14 ms·

Salesforce.com tells its customers to stop selling assault-style rifles

64 points by cVwEq 7y ago

rogerkirkness 7y ago
I've been wondering when deplatforming would hit enterprise software companies. No longer shall I wonder.
- anonuser123456 7y ago
  "But we're the good guys."
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    There were never any good guys. Just different guys.
- sincerely 7y ago
  I believe this isn't even SF's first rodeo - a while back there was some controversy about SF having done custom work for Backpage
challenger22 7y ago
The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling. The reality is that retailers that sell guns will continue to sell guns, and salesforce will lose customers as a self-inflicted wound. The argument "if you don't do it, someone else will" isn't valid here, because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  > The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling. If Facebook and others can kick white supremacists off their platforms, why can't Salesforce kick gun sellers off of theirs? > because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns. So what's the problem if Salesforce isn't necessary to sell this class of firearm?
  - challenger22 7y ago
    If you accept the propositions from my first post, and suppose that the owners of Salesforce value this virtue signalling more than they value the profit they lose, there is no problem for them. But I would also argue that this would be silly ordering of preferences, especially considering that it is a publicly owned company.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Being publicly owned does not require you maximize profits. Patagonia donated its $10 million in tax savings from US tax reform to fighting climate change. Is that virtue signaling? Yes! Is that also donating funds you weren't required to to a cause your business values? Yes!
      - challenger22 7y ago
        Your argument does not appropriately address the concern. Donating real cash to an effort actually helps. Withdrawing CRM software from gun retailers does not accomplish anything to reduce gun violence. Virtue signaling, as a term, is intended to address instances where the social signal is more highly prioritized than the action itself. The action was specifically to fire some of Salesforce's customers over a political motive.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Would you not consider it possible that by firing a gun customer, and thereby making it harder to transact, its possible gun violence was slightly reduced? I mean, it's clear the US isn't going to enact sane gun control policy, so you can't also be shocked when the free market decides to act. While Salesforce alone isn't big enough to move the needle with gun violence, as with deplatforming white supremacists, it does work when everyone acts in concert.
        challenger22 7y ago
        I strongly believe this will not reduce gun violence. I also concede that it is impossible to measure. I think their CRM software (and other software) is about as integral to the sale of a gun as the Doritos for sale in the gun retailer's company canteen. If Frito-Lay came out and said "we will no longer sell snack products to gun retailers" would you applaud them?
- akhilcacharya 7y ago
  I like how the implicit premise is that virtue signaling is a "bad thing".
  - challenger22 7y ago
    To me, when the social signal is valued more highly than the negative outcomes caused by the action, it becomes a bad thing. The action does not reduce gun violence, but hurts both customers and profits.
    - objectivetruth 7y ago
      Actions don't occur in a vacuum. If enough companies followed suit, the social conversations in media, between people, and between organizations can change enough to act as a lever for larger social changes. Lunch counter sit-ins didn't immediately "reduce" the actual local laws that banned black people from sitting in the restaurants... but the protest and counter-protests happened, and the famous pic of the white mob pouring drinks on the peaceful black diners helped inspire social action that led to the Civil Rights Act.
- kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
  The phrase "virtue signalling" is made-up nonsense that has been utilized, primarily by far-right commentators, to denigrate and ridicule any opinion or action that runs counter to their world-view. Most bafflingly, people who use the phrase seem oblivious to the fact that its mere application is in and of itself an example of the phrase. People who use the phrase "virtue signalling" in almost every context should be treated with the same deference and respect that someone who uses the phrase "genetic terminator" is due when discussing vaccines.
  - challenger22 7y ago
    First, you claim that it virtue signalling is made-up nonsense. Then, you claim that use of the term virtue signalling is an instance of virtue signalling. Your statements contradict themselves. Describe your position more accurately, please.
    - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
      Calling something a "hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals", is undeniably, irrefutably, uncontroversially, a hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals. I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions. People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves. It is not a thing.
      - challenger22 7y ago
        You accept that it describes what people think it describes, so the concept exists. You also give an example of the concept being applied, so it is not only a concept, but it exists in reality as well. Sounds to me that you think it is a thing, but you do not enjoy the fact that it is a thing.
      - Nadya 7y ago
        >I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions. This runs under the very, very, very large assumption that one actually truly believes in the opinions or positions they share. You have far more trust in people and corporations than I do if you believe this to be the case. Do many poor people flaunt wealth they don't really have by wearing expensive products as a way of being seen as wealthy as a form of social signalling? Yes. Do many immoral people flaunt fake morals they don't really believe in hopes of being seen as more moral as a form of social signalling? Not surprisingly, also yes. If there are benefits to an individual for having a higher perceived social value irregardless of their actual social value then there will always be con artists who try and game the system. Poor people are rarely wearing Supreme listening to their iPods or Beats by Dre for themselves: it's social signalling. Virtue signalling is a form of social signalling. The goal is to masquerade as moral. Whether actions are taken for moral reasons