4 ms·

This is the territory we get into when we pressure tech companies to not work with very specific politically unfavorable customers. Does helping ICE with their

by ng12 7y ago

This is the territory we get into when we pressure tech companies to not work with very specific politically unfavorable customers. Does helping ICE with their CI/CD stack do more damage to children than advertising freebase sugar to them? I'd say probably not, especially since ICE is just going to migrate to a new stack.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. If you wish to propose a secondary harmful acction, you are free to take down your repos that Coca-Cola uses, same as anyone else? (I realized this sounded quite caustic when I typed it. I do mean minimum causticness when discussing this. I'm admittedly super baffled by this Coca-Cola thing, because the contexts are completely different.)
- ng12 7y ago
  I feel like it's worth recognizing that a company can be as morally ambivalent as they want as long as the particular brand of moral laxity isn't politically unfavorable at the time.
- mixedCase 7y ago
  > What is being asked here is "...can you appease the mobs with their pet issue of the day that has gained public attention?" If we do not care about the gravity of the action, then that is what is being asked. It is not being moral, it is not about doing the right thing for society, this is just about making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    > ... making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border. Are you talking about Chef or this whole discussion thread (myself included)?
    - mixedCase 7y ago
      > But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear Specifically that, in the context of this comment subtree. If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically then we cannot play favorites and dismiss other Chef customers who also behave unethically; Coca-Cola being responsible of much more illness, death, and abuse of the poor than ICE despite just "producing a beverage". Do we care about moral issues, or do we care about just this specific issue for a particular reason? Looking at the root comment from this chain (and from south of the border, mind you) it seems there are ulterior motives at play.
      - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        "If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically" Yes, is this actually being done? That's my question.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  > What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. Trying to live by a practice of avoiding any specific harmful actions can easily compromise ones ability to pursue more general goals. CBP does important and essential work combatting human and drug trafficking, and handling what remains of the good parts of their imigration management mission that ICE has contorted. This choice will limit their effectiveness. Degrading the efficiency of an organization at this scale has meaningful costs; 1% of 100 people saved from trafficking is an entire person. Will the degradation of capabilities here effect CBP in this manner? I am unprepared to speculate, but it seems worth factoring into an ethical decision about whether specific activities by ICE make ICE+CBP intolerable to work with. Moreover, down the road this is probably the end of any business arrangement between Chef and US Government agencies. Administrations change, and if Chef can be expected to end contracts over public pressure like this then it cannot be relied upon to be involved with any sort of system that is going to need to last across multiple administrations, which is most of them. Minor degradation of efficiency across the whole US Government has very meaningful costs in human life and suffering. I think the forest has been missed for the trees, and I'm not convinced that from a utilitarian perspective those advocating against Chef's contracts with CPB+ICE aren't also in the moral wrong.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    I'm not advocating for anything. I'm merely stating that the premise(if a dev can rip out a repository b/c a company that uses it has ICE relations, how come we're not outraged over coca-cola relations?) is ridiculous on its face due to a severe misunderstanding of the scope of the action. Similarly here, your post is mistaking the scope of the action and drawing a line between one dev deleting their reposity and being responsible for killing people (of note, ICE has lost children to human trafficking already so the boat has already sailed).
smacktoward 7y ago
This logic is textbook whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
CydeWeys 7y ago
So you're just making a slippery slope argument then? I think it's a pretty farfetched stretch from human rights and internment of children to soft drinks that people choose to consume.
tylermac1 7y ago
The idea is to avoid normalizing the actions of ICE. Public perception is one of the largest drivers of change in government. Look at things like marriage equality and marijuana usage have driven legislation over time. Whether or not Chef dropping ICE as a customer directly saves one kid isn't the only marker of success. The combination of hamstringing operations along with increased public awareness are steps along the path to shutting them down for good. I also agree there is a moral obligation in advertising unhealthy foods, but equating the damages of that to ICE just undermines the efforts of both avenues.
- ng12 7y ago
  Fair, although I don't exactly think it would surprise the feds that a bunch of people living in San Francisco disagree with their goals.
- thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
  >> The combination of hamstringing operations along with increased public awareness are steps along the path to shutting them down for good. On the contrary--hamstringing their operations just raise their costs. They are funded by US taxpayers, so if costs go up US taxpayers will pay more. If you want to shutdown ICE or change how they operate, the US Congress must change the law. If you are a US citizen, write / call / email your representatives and demand that they act accordingly. Also, VOTE! If you don't like what your representatives are doing, vote them out! Petty protests like this do little to change the operations of a federally-funded, legally-mandated entity that is enforcing federal law. If you want change to occur, federal law must be changed. Congress changes federal laws, so you must start with them.

