5 ms·

Internal Email Shows GitHub Plans to Renew ICE Contract

19 points by elorant 7y ago

foolzcrow 7y ago
Cancel culture is a nazi behavior.
tomohawk 7y ago
Vice - the mouth piece of cancel culture.
katet 7y ago
Now, I actually find this a reasonable way to phrase their position: > "We respect the fact that for those of us in the United States, we live in a democratic republic in which the public elects our officials and they decide, pursuant to the rule of law, the policies the government will pursue." (They do go on to say they disapprove, in the interests of quoting fairly) But to clarify, as a Brit, I feel this way about our own government and Brexit. I disagree with brexit. I disagree with many of our government's actions. But. They were voted in. People voted for Boris, they voted for Trump. Even now, the Conservative party is 15 points ahead in some polls. A small, unlikable part of me says we shall "reap what we sow", but at some point, I'm going to have to reconcile the fact that a large segment of my fellow citizens like what they're sowing. I don't really have a point to this. It's a shame that as a democracy we vote in individuals who pursue policies that some of us personally find reprehensible. However, I am getting a unique and unasked-for insight into how it must have felt for those individuals with non-PC viewpoints for all those years. I guess that might be the point: this is the world we live in. Some people find this OK, even preferable. We can't pretend otherwise any more. And that's rather sobering.
- geofft 7y ago
  I think that's also a reasonable and consistent position, but, 1) Did the same analysis apply to Dehomag? Was it okay to provide big data analytics to power the Holocaust because the Holocaust was entirely legal under domestic law too, because it was enacted by a party that gained power democratically? 2) Why is GitHub donating over 100% of the revenue from this contract to charity, instead of either canceling it or just accepting the revenue if they are really okay with letting democracy do its thing? 3) How should GitHub management reconcile their views with those of employees who disagree?
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    ICE is not exterminating people in death camps. Working for ICE is not even remotely comparable to supporting the Holocaust.
    - Craighead 7y ago
      I mean, you're factual incorrect about much of your statements.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        I am open to changing my mind, but you haven't provided any kind of argument or evidence that I am factually incorrect.
    - geofft 7y ago
      That is not the question I'm asking. The question is what ethical principles distinguish these cases. How do we get a consistent decision process out of this? One consistent answer is, Dehomag did nothing wrong, if the legitimate German government wants to commit genocide, that's a matter for perhaps international law, and local companies should cooperate. (I think that's a horrid moral position, but it is, at least, a well-defined one.) One answer is simply that extermination camps are beyond the pale but all other activities are fine. But then there's a weird case-by-case problem: if a government treats slavery as legal, is it okay to power their slave-catching program? If they run electroshock therapy for gay deconversion, is it okay to support that infrastructure? Basically, when we say "Never again," is it tautological—are we defining the Holocaust as unique to ensure it never again could happen? Or is there a common ethical principle that Dehomag could have applied before the Holocaust, when the programs were merely deportation/relocation and not genocide, to say "Wait, we don't need to make money from this," and if so, is it relevant today? As I said, we can always reach the conclusion that ICE is not perpetuating crimes against humanity, that their work is morally acceptable. But if we believe that, why try to purchase morality offsets for it?
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
- jlokier 7y ago
  > People voted for Boris Actually no. The people have never voted for Boris to lead, and they have never voted for the present government either. Boris was voted into his position by 0.13% of the population. ... As for Brexit. Well, people do like to say it was a democratic referendum 3 years ago (while saying more votes would be undemocratic). But to believe that, you have to be happy to ignore the 4 million adults (5.5 million if you include 16+ year olds) who weren't allowed to vote but whose lives are most directly and severely affected by it. Include Brit pensioners abroad who are now talking about losing access to essential medical care but unable to move back (because they own homes in the EU at prices that don't work for moving to the UK), and non-Brit EU citizens, some of whom are expected to be deported in due course, breaking up families. (Forget about the non-EU families of EU citizens, who always had shitty treatment, so they're used to having no say.) That does not fit any true definition of democracy that I could call decent. "No taxation without representation" and all that. This article (which I only just stumbled across while searching for something else) sets it out as a violation of several types of human rights, and I basically agree since I was thinking the same thing for a while now: "In some respects the Brexit referendum was a violation of human rights" https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/09/brexit-referendum-human-rights/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/09/brexit-referen...
thoughtstheseus 7y ago
Hopefully Github is/continues to be a good, cost effective partner so more money and time can be spent on areas of concern.