or result in any form of net positive to society isn't relevant - only how people end up judging the action. This is how you end up with things like diversity quotas and people who feel like they're the "token person" of the office. Where the only black person in the company finds themselves on 90% of outgoing marketing material so that the company can pretend they're more diverse than they are. >People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves. It seems to me you're misunderstanding exactly what virtue signalling is. The difference between "being moral" and "virtue signalling by pretending to have morals" is predicated entirely on why an action was taken and what the expected result of that action is. Yes, some people may be virtue signalling by being against virtue signalling - but I have a feeling that most are people who are able to grasp the difference between "doing a good thing to be a good person" and "doing a good thing to get Instagram likes and brand recognition". The two sometimes overlap. Imagine these three scenarios: 1) A person donates $10,000 to charity anonymously (doing a good thing) 2) A person donates $10,000 to a charity and shares that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (doing a good thing / virtue signalling ; it kinda depends on the intent doesn't it?) 3) A person lies about making a $10,000 donation to a charity and shares the fact that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (virtue signalling)
- drewrv 7y ago
  > The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling. It's neither. There are a number of unsavory industries that people choose not participate in. The fact that apple doesn't allow porn in the app store doesn't mean they think they're going to stop porn, nor is it virtue signaling. They just don't want to be a part of it.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    For Apple, it has branding value. It means they are known to legions of parents as a company that won't expose their children to porn.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > because CRM software is not a necessary economic input Well, even if it is, Salesforce isn't the only game in town. In fact, CRM isn't all that damned complicated - there are a lot of people who would be chomping at the bit to compete with Salesforce but don't because their incumbent status is too great. If Salesforce throws away customers, though, that gives somebody else a chance to get their foot in the door.
- hsod 7y ago
  what's wrong with signalling virtue?
kyleblarson 7y ago
The journalistic ignorance around firearms is staggering: 'assault-style rifles', 'fully semi automatic', etc etc.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  What's wrong with "assault-style"? It correctly describes rifles that are designed to look like their actually select-fire military assault rifle counterparts, but that are just semi-automatic themselves. It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics, nothing more. What name would you recommend instead?
  - axaxs 7y ago
    Not OP, but, 'assault-style' is meaningless. Who cares that it -looks- like a black rifle, it's just a semi automatic rifle. Many airsoft and paintball guns look similar, are they also 'assault-style'? A lot of damage was done with the Mini 14, which I'm guessing nobody classifies as 'assault-style', or do they? The only difference is that one is wooden, and the other is metal/plastic, really. So when you boil it down to those differences, it seems rather silly. If you are taking the stance of banning something, then one should be well versed to know what they are seeking to ban. Banning 'assault-style' is useless (see Mini 14). If you want to ban semi automatic rifles, say that. If you want to ban high capacity magazines, say that.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      You're arguing a different thing, that it doesn't make sense to ban a gun based on its aesthetics. However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?
      - axaxs 7y ago
        I mean, it's their right, but for the reasons I pointed out, it comes off as foolish to me. Like that they are taking a stance against something completely arbitrary. Just my .02.
algaeontoast 7y ago
I guess international arms dealers now have an avenue to enter civilian markets haha. The arrogance of these companies to impart what Americans can and cannot do is stunning.
gottaLookSweeby 7y ago
Ha! This is probably because there was a request from a high paying user for implementing some arms dealer specific flags in the system, and some smarmy developers felt the need to stay in character (using their SFW promotion centric face) and raise complaints. In a work environment at a publicly traded company with a humorless HR department, even posturing can lead to profoundly stupid and robotic, deterministic or inelastic outcomes, where fear of consequences conducts a signal like a bucket brigade passing the buck to its logical destination. So, there was a conference call, Camping World got the memo, the communications department changed published policies, and then journalists ears perked up, and now it's a shit storm.
finnthehuman 7y ago
It’s a good thing Northern California has perfect morals, otherwise companies based there forcibly exporting them to the rest of the world might have some downsides.
- armenarmen 7y ago
  The world truly is fortunate to have NorCal as its shining city on the hill!
thrower123 7y ago
Salesforce is really not a good enough product to be throwing it's weight around like that. It's expensive, it's clunky, and there are plenty of alternatives.
- HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
  Do the alternatives sell nearly as well? I couldn't name a single one, but pretty much everyone knows the Salesforce name.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    I am not really sure, but we switched to Microsoft Dynamics a while back because Salesforce was overly expensive, and we got some steep discounts from Microsoft through a partner program. I don't use it much, but our sales people seem to have adjusted pretty easily; it was a bit of a pain to extract, clean, and import all the data that used to be in Salesforce, but far from insurmountable.
  - derivagral 7y ago
    Hubspot wants to grow up into Salesforce but is still about an order smaller. I worked there briefly but have since moved on.
- masonic 7y ago
  It's not about Salesforce per see; it's about Benioff's perceived suitability to be elected to political office in CA in the future.
Cyndre 7y ago
I am wondering how this will impact gun fanatics that don't sell guns. I can easily see this costing Salesforce more then just companies that sell guns. Companies owned by pro gun rights people will likely leave as well.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

