zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
Corporations are people. If they don't act ethically, we can't expect people to act ethically.

Ending a contract with an agency that runs concentration camps is good. Better, though, is to not accept any contracts with any government that runs concentration camps.

Small steps are good. Big steps are better.

PS: great fear from all paying customers that run concentration camps that an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time -- sounds like a good policy to me. Not as good as "Don't be evil", but reasonably close.

>>dsr_+Nk
Your choice of language by saying "concentration camps" is unproductively hyperbolic and reminiscent of Nazis killing Jews in WW2. People found to have been here illegally are being kept in detention centers until deportation or trial. Nobody is getting gassed or burned in ovens.

>>TheAda+ym
Note that there is a distinction — albeit a blurry one — between concentration camps [0] and extermination camps [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp

>>jakela+1p
In the U.S. context, concentration camp is used almost exclusively to refer to the extermination camps run by Nazis in World War II. I know not everyone on here is American, but that bit of information is useful for understanding why so many people make the association between concentration camps and the extermination of Jews in WWII. And it also explains why it is disingenuous of Americans to state that the US government is running concentration camps; it is technically correct according to the dictionary definition, but it is not correct according to lay usage in the United States.