4 ms·

> the government has the power to make life very difficult for corporations If we're at the point where companies need to fear arbitrary punishment by the gove

> the government has the power to make life very difficult for corporations If we're at the point where companies need to fear arbitrary punishment by the government for partisan reasons, the rule of law is dead. I'm not ready to concede that point. > Also, let's be real here. The travel ban doesn't affect these SV companies. How many employees are going to be coming from Syria, Iran or Yemen?. Are the positive optics worth the difficulties? You may be interested to learn that a slew of companies signed an amicus brief in Washington v. Trump[1], including: > Airbnb, Uber, Twitter, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Dropbox, eBay, GoPro, Lyft, Spotify, Yelp and Levi Strauss & Co So, in their estimation, the answer appears to be "yes." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Trump#Amici_curiae_and_proposed_intervenors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Trump#Amici_curi...

Mikeb85 10y ago
> If we're at the point where companies need to fear arbitrary punishment by the government for partisan reasons, the rule of law is dead. I'm not ready to concede that point. Trump has already stated his desire to apply tariffs to companies that operate outside the US, assuming he follows through, moving employees outside the US for spite is a losing proposition. > You may be interested to learn that a slew of companies signed an amicus brief in Washington v. Trump[1], including: Look up the definition of "amicus curaie". Anyhow, legal avenues are fair game. But actively hurting the American economy to prove a point will only turn public perception against them. Americans (heck, even those on HN) are already weary of how much power companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Uber, etc... have over them...
- __derek__ 10y ago
  > Trump has already stated his desire to apply tariffs to companies that operate outside the US, assuming he follows through And he'll need lots of luck getting both Republican-controlled bodies of Congress to pass those tariffs. > moving employees outside the US for spite is a losing proposition It doesn't have to be spite. Doing so out of practicality (see, e.g., companies' increasing their presence in Vancouver) is a more effective statement, anyway. > Look up the definition of "amicus curaie". Is there anything in particular you want me to learn?

Mikeb85 10y ago

> If we're at the point where companies need to fear arbitrary punishment by the government for partisan reasons, the rule of law is dead. I'm not ready to concede that point. Trump has already stated his desire to apply tariffs to companies that operate outside the US, assuming he follows through, moving employees outside the US for spite is a losing proposition. > You may be interested to learn that a slew of companies signed an amicus brief in Washington v. Trump[1], including: Look up the definition of "amicus curaie". Anyhow, legal avenues are fair game. But actively hurting the American economy to prove a point will only turn public perception against them. Americans (heck, even those on HN) are already weary of how much power companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Uber, etc... have over them...

__derek__ 10y ago
> Trump has already stated his desire to apply tariffs to companies that operate outside the US, assuming he follows through And he'll need lots of luck getting both Republican-controlled bodies of Congress to pass those tariffs. > moving employees outside the US for spite is a losing proposition It doesn't have to be spite. Doing so out of practicality (see, e.g., companies' increasing their presence in Vancouver) is a more effective statement, anyway. > Look up the definition of "amicus curaie". Is there anything in particular you want me to learn?