64 points by cVwEq 7y ago

rogerkirkness 7y ago

I've been wondering when deplatforming would hit enterprise software companies. No longer shall I wonder.

anonuser123456 7y ago
"But we're the good guys."
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  There were never any good guys. Just different guys.
sincerely 7y ago
I believe this isn't even SF's first rodeo - a while back there was some controversy about SF having done custom work for Backpage

challenger22 7y ago

The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling. The reality is that retailers that sell guns will continue to sell guns, and salesforce will lose customers as a self-inflicted wound. The argument "if you don't do it, someone else will" isn't valid here, because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
> The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling. If Facebook and others can kick white supremacists off their platforms, why can't Salesforce kick gun sellers off of theirs? > because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns. So what's the problem if Salesforce isn't necessary to sell this class of firearm?
- challenger22 7y ago
  If you accept the propositions from my first post, and suppose that the owners of Salesforce value this virtue signalling more than they value the profit they lose, there is no problem for them. But I would also argue that this would be silly ordering of preferences, especially considering that it is a publicly owned company.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Being publicly owned does not require you maximize profits. Patagonia donated its $10 million in tax savings from US tax reform to fighting climate change. Is that virtue signaling? Yes! Is that also donating funds you weren't required to to a cause your business values? Yes!
    - challenger22 7y ago
      Your argument does not appropriately address the concern. Donating real cash to an effort actually helps. Withdrawing CRM software from gun retailers does not accomplish anything to reduce gun violence. Virtue signaling, as a term, is intended to address instances where the social signal is more highly prioritized than the action itself. The action was specifically to fire some of Salesforce's customers over a political motive.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Would you not consider it possible that by firing a gun customer, and thereby making it harder to transact, its possible gun violence was slightly reduced? I mean, it's clear the US isn't going to enact sane gun control policy, so you can't also be shocked when the free market decides to act. While Salesforce alone isn't big enough to move the needle with gun violence, as with deplatforming white supremacists, it does work when everyone acts in concert.
        challenger22 7y ago
        I strongly believe this will not reduce gun violence. I also concede that it is impossible to measure. I think their CRM software (and other software) is about as integral to the sale of a gun as the Doritos for sale in the gun retailer's company canteen. If Frito-Lay came out and said "we will no longer sell snack products to gun retailers" would you applaud them?
akhilcacharya 7y ago
I like how the implicit premise is that virtue signaling is a "bad thing".
- challenger22 7y ago
  To me, when the social signal is valued more highly than the negative outcomes caused by the action, it becomes a bad thing. The action does not reduce gun violence, but hurts both customers and profits.
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    Actions don't occur in a vacuum. If enough companies followed suit, the social conversations in media, between people, and between organizations can change enough to act as a lever for larger social changes. Lunch counter sit-ins didn't immediately "reduce" the actual local laws that banned black people from sitting in the restaurants... but the protest and counter-protests happened, and the famous pic of the white mob pouring drinks on the peaceful black diners helped inspire social action that led to the Civil Rights Act.
kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
The phrase "virtue signalling" is made-up nonsense that has been utilized, primarily by far-right commentators, to denigrate and ridicule any opinion or action that runs counter to their world-view. Most bafflingly, people who use the phrase seem oblivious to the fact that its mere application is in and of itself an example of the phrase. People who use the phrase "virtue signalling" in almost every context should be treated with the same deference and respect that someone who uses the phrase "genetic terminator" is due when discussing vaccines.
- challenger22 7y ago