19 points by elorant 7y ago

foolzcrow 7y ago

Cancel culture is a nazi behavior.

tomohawk 7y ago

Vice - the mouth piece of cancel culture.

katet 7y ago

Now, I actually find this a reasonable way to phrase their position: > "We respect the fact that for those of us in the United States, we live in a democratic republic in which the public elects our officials and they decide, pursuant to the rule of law, the policies the government will pursue." (They do go on to say they disapprove, in the interests of quoting fairly) But to clarify, as a Brit, I feel this way about our own government and Brexit. I disagree with brexit. I disagree with many of our government's actions. But. They were voted in. People voted for Boris, they voted for Trump. Even now, the Conservative party is 15 points ahead in some polls. A small, unlikable part of me says we shall "reap what we sow", but at some point, I'm going to have to reconcile the fact that a large segment of my fellow citizens like what they're sowing. I don't really have a point to this. It's a shame that as a democracy we vote in individuals who pursue policies that some of us personally find reprehensible. However, I am getting a unique and unasked-for insight into how it must have felt for those individuals with non-PC viewpoints for all those years. I guess that might be the point: this is the world we live in. Some people find this OK, even preferable. We can't pretend otherwise any more. And that's rather sobering.

geofft 7y ago
I think that's also a reasonable and consistent position, but, 1) Did the same analysis apply to Dehomag? Was it okay to provide big data analytics to power the Holocaust because the Holocaust was entirely legal under domestic law too, because it was enacted by a party that gained power democratically? 2) Why is GitHub donating over 100% of the revenue from this contract to charity, instead of either canceling it or just accepting the revenue if they are really okay with letting democracy do its thing? 3) How should GitHub management reconcile their views with those of employees who disagree?
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  ICE is not exterminating people in death camps. Working for ICE is not even remotely comparable to supporting the Holocaust.
  - Craighead 7y ago
    I mean, you're factual incorrect about much of your statements.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      I am open to changing my mind, but you haven't provided any kind of argument or evidence that I am factually incorrect.
  - geofft 7y ago
    That is not the question I'm asking. The question is what ethical principles distinguish these cases. How do we get a consistent decision process out of this? One consistent answer is, Dehomag did nothing wrong, if the legitimate German government wants to commit genocide, that's a matter for perhaps international law, and local companies should cooperate. (I think that's a horrid moral position, but it is, at least, a well-defined one.) One answer is simply that extermination camps are beyond the pale but all other activities are fine. But then there's a weird case-by-case problem: if a government treats slavery as legal, is it okay to power their slave-catching program? If they run electroshock therapy for gay deconversion, is it okay to support that infrastructure? Basically, when we say "Never again," is it tautological—are we defining the Holocaust as unique to ensure it never again could happen? Or is there a common ethical principle that Dehomag could have applied before the Holocaust, when the programs were merely deportation/relocation and not genocide, to say "Wait, we don't need to make money from this," and if so, is it relevant today? As I said, we can always reach the conclusion that ICE is not perpetuating crimes against humanity, that their work is morally acceptable. But if we believe that, why try to purchase morality offsets for it?
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
jlokier 7y ago
> People voted for Boris Actually no. The people have never voted for Boris to lead, and they have never voted for the present government either. Boris was voted into his position by 0.13% of the population. ... As for Brexit. Well, people do like to say it was a democratic referendum 3 years ago (while saying more votes would be undemocratic). But to believe that, you have to be happy to ignore the 4 million adults (5.5 million if you include 16+ year olds) who weren't allowed to vote but whose lives are most directly and severely affected by it. Include Brit pensioners abroad who are now talking about losing access to essential medical care but unable to move back (because they own homes in the EU at prices that don't work for moving to the UK), and non-Brit EU citizens, some of whom are expected to be deported in due course, breaking up families. (Forget about the non-EU families of EU citizens, who always had shitty treatment, so they're used to having no say.) That does not fit any true definition of democracy that I could call decent. "No taxation without representation" and all that. This article (which I only just stumbled across while searching for something else) sets it out as a violation of several types of human rights, and I basically agree since I was thinking the same thing for a while now: "In some respects the Brexit referendum was a violation of human rights" https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/09/brexit-referendum-human-rights/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/09/brexit-referen...

thoughtstheseus 7y ago

Hopefully Github is/continues to be a good, cost effective partner so more money and time can be spent on areas of concern.