4 ms·

It's non of GitLabs business to play the judge in this. If a customer is doing something illegal and a court makes a judgment, they will probably do something.

It's non of GitLabs business to play the judge in this. If a customer is doing something illegal and a court makes a judgment, they will probably do something. I prefer a company not ruling their platform by their beliefs but by their countries laws and court rulings.

y4mi 7y ago
That sounds like a great idea but quickly gets you into very murky Waters, especially wrt China. If the government in question doesn't try to be just, you'll end up assisting murder and silencing the voices of the oppressed. Sometimes it really is better to say "no" to a business opportunity, if the other side isn't behaving in a sane manner. And fwiw: gitlab did just that as the sister comment pointed out
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  I think this is more nuanced. Right now companies cooperation with China is in the news. For example, both Blizzard and the NBA have betrayed American ideals in favor of making money in China. Other companies have built a dependent relationship with China over many years, and have been forced through this dependence to support China (Apple comes to mind here). Other companies are actively distancing themselves from politics (gitlab). As a society, I think we need to decide what is best. In my opinion, companies should be entirely apolitical, both internationally and domestically. Further companies should not assert any influence _at all_ over political speech by their employees. In return, employees should not imply corporate support for a particular political view. From my perspective, gitlab is doing the right thing. I don't think corporations have _any right_ to involve themselves in politics, even if the majority supports that position. Edit: if popular sentiment is that American corporations shouldn't have a dependent relationship with China, then the _elected_ government should enforce sanctions. I don't need corporations enforcing moral policy.
  - vore 7y ago
    Please keep in mind that "apoliticism" is in itself a political position: wanting to preserve the status quo and opposing change is still support for the status quo which, in itself, is a set of political beliefs.
    - Skunkleton 7y ago
      It's not. If corporations were people I would agree, but they aren't. Politics should be democratic. I don't want to live in a corporatocracy.
      - y4mi 7y ago
        It's impossible to be completely apolitical. Take your own example - blizzard - and tell me how they could stay moral without taking a political stance.
        Skunkleton 7y ago
        Morality is for people. Companies should just follow the laws of the country they are operating in. If we decide that isn't morally acceptable, then we can 1) stop using their services, and 2) push for change through our political representatives. I agree that if Blizzard were to respond to the loss of customers by pulling out of the Chinese market, then that would be not entirely apolitical. Still, it is far less political than they are presently.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

y4mi 7y ago

That sounds like a great idea but quickly gets you into very murky Waters, especially wrt China. If the government in question doesn't try to be just, you'll end up assisting murder and silencing the voices of the oppressed. Sometimes it really is better to say "no" to a business opportunity, if the other side isn't behaving in a sane manner. And fwiw: gitlab did just that as the sister comment pointed out

Skunkleton 7y ago
I think this is more nuanced. Right now companies cooperation with China is in the news. For example, both Blizzard and the NBA have betrayed American ideals in favor of making money in China. Other companies have built a dependent relationship with China over many years, and have been forced through this dependence to support China (Apple comes to mind here). Other companies are actively distancing themselves from politics (gitlab). As a society, I think we need to decide what is best. In my opinion, companies should be entirely apolitical, both internationally and domestically. Further companies should not assert any influence _at all_ over political speech by their employees. In return, employees should not imply corporate support for a particular political view. From my perspective, gitlab is doing the right thing. I don't think corporations have _any right_ to involve themselves in politics, even if the majority supports that position. Edit: if popular sentiment is that American corporations shouldn't have a dependent relationship with China, then the _elected_ government should enforce sanctions. I don't need corporations enforcing moral policy.
- vore 7y ago
  Please keep in mind that "apoliticism" is in itself a political position: wanting to preserve the status quo and opposing change is still support for the status quo which, in itself, is a set of political beliefs.
  - Skunkleton 7y ago
    It's not. If corporations were people I would agree, but they aren't. Politics should be democratic. I don't want to live in a corporatocracy.
    - y4mi 7y ago
      It's impossible to be completely apolitical. Take your own example - blizzard - and tell me how they could stay moral without taking a political stance.
      - Skunkleton 7y ago
        Morality is for people. Companies should just follow the laws of the country they are operating in. If we decide that isn't morally acceptable, then we can 1) stop using their services, and 2) push for change through our political representatives. I agree that if Blizzard were to respond to the loss of customers by pulling out of the Chinese market, then that would be not entirely apolitical. Still, it is far less political than they are presently.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]