  First, you claim that it virtue signalling is made-up nonsense. Then, you claim that use of the term virtue signalling is an instance of virtue signalling. Your statements contradict themselves. Describe your position more accurately, please.
  - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
    Calling something a "hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals", is undeniably, irrefutably, uncontroversially, a hollow and meaningless gesture made only to raise one's profile in the eyes of like-minded individuals. I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions. People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves. It is not a thing.
    - challenger22 7y ago
      You accept that it describes what people think it describes, so the concept exists. You also give an example of the concept being applied, so it is not only a concept, but it exists in reality as well. Sounds to me that you think it is a thing, but you do not enjoy the fact that it is a thing.
    - Nadya 7y ago
      >I do not believe that stating an opinion or taking a position on a matter, regardless of the reason, is a hollow and meaningless gestures. Opinions and positions are opinions and positions. This runs under the very, very, very large assumption that one actually truly believes in the opinions or positions they share. You have far more trust in people and corporations than I do if you believe this to be the case. Do many poor people flaunt wealth they don't really have by wearing expensive products as a way of being seen as wealthy as a form of social signalling? Yes. Do many immoral people flaunt fake morals they don't really believe in hopes of being seen as more moral as a form of social signalling? Not surprisingly, also yes. If there are benefits to an individual for having a higher perceived social value irregardless of their actual social value then there will always be con artists who try and game the system. Poor people are rarely wearing Supreme listening to their iPods or Beats by Dre for themselves: it's social signalling. Virtue signalling is a form of social signalling. The goal is to masquerade as moral. Whether actions are taken for moral reasons or result in any form of net positive to society isn't relevant - only how people end up judging the action. This is how you end up with things like diversity quotas and people who feel like they're the "token person" of the office. Where the only black person in the company finds themselves on 90% of outgoing marketing material so that the company can pretend they're more diverse than they are. >People who believe that "virtue signalling" is a thing are doing it themselves. It seems to me you're misunderstanding exactly what virtue signalling is. The difference between "being moral" and "virtue signalling by pretending to have morals" is predicated entirely on why an action was taken and what the expected result of that action is. Yes, some people may be virtue signalling by being against virtue signalling - but I have a feeling that most are people who are able to grasp the difference between "doing a good thing to be a good person" and "doing a good thing to get Instagram likes and brand recognition". The two sometimes overlap. Imagine these three scenarios: 1) A person donates $10,000 to charity anonymously (doing a good thing) 2) A person donates $10,000 to a charity and shares that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (doing a good thing / virtue signalling ; it kinda depends on the intent doesn't it?) 3) A person lies about making a $10,000 donation to a charity and shares the fact that they made this donation on all of their social media accounts (virtue signalling)
drewrv 7y ago
> The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling. It's neither. There are a number of unsavory industries that people choose not participate in. The fact that apple doesn't allow porn in the app store doesn't mean they think they're going to stop porn, nor is it virtue signaling. They just don't want to be a part of it.
- Kalium 7y ago
  For Apple, it has branding value. It means they are known to legions of parents as a company that won't expose their children to porn.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> because CRM software is not a necessary economic input Well, even if it is, Salesforce isn't the only game in town. In fact, CRM isn't all that damned complicated - there are a lot of people who would be chomping at the bit to compete with Salesforce but don't because their incumbent status is too great. If Salesforce throws away customers, though, that gives somebody else a chance to get their foot in the door.
hsod 7y ago
what's wrong with signalling virtue?

