8 ms·
Tech firms are departing from their see-no-evil stance on society and politics
- thescribe 10y agoIt's kind of a shame, one of the thing I value most about working in tech is the apolitical stance a lot of companies take.
- wehere11 10y agohate to break it to you,but https://www.fastcodesign.com/3066631/software-is-politics https://www.fastcodesign.com/3066631/software-is-politics
- ars 10y agoSure there is politics directly related to the software, that's understandable. But on other topics they should stay out of it.
- mmakunas 10y agoThe amorality on this thread is blowing my mind. Please watch something like this before perpetuating the delusion that tech doesn't affect people. http://www.structureevents.com/joyents-bryan-cantrill-on-technology-fear-and-the-rise-of-trump/ http://www.structureevents.com/joyents-bryan-cantrill-on-tec...
- flukus 10y agoNo one said tech doesn't effect people.
- thescribe 10y agoSoftware is no more political that 2 + 2 = 4, it's just computation applied. If we start dragging politics into it we will destroy things like open source that exist only because anyone can anonymously contribute without their race/religion/politics coming up.
- mmakunas 10y agoSo build stuff that completely disrupts entire industries, and eliminates whole categories of jobs, but STFU about it's actual effect on people? Just cash the check, geek out about the tech, and get on with your life?
- thescribe 10y agoEveryone has been doing that forever. The petrol engineer simply competes with the horse feed industry.
- flukus 10y ago> So build stuff that completely disrupts entire industries, and eliminates whole categories of jobs, but STFU about it's actual effect on people? Yes. The jobs weren't their responsibility when the existed and shouldn't be when they're gone. We have other entities to worry about things like that, governments.
- Analemma_ 10y agoThere is no such thing as an apolitical stance. It doesn't exist. Banish the very concept from your mind. That is what I, and a lot of the people who have been complaining about the politics of SV, have been saying for some time now. Typically, tech's stance is something like "socially conscious technolibertarianism". That's not inherently bad-- it's a philosophy with pros and cons like any other-- but it is a definite stance. You might be perceiving it as apolitical for one of two reasons: 1. because it aligns so closely with your view of how the world "should be" that it seems natural and obvious 2. because it doesn't map easily onto the usual Democrat/Republican camps of American politics, thus allowing it to avoid closely identifying with one of those parties and thus seem apolitical So I don't think this is a shame - it's more that tech is now being more honest and open about what they were doing anyway.
- Rylinks 10y agoWhile it's not possible for Uber to have an apolitical stance on collective bargaining rights for independent contractors, it is totally possible for Uber to have an apolitical stance on the composition of the Micronesian parliament. In fact, most SV companies are probably apolitical in this respect. It's impossible to be completely apolitical, but it is possible for a company to be involved in politics to a greater or lesser degree.
- nanistheonlyist 10y agoI think tech firms are opening up pandora's box by introducing themselves into politics. What is next? Separate http protocols for liberal and conservative websites? No good will come of this.
- danharaj 10y agoThe Internet is already tightly controlled and Internet corporations are partly culpable. That's why supporting tor is so crucial, for example. Silence is just tacit approval of the status quo. Acknowledging that tech companies have a political role is acknowledging responsibility.
- danielsju6 10y agoOther industries are politically involved. Why should tech steer clear? What makes this more of a Pandora's box?
- mmakunas 10y agoThat is bull. Everything about what tech is creating is political. Software cannot "eat the world" and not be political. Ignore it at your own peril.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- concinds 10y ago"separate http protocols" sounds like a nonsequitur, but it's true that Silicon Valley has huge power over our lives, and it's only going to increase. SV is responsible for how you communicate, how you work, what information you're exposed to, and what you learn about the world. Tech companies can regulate your access to any of these; suspend your Twitter, ban or censor online communities, and more. To this, add the fact that they collect so much data. The idea of a not only partisan, but partially mob-driven Silicon Valley is concerning. Just think about psychometrics for a second. Facebook, based on your use of their site, can deduce enough about you to build a psychological profile of you. That was enough to correlate certain psychological profiles to political inclinations, and target marketing to potential Trump voters. Those psychological profiles are only going to get more precise, as time goes on, to the point where you can predict someone's likelihood of getting addicted to alcohol, or becoming a serial killer, months before it happens. You think Facebook won't eventually make use of that, either forced by law enforcement, the mob, or of their own will? It's immoral not to do it, you'd be saving lives! But then, what else can be done with those profiles? Who gets to decide? Will the mob have been appeased by then? You better hope so.
