.

They had to switch their story because they are not a neutral carrier. They prefer some messages over others. This is linked to their revenue model.

The simplest solution to 'just be infrastructure' is to show all messages linearly.

A more complex solution with possibly lower revenue is this: they could let the users pick algorithms to filter and sort the content, then they could claim to be infrastructure again. The user would need to be able to inspect the algorithms. The simplest one would be: no sorting, no filtering. That would make the sites unpleasant.

The smart people at Google, Facebook, and Twitter must have considered this option but decided that it is more profitable to share the power over what people see with the regulators than to share it with the people.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#909

Post by Lutger »

wpietri wrote: post #646
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…

"Don't discuss politics at work," is a political statement. It rules particular views in bounds and rules others out. Similarly any business ends up making moral choices. It's unavoidable. To act in the world is to have impact. To consciously act is to intend particular impact. Commerce is inherently social; you choose to serve certain people in certain ways, with particular outcomes intended. These choices are inher…

Good to hear a sane voice here. It's weird how people are able to convince themselves and others they can just not take a position. As if that is not an position in itself, usually supporting the status quo and conventional morally of the time.

I think people conflate 'I don't want to think about this' with 'I am neutral and not a party in this issue'.

Post reply on HN