kyleblarson 7y ago

The journalistic ignorance around firearms is staggering: 'assault-style rifles', 'fully semi automatic', etc etc.

CydeWeys 7y ago
What's wrong with "assault-style"? It correctly describes rifles that are designed to look like their actually select-fire military assault rifle counterparts, but that are just semi-automatic themselves. It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics, nothing more. What name would you recommend instead?
- axaxs 7y ago
  Not OP, but, 'assault-style' is meaningless. Who cares that it -looks- like a black rifle, it's just a semi automatic rifle. Many airsoft and paintball guns look similar, are they also 'assault-style'? A lot of damage was done with the Mini 14, which I'm guessing nobody classifies as 'assault-style', or do they? The only difference is that one is wooden, and the other is metal/plastic, really. So when you boil it down to those differences, it seems rather silly. If you are taking the stance of banning something, then one should be well versed to know what they are seeking to ban. Banning 'assault-style' is useless (see Mini 14). If you want to ban semi automatic rifles, say that. If you want to ban high capacity magazines, say that.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    You're arguing a different thing, that it doesn't make sense to ban a gun based on its aesthetics. However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?
    - axaxs 7y ago
      I mean, it's their right, but for the reasons I pointed out, it comes off as foolish to me. Like that they are taking a stance against something completely arbitrary. Just my .02.

algaeontoast 7y ago

I guess international arms dealers now have an avenue to enter civilian markets haha. The arrogance of these companies to impart what Americans can and cannot do is stunning.

gottaLookSweeby 7y ago

Ha! This is probably because there was a request from a high paying user for implementing some arms dealer specific flags in the system, and some smarmy developers felt the need to stay in character (using their SFW promotion centric face) and raise complaints. In a work environment at a publicly traded company with a humorless HR department, even posturing can lead to profoundly stupid and robotic, deterministic or inelastic outcomes, where fear of consequences conducts a signal like a bucket brigade passing the buck to its logical destination. So, there was a conference call, Camping World got the memo, the communications department changed published policies, and then journalists ears perked up, and now it's a shit storm.

finnthehuman 7y ago

It’s a good thing Northern California has perfect morals, otherwise companies based there forcibly exporting them to the rest of the world might have some downsides.

armenarmen 7y ago
The world truly is fortunate to have NorCal as its shining city on the hill!

thrower123 7y ago

Salesforce is really not a good enough product to be throwing it's weight around like that. It's expensive, it's clunky, and there are plenty of alternatives.

HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
Do the alternatives sell nearly as well? I couldn't name a single one, but pretty much everyone knows the Salesforce name.
- thrower123 7y ago
  I am not really sure, but we switched to Microsoft Dynamics a while back because Salesforce was overly expensive, and we got some steep discounts from Microsoft through a partner program. I don't use it much, but our sales people seem to have adjusted pretty easily; it was a bit of a pain to extract, clean, and import all the data that used to be in Salesforce, but far from insurmountable.
- derivagral 7y ago
  Hubspot wants to grow up into Salesforce but is still about an order smaller. I worked there briefly but have since moved on.
masonic 7y ago
It's not about Salesforce per see; it's about Benioff's perceived suitability to be elected to political office in CA in the future.

Cyndre 7y ago

I am wondering how this will impact gun fanatics that don't sell guns. I can easily see this costing Salesforce more then just companies that sell guns. Companies owned by pro gun rights people will likely leave as well.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]