- ars 10y agoI don't want any publicly owned companies to get involved in politics, no donations, no comments, no lobbying, nothing. Just stay out of it. If the CEO wants something that he feels is good for his company let him donate personally. Privately held companies can do what they want. The reason I'm opposed is that the CEO is putting his opinion into the mouth of his shareholders, who may or may not share his opinion. The shareholders hire the CEO to decide things related to the company, but not political things. There are obviously gray areas like laws the impact the company directly, but I think people can handle those case by case, with the general policy of stay out of it.
- dorkwagon 10y agoThere's something to this, but it's also possible for shareholders to divest from companies that don't share their political views (in the same way that you can refuse to work for or buy from a company whose views you hate.)
- ars 10y agoNot if you buy index funds you can't. And index funds are the best way to invest.
- bilbo0s 10y agoTo be fair... That's an opportunity for an ideology based index fund. Of course, having said that... I'm not sanguine about the relative performance of such an instrument.
- MereInterest 10y agoI would be surprised if it did as well monetarily standard index funds, though that would be rather beside the point. The set of companies in which a morally aligned index fund may invest is, by design, smaller than the set of companies in which an amoral index fund may invest, and so they may be intentionally passing over profitable companies. One of my favorite quotations is from A Man for All Seasons, with Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More. "If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes."
- allemagne 10y agoI basically consider Trump the devil and his immigration EO to be evil by both it's motivations and by its effects, but the Snowden revelations should have already done this. In fact these companies should have done this before they started secretly collaborating with the U.S. government and making Snowden revelations necessary.
- sparkzilla 10y agoSam Altman's anti-Trump blog posts are the main reasons I am not applying to YC this time, and won't do so in future. As a pro-Trump founder I don't want to have to face a political litmus test just to get into a fucking accelerator.
- grzm 10y agoI appreciate and commend that you're willing to act on your convictions. I suspect your concerns of a political litmus test is unfounded. Your business ideas and their feasibility are likely much more important. One of the things that concerns me is how we work together when there are differences of opinion or politics. I want to believe that we can, while still allowing us to express our opinions. You yourself have effectively tested Sam and YC in just this way and found him wanting. That's of course your perogative, and I respect whatever decision you make.
- Daishiman 10y agoYour political posturing is considered by the gatekeepers of the industry to harm the industry. Fine by you, but I don't think you'll get nor deserve any sympathy.
- sparkzilla 10y agoAnd how does that apply to Peter Thiel? Or is he not part of "the industry"?
- concinds 10y agoThis really has to be put in perspective. You never saw Ford or GM campaign against the Iraq War. You never saw Wall Street criticize the Patriot Act. Some people call this activism, others would call it hysteria. Case in point: many people, mostly in the Silicon Valley subculture, are calling Trump an actual fascist, and saying that any CEO collaborating with him is just as evil as him. Textbook definition of hysteria. The grassroots left has been revitalized, but most Americans don't care much about Trump either way. Now that's the big picture. Of course, immigration matters to people, and, in a minor way, to Silicon Valley. But discourse has become so tinged with emotion that corporations staying mum is now seen as evil, rather than business as usual. This mob-mentality may be productive now, but isn't an entirely positive development.
- TillE 10y ago> the many people calling Trump an actual fascist The Holocaust statement, which was pitch-perfect Holocaust denial of the modern weaselly style, should genuinely terrify everyone. People are still desperately trying to act like everything is basically normal when it's incredibly not. Every idea you had about political engagement and norms, throw it in the garbage and start from scratch.
- woofyman 10y agoThat was obscene. It's sadly true that the nazis committed acts of genocide against many peoples. The holocaust specifically refers to the genocide of Jews specifically.
- pavel_lishin 10y agoI thought that it specifically referred to the industrial murder of the Nazi regime, although mostly of Jews, but also of gypsies, and other people deemed "undesirables" by the state.
- woofyman 10y agoThat's not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust He "all lives mattered" the holocaust and white nationalists celebrated.
- devoply 10y agoTech firms are already heavily involved in politics. It's just that now that the government is no longer doing what they want, they are going to get more involved. News at 10. Has nothing to do with ethics or evil or any of that, has to do with the fact that their profit is built on the backs of immigrants. They don't want to lose that gravy train.
- yarou 10y agoI don't like the fact that American society is becoming so heavily politicized. I have family members, cousins who are brother and sister, refusing to talk to each other because of this nonsense. This needs to end.
