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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#951

Post by fsiefken »

The author Thomas Claburn is not entirely correct when he writes: "GitLab, a San Francisco-based provider of hosted git software, recently changed its company handbook to declare it won't ban potential customers on "moral/value grounds," and that employees should not discuss politics at work."

The segment on discussing politics within the company has not changed for a while and doesn't explicitly exclude discussing politics at work, but does so in a public context. From the handbook:

"Religion and politics at work We generally don't discuss religion or politics in public forums because it is easy to alienate people that have a minority opinion. It's acceptable to bring up these topics in social contexts such as coffee chats and real-life meetups with other coworkers, but always be aware of cultural sensitivities, exercise your best judgement, and make sure you stay within the boundaries of our Code of Conduct."

I regularly discuss topics like politics and religion when I feel free to do so as it's part of my identity, of course I try to be considerate to opposing viewpoints.

And I get the point to do business with others regardless of their political views. For example

"A pro-democracy restaurant in #HongKong offers free meal to student protesters. A pro-Beijing woman took her daughter there for the free meal, but kept complaining the “rioters” are “destroying” things etc. Restaurant owner waived her bill and told her to leave. "

He said... “This is a private property. I can call #HongKongPolice to get u out but I won’t, coz I don’t believe in them.” Later on he said “u asked why we are doing this (to her daughter)? Then ask yourself why did u say those things (about the young #HongKongers)? I don’t want your biz!” https://twitter.com/ajmm19923493/status/1184173217474207744

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#952

Post by pluma »

ggreer wrote: post #495
earthscienceman wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which actually really boils down to what the word "white male privilege" really means. If you think politics is annoying, then it's because you're privileged enough for it to not matter. ^^^ privileged white male

I've worked at a company that heavily encouraged discussion of politics at work, and it was a nightmare. The things management sponsored (at the request of employees) included: - A women-only Slack channel. - Women-only events, such as a free screening of Wonder Woman. The men at the company were expected to work during that time. - An "ally skills workshop"[1], which attempted to indoctrinate us with an explicitly r…

Have you considered that maybe you wouldn't have been fired for having the "wrong political views" but simply being a bigoted piece of shit? Just a suggestion.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#953

Post by evrydayhustling »

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…

This business model is the reason that FB, T and G are dominant platforms worth discussing. Products that are purely transactional are easy to compete with, splitting up markets and driving down prices. This is why true "common carriers", like ISPs, have fought desperately against net neutrality and to capture more customer data -- they want in on the value capture that comes from shaping content, because they are rapidly being commoditized as carriers of bits.

IMO this is a moat in the eye of a lot of libertarian tech philosophy. Most software products become competitive by building networks -- with end users (e.g. social networks), with developers (e.g. open source), or indirectly via content (from media aggregators to spam filtering). Once you're in the business of curating a network, you are implementing values whether you acknowledge them or not.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#954

Post by cc81 »

kelnos wrote: post #606
friedman23 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me what you want is not to discuss politics at work but dictate politics are work. Unless you are perfectly okay with your co worker coming in with a MAGA hat every day and explaining to you why they think LGTB people don't deserve the right to marry.

I don't view this as a political issue at all. If I ran a company and had LGBTQ employees, I would not want what you just described because it would be creating a hostile environment for those employees. Coming into your workplace and telling your co-workers that they don't deserve equal rights under the law is just a shitty thing to do. It's an issue of basic respect and has nothing to do with politics.

That is because you see it as equal rights under law while the other person will see it about their religious right under law.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#955

Post by zarkov99 »

JamisonM wrote: post #856
zarkov99 wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because tech culture has skewed so insanely towards the authoritarian left that any challenge to the orthodoxy your post suggests is immediately weaponized. There is simply no way to honestly discuss the points you bring up without putting one's reputation and eventually career in danger. The Damore memo is a perfect example of this. The only safe thing to do in our culture right now is virtue signal and nod along wi…

tech culture has skewed so insanely towards the authoritarian left Have you worked at a tech job lately? This is just.. wow..

Yes, have you? And more importantly do you read the news? If so then perhaps we have different ideas of what authoritarian means.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#956

Post by Nasrudith »

chabad360 wrote: post #791
noelsusman wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are not "literally picking" the next president or the next congressman. That is delusional.

Obviously they're not "literally" picking the next president, however they have full control on what opinions you see first , and they have utilized that ability to tilt many (yes, very many) people's opinions (especially those whose understanding of even general politics is superficial) towards a specific candidate.

Under that logic we need to heavily regulate cereal boxes and milk cartons because many of us see that first thing every morning.

My philosophy is to always be suspicious of those grabbing at the keys to power - they are up to no good.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#957

Post by MrRadar »

dcolkitt wrote: post #852
slg wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Because the discrimination laws as they are currently setup in the US do not protect LGBTQ folks in the way they protect others. For example, in many states p…

If you're in an area where discrimination against LGBT people is still widespread, then keeping politics out of the office most likely benefits LGBT workers. In San Francisco, almost everyone expressing a political opinion will support gay rights. In rural Mississippi, many of those workers will be bringing out their anti-gay inflammatory baggage when discussing politics. I'm virtually certain that far more anti-LGBT…

Your argument is the same one made by this satirical political cartoon from The Onion: https://i.imgur.com/XCPFpnd.jpg

Not talking about these issues allows the underlying bigotry to fester unchallenged.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#959

Post by dahart »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #631
jetpks wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women were barely allowed into workplaces in general within the last 50 years and are still fighting biases that have existed for millennia. Fixing the lack of women in tech is a multi-century process, not something that's just knocked out in as little as 15 years. We'd be lucky to start seeing the needle move in such a short amount of time.

> barely allowed into workplaces in general within the last 50 years Pardon? 50 years ago was 1969. Not discounting the fact that lower class women have always worked, the 60s saw a huge growth in Women's liberation, with the first woman to be a Fortune 500 CEO happening in the 1972. To say Women were "barely allowed in the workplace" during the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's needs significant proof.

Why not just look it up? It took 10 seconds. https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#Civ...

In 1969, the labor force participation rate of women was 37.8%, and today it’s 46.8%. That’s a big change, and you have to realize that this difference is also coming out of the men’s share; it’s a bigger change than it looks. Also the women’s share was much lower - only 29% - just 20 years before that in 1949. In 1920 it was 20%. And don’t forget 1920 was the first year that women were allowed to vote. So if you’re looking at the bigger point and don’t fixate on exact dates, the pattern is one of massive change in the last 100 years from almost nothing to now nearing 50%.

FWIW, while the comment you replied to maybe seemed to overstate the claim a little for recent years, your response here doesn’t look particularly good in this sensitive/divisive topic, if you’re actually worried about being unfairly labeled. For example, the fact that the first woman Fortune 500 CEO happened in the last 50 years, after 1969, really goes straight to the parent comment’s point, and constitutes extremely clear proof that in 1969 women were barely allowed in some parts of the workforce.

Re: Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work

#960

Post by Nasrudith »

gbanfalvi wrote: post #863
wolco wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Come on, there’s a difference between building a service or a tool that ends up getting used for problematic purposes (ISIS used lots of Toyotas, is Toyota evil?) and knowingly allow and even even enable problematic purposes (imagine if Toyota recognized ISIS as a rising power in the Middle East and started selling them trucks). We can always replace words in other peoples’ statements to make them sound silly, but I’…

So does that mean libraries should be shut down yesterday? There are chemistry books and outright army field manuals to do essentially exactly that - the status of war is the only thing which makes it not-murder.
Post reply on HN