4 ms·

I'm having trouble finding a single position of her that I agree with. I'm actually listening to Brahms now, to see if maybe her choice of favourite composer is

I'm having trouble finding a single position of her that I agree with. I'm actually listening to Brahms now, to see if maybe her choice of favourite composer is at least sensible. But I do get the impression that she's the kind of person that one can have a deep discussion with even while disagreeing; that her positions, while wrong, are within the realm of possibilities, especially given her rather impressive biography. In other words: she's frequently wrong, but she's not batshit crazy and filled with hate like the current administration. On a more practical note: I doubt that a board member has the power needed to single-handedly set company policy in the way implied by the criticism. If anything, her appointment is more of a symptom of the problem. I guess it is cooperation with the national security apparatus people are worried about? With the increased scrutiny post-Snowden, especially in the EU, I'm not sure how much leeway companies have left, anyway. Yes: Dropbox almost certainly cooperates when presented with a "National Security Letter". But I would take Rice to actually be more concerned about limiting her liability than, say, Yahoo, and push back at requests that are in legally grey areas.

gurkendoktor 9y ago
> In other words: she's frequently wrong, but she's not batshit crazy and filled with hate like the current administration. Is it really better if an intelligent person willingly helps start the Iraq war than if an hateful person does so on a whim? I find it hard to decide what's scarier. I've stopped using Dropbox when they hired her, but not because I think there are practical implications for users. Rather, I wish that the IT community would finally, please, start thinking about ethics.
- rocqua 9y ago
  Yes, it is a lot better if an intelligent person willingly helps start that war. Intelligent people tend to be rational; they can be reasoned with. This means you might be able to convince them to change their mind. You can talk with them and figure out what is going on. You can explain to them why you disagree with their actions. The real distinction that matters is how stubborn someone is, or how convinced they are that they are right. One might be stubborn out of hate, one might be stubborn out of pride (I loudly claimed X, so I must to all I can to show X is right, no matter what happens), or one might be stubborn out of 'true belief'. Such stubbornness is scary. Notably, it is scary no matter whether you agree with them or not. Such stubbornness might help accelerate change if they are exactly right, but there is no room for error.
  - gurkendoktor 9y ago
    Good point about stubbornness, but rationality is not the same as benevolence. You can have rational, even entertaining discussions about the way in which you ruin things for your own self-interest. I have a hard time believing that anyone in the Bush administration was acting in good faith and invaded a country because nobody raised a solid counter-argument in time.
    - rocqua 9y ago
      Even people acting out of self-interest can be reasoned or at least bargained with. You can't do that with a 'true believer'.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

gurkendoktor 9y ago

> In other words: she's frequently wrong, but she's not batshit crazy and filled with hate like the current administration. Is it really better if an intelligent person willingly helps start the Iraq war than if an hateful person does so on a whim? I find it hard to decide what's scarier. I've stopped using Dropbox when they hired her, but not because I think there are practical implications for users. Rather, I wish that the IT community would finally, please, start thinking about ethics.

rocqua 9y ago
Yes, it is a lot better if an intelligent person willingly helps start that war. Intelligent people tend to be rational; they can be reasoned with. This means you might be able to convince them to change their mind. You can talk with them and figure out what is going on. You can explain to them why you disagree with their actions. The real distinction that matters is how stubborn someone is, or how convinced they are that they are right. One might be stubborn out of hate, one might be stubborn out of pride (I loudly claimed X, so I must to all I can to show X is right, no matter what happens), or one might be stubborn out of 'true belief'. Such stubbornness is scary. Notably, it is scary no matter whether you agree with them or not. Such stubbornness might help accelerate change if they are exactly right, but there is no room for error.
- gurkendoktor 9y ago
  Good point about stubbornness, but rationality is not the same as benevolence. You can have rational, even entertaining discussions about the way in which you ruin things for your own self-interest. I have a hard time believing that anyone in the Bush administration was acting in good faith and invaded a country because nobody raised a solid counter-argument in time.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    Even people acting out of self-interest can be reasoned or at least bargained with. You can't do that with a 'true believer'.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]