6 ms·

There are a few comments in here already decrying “politicization”. Guess what? Politics are interwoven in every aspect of our lives. You cannot choose to “avo

• haberman 6y ago
  > only the privileged can avoid experiencing negative political consequences inside their bubble. > Nat Friedman is on the wrong side of history here. These empty words are no longer sufficient. Hopefully he figures that out before his tenure at GitHub comes to an end. These statements seem at odds. If privileged people are insulated from negative political consequences, then why is he at risk of losing his job for taking the wrong political stance?
  • shaggyfrog 6y ago
    A few things: There are many ways how his tenure can come to an end. I am expressing a hope that he figures it out while he is still in a position to change things with his power as CEO. As for people who lose their job for doing the wrong thing, the media is currently awash in those stories. Even he if loses his job, he’ll still be quite privileged given his wealth and status.
• jjice 6y ago
  Not a direct reply to your comment, but more of an adjacent one. > Guess what? Politics are interwoven in every aspect of our lives. You cannot choose to “avoid” them; But I do choose to avoid them in my personal life. A private company can do whatever the hell they want, whether I approve or not, it's their right. I also believe it is my right to not care about politics and continue moving forward with my own life. For me, politics just end up making me upset. I can't think of a single situation that becomes political that ends