- grzm 10y agoI agree. This is a primary concern for me as well. What are your ideas on how this can be addressed and improved?
- zaphar 10y agoCultural change is hard. Like really hard. It's easier to join a culture you like than it is to change a culture you don't like. Cultures form a part of someone's identity and when you mess with someones identity they get defensive and sometimes violent. I'm not sure that there is a fix for this that isn't a local long term commitment to finding common ground with those around you.
- grzm 10y agoIs there anything you are personally doing?
- zaphar 10y agoI'm doing exactly what I said in my last sentence. I'm committing to a local long term effort to find common ground with those around me. I'm also under no illusions that it will happen quickly.
- grzm 10y agoI think that's a great idea, and I'm of the same opinion that it needs to be done locally and personally. Do you have specific strategies or tactics you're using? The status quo doesn't appear to be enough.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ilaksh 10y agoTechnology just means applying what we know (science) to making tools or systems for solving our problems. Ultimately we cannot avoid using technology in that broad sense to solve societal and political problems. I must once again challenge readers of Hacker News to consider the possibility that the popular news feeds do not provide an accurate view of the global political situation. This is because information control is a critical aspect of warfare, and that comes in the form of propaganda. And, whether you believe it or not, the United States maintains its position in the world through deadly force that requires projection. This projection comes in the form of extensive, connected military campaigns that have been ongoing for decades. This warfare makes it important to shape information around it -- hence American propaganda. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Critic... as a criticism (I suggest that America is _not_ an exception to history, but much confusion comes from the belief that it is). In the context that I am trying to make accessible, my own worldview, the fact that these countries are largely Muslim is in a way a distraction from the real issue, which is: the US and overall current geopolitical order is dependent upon control over distribution of fossil fuels (with much, much more resources allocated to US and closest allies), that (unequal) resource control requires military force to protect key areas for extraction and transport, military control over much of the territory of the affected countries is unavailable/not secure, and those areas are all critical in relation to maintaining the resource control and current order. Look at a map https://www.google.com/maps/place/Somalia/@21.0767185,36.9953577,4z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x181d2ea7ecd15b83:0x9e393ace5ce9e5be!8m2!3d5.152149!4d46.199616 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Somalia/@21.0767185,36.995..., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consu..., compare to map of affected countries of recent immigration action https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest/img/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-interest_twitter.png?v=1 https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ba... In my opinion, religion is not the real issue, and although (obviously) immigration actions against these countries is likely to mainly inflame the situation more, the problems are much more severe than people want to believe. Its not just that we have some people who are prejudice against other religions, however nice it would be to believe that is the whole problem. The root of the problem is really the unequal resource distribution, unresolved military security issues (or in some cases, undeclared war against) (with) those countries, and the reality that the global order is maintained by deadly force and propaganda.
- caseysoftware 10y agoWhat they're missing is that by speaking (and acting) as moral arbitrars, they're stepping into a position they may not want to be long term. If Facebook and/or Twitter are people's primary source of information and they're moderating content that is annoying (but not illegal), do those actions start to fall under FEC rules? What about Google's tweaking of Page Rank? How does that affect their valuations? Since these processes are opaque, it's easy to imply and accuse them of all kinds of things. We may see a situation where they have to open up processes, procedures, and potentially algorithms. And I suspect they don't want that.
- appleiigs 10y agoTech firms over-value their own tech by only tweeting, posting or emailing saying they are "concerned" or "upset". Should be more actions. They can expand/setup offices in foreign countries for developers (not just manufacturing), in effect moving jobs out of the US (and the expensive SF area). Some good would come of it. They can pay less because cost of living would be cheaper. They would have less visa constraints in recruiting. They would be spending their offshore cash (less cash to repatriate and pay tax on, less currency risk). They would have better visibility into local/international trends and preferences to create growth. Countries would give tax breaks. They can do this loudly and publicly to get Trump's attention. Imagine the headlines of jobs moving out of US because of Trump's actions. EDIT: and this would be more business, less politics.
- appleiigs 10y agoI think tech firms were thrown into politics more so than other industries. Tech has had to fight for privacy: PRISM/SOPA/PIPA; Apple vs FBI; Google in China; even Blackberry vs middle eastern countries (if i recall correctly). I bet they don't want to be involved, but have been thrown into it. It's almost expected of them to say something to protect their brand. If they made coffee like Starbucks, sure... no politics, no problem.