zlacker

[return to "After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract"]
1. shaggy+il[view] [source] 2020-06-15 16:52:55
>>Xordev+(OP)
There are a few comments in here already decrying “politicization”.

Guess what? Politics are interwoven in every aspect of our lives. You cannot choose to “avoid” them; even suggesting you can be politically neutral is a political stance that comes from a place of privilege, because only the privileged can avoid experiencing negative political consequences inside their bubble.

Collaboration with ICE is collaboration with ICE, whether it’s “just hosting code” or actually contracted by them to develop their systems. It’s the same deal with Amazon or Facebook or whoever. If you work for them you need to admit to yourself that you are an enabler. Most people can’t admit that to themselves, so they maintain an unhealthy cognitive dissonance to keep going.

And it hurts when that dissonance is shattered.

Comparing supporting ICE to a marriage is nonsense, and thinking you can somehow help them be better by keeping them as a customer? A totally naive concept that has been shown not to work in practice since the US 2016 election. (In fact, supporting the monster makes them stronger; if it made them weaker, why would they keep using your product?)

The reckoning we are seeing in tech is long overdue. As developers we are no longer seeing our actions as “politically neutral” and are starting to understand the power we yield collectively to make positive change to our industry.

Nat Friedman is on the wrong side of history here. These empty words are no longer sufficient. Hopefully he figures that out before his tenure at GitHub comes to an end.

◧◩
2. overga+tt[view] [source] 2020-06-15 17:22:19
>>shaggy+il
So who decides? Do companies now need a chief political officer? Do they do some sort of political review of each new customer? What issues do they use to decide on? Do they deny Apple or Nike because of overseas labour conditions?

IMO it's foolish for a company to wade into these waters at all unless activism is part of their brand. If you signal you're going to take a stand it ends up having to be around everything and people are going to have a lot of conflicting agendas. Or you could just sell software tools to people who pay for them.

◧◩◪
3. moolco+3x[view] [source] 2020-06-15 17:34:50
>>overga+tt
> So who decides? Do companies now need a chief political officer?

Companies make "political" decisions every single day, in literally everything they do. Just as Apple and Nike make the _decision_ to employ the questionable overseas labour practices, providing services to them is also a _decision_. The whole point of the corporate executive branch is to make decisions for the company, it's the difference between McDonalds and a bunch of random stores making hamburgers. You can't hand-wave your way out of accountability with statements like this whenever you start having to face hard decisions like this.

◧◩◪◨
4. dingal+QZ1[view] [source] 2020-06-16 04:17:25
>>moolco+3x
> Companies make "political" decisions every single day, in literally everything they do.

That's incorrect.

The vast majority of companies are small and medium sized enterprises who just try to make it through. Does the launderette in the high street make political decisions? The car dealership? The scrap metal yard?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. moolco+913[view] [source] 2020-06-16 14:54:25
>>dingal+QZ1
Those all make political decisions. Let's take the car dealership: What are your hiring practices? Are the cars foreign, or domestic? How do you incentivize your salesforce? How much (if any) insurance do you provide employees? How do you provide credit? Do you sell cars to people with bad credit who you don't believe will be able to make payments? How do you handle missed payments? When do you decide to repossess a car? Do you push low emissions and electric vehicles? There's a ton of politics behind literally all of these (and more) questions.
[go to top]