4 ms·

It's tempting to criticize the decision to hire Rice based on weak spots in her track record, but we should resist the urge. In reality, Rice could've been rec

It's tempting to criticize the decision to hire Rice based on weak spots in her track record, but we should resist the urge. In reality, Rice could've been recruited because of her relationships with top govt. security officials, in the hopes of facilitating more conversations, in which Dropbox has more leverage, to push back against mass surveillance. If something like this isn't the case, then firing Rice wouldn't be a resolution anyway.

icebraining 11y ago
Considering that she's a well known apologist of mass surveillance, what you're saying is that maybe they are simply using her and abusing her trust to undermine her own positions. That's not exactly reassuring vis-a-vis their ethical character.
- petergatsby 11y ago
  Positions on complex, high-level issues usually don't translate into predictable behaviors in specific, real-life scenarios. As for character, it's unclear what's unsettling about presumed utilitarians acting towards what they believe to be best outcomes.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Positions on complex, high-level issues usually don't translate into predictable behaviors in specific, real-life scenarios. If that's the problem, then shouldn't they explain the connection? Since they won't, it's only natural to assume the obvious. And why would one presume them utilitarians?
    - petergatsby 11y ago
      Leaders of large companies usually have to manage a wide array of disparate and sometimes diametrically opposed interests. The guys at Dropbox are smart; isn't the "obvious" assumption that Rice could be useful in helping them to better manage some of these interests (e.g. potentially reducing govt. snooping by facilitating a more level playing field for comms. and negotiation)?. Aren't most reasonable people utilitarians? :)
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Aren't most reasonable people utilitarians? :) If by reasonable, you mean "rational" in the sense of rational choice theory, and if by "utilitarians" you mean "maximize of their own individual utility" rather than "adherents to the philosophical school of utilitarianism", then, yes, all reasonable people are utilitarians, by definition.
subdane 11y ago
I stopped using Dropbox after the Rice appointment. Here's the thing - I'm not concerned that she's going to spy on my stuff or let the govt spy on my stuff any more than, say, Google. I'm concerned that she lacks integrity. Now, either the board knows this and doesn't care (b/c they lack integrity) or doesn't know this and doesn't care (which makes me question their judgment). Perhaps they appointed her b/c of her ties to govt and academia in the hope that she could help open new markets. OK. Has she? Perhaps they appointed her b/c they want to see more women and people of color on startup boards. Bravo! Wrong choice. And this is coming from a person of color.
- petergatsby 11y ago
  There seems to be this misperception of board members as individually highly influential on the actions of a company. Rice was probably hired for several of the reasons that you mentioned above. Ultimately though, it's hard to make useful speculation from outside of the company, with little knowledge of the company's long-term goals.

icebraining 11y ago

Considering that she's a well known apologist of mass surveillance, what you're saying is that maybe they are simply using her and abusing her trust to undermine her own positions. That's not exactly reassuring vis-a-vis their ethical character.

petergatsby 11y ago
Positions on complex, high-level issues usually don't translate into predictable behaviors in specific, real-life scenarios. As for character, it's unclear what's unsettling about presumed utilitarians acting towards what they believe to be best outcomes.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Positions on complex, high-level issues usually don't translate into predictable behaviors in specific, real-life scenarios. If that's the problem, then shouldn't they explain the connection? Since they won't, it's only natural to assume the obvious. And why would one presume them utilitarians?
  - petergatsby 11y ago
    Leaders of large companies usually have to manage a wide array of disparate and sometimes diametrically opposed interests. The guys at Dropbox are smart; isn't the "obvious" assumption that Rice could be useful in helping them to better manage some of these interests (e.g. potentially reducing govt. snooping by facilitating a more level playing field for comms. and negotiation)?. Aren't most reasonable people utilitarians? :)
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Aren't most reasonable people utilitarians? :) If by reasonable, you mean "rational" in the sense of rational choice theory, and if by "utilitarians" you mean "maximize of their own individual utility" rather than "adherents to the philosophical school of utilitarianism", then, yes, all reasonable people are utilitarians, by definition.

subdane 11y ago

I stopped using Dropbox after the Rice appointment. Here's the thing - I'm not concerned that she's going to spy on my stuff or let the govt spy on my stuff any more than, say, Google. I'm concerned that she lacks integrity. Now, either the board knows this and doesn't care (b/c they lack integrity) or doesn't know this and doesn't care (which makes me question their judgment). Perhaps they appointed her b/c of her ties to govt and academia in the hope that she could help open new markets. OK. Has she? Perhaps they appointed her b/c they want to see more women and people of color on startup boards. Bravo! Wrong choice. And this is coming from a person of color.

petergatsby 11y ago
There seems to be this misperception of board members as individually highly influential on the actions of a company. Rice was probably hired for several of the reasons that you mentioned above. Ultimately though, it's hard to make useful speculation from outside of the company, with little knowledge of the company's long-term goals.