by ng12 7y ago

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. If you wish to propose a secondary harmful acction, you are free to take down your repos that Coca-Cola uses, same as anyone else? (I realized this sounded quite caustic when I typed it. I do mean minimum causticness when discussing this. I'm admittedly super baffled by this Coca-Cola thing, because the contexts are completely different.)

ng12 7y ago
I feel like it's worth recognizing that a company can be as morally ambivalent as they want as long as the particular brand of moral laxity isn't politically unfavorable at the time.
mixedCase 7y ago
> What is being asked here is "...can you appease the mobs with their pet issue of the day that has gained public attention?" If we do not care about the gravity of the action, then that is what is being asked. It is not being moral, it is not about doing the right thing for society, this is just about making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border.
- yongjik 7y ago
  > ... making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border. Are you talking about Chef or this whole discussion thread (myself included)?
  - mixedCase 7y ago
    > But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear Specifically that, in the context of this comment subtree. If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically then we cannot play favorites and dismiss other Chef customers who also behave unethically; Coca-Cola being responsible of much more illness, death, and abuse of the poor than ICE despite just "producing a beverage". Do we care about moral issues, or do we care about just this specific issue for a particular reason? Looking at the root comment from this chain (and from south of the border, mind you) it seems there are ulterior motives at play.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      "If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically" Yes, is this actually being done? That's my question.
dodobirdlord 7y ago
> What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. Trying to live by a practice of avoiding any specific harmful actions can easily compromise ones ability to pursue more general goals. CBP does important and essential work combatting human and drug trafficking, and handling what remains of the good parts of their imigration management mission that ICE has contorted. This choice will limit their effectiveness. Degrading the efficiency of an organization at this scale has meaningful costs; 1% of 100 people saved from trafficking is an entire person. Will the degradation of capabilities here effect CBP in this manner? I am unprepared to speculate, but it seems worth factoring into an ethical decision about whether specific activities by ICE make ICE+CBP intolerable to work with. Moreover, down the road this is probably the end of any business arrangement between Chef and US Government agencies. Administrations change, and if Chef can be expected to end contracts over public pressure like this then it cannot be relied upon to be involved with any sort of system that is going to need to last across multiple administrations, which is most of them. Minor degradation of efficiency across the whole US Government has very meaningful costs in human life and suffering. I think the forest has been missed for the trees, and I'm not convinced that from a utilitarian perspective those advocating against Chef's contracts with CPB+ICE aren't also in the moral wrong.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I'm not advocating for anything. I'm merely stating that the premise(if a dev can rip out a repository b/c a company that uses it has ICE relations, how come we're not outraged over coca-cola relations?) is ridiculous on its face due to a severe misunderstanding of the scope of the action. Similarly here, your post is mistaking the scope of the action and drawing a line between one dev deleting their reposity and being responsible for killing people (of note, ICE has lost children to human trafficking already so the boat has already sailed).

smacktoward 7y ago

This logic is textbook whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

CydeWeys 7y ago

So you're just making a slippery slope argument then? I think it's a pretty farfetched stretch from human rights and internment of children to soft drinks that people choose to consume.

tylermac1 7y ago

The idea is to avoid normalizing the actions of ICE. Public perception is one of the largest drivers of change in government. Look at things like marriage equality and marijuana usage have driven legislation over time. Whether or not Chef dropping ICE as a customer directly saves one kid isn't the only marker of success. The combination of hamstringing operations along with increased public awareness are steps along the path to shutting them down for good. I also agree there is a moral obligation in advertising unhealthy foods, but equating the damages of that to ICE just undermines the efforts of both avenues.

ng12 7y ago
Fair, although I don't exactly think it would surprise the feds that a bunch of people living in San Francisco disagree with their goals.
thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
>> The combination of hamstringing operations along with increased public awareness are steps along the path to shutting them down for good. On the contrary--hamstringing their operations just raise their costs. They are funded by US taxpayers, so if costs go up US taxpayers will pay more. If you want to shutdown ICE or change how they operate, the US Congress must change the law. If you are a US citizen, write / call / email your representatives and demand that they act accordingly. Also, VOTE! If you don't like what your representatives are doing, vote them out! Petty protests like this do little to change the operations of a federally-funded, legally-mandated entity that is enforcing federal law. If you want change to occur, federal law must be changed. Congress changes federal laws, so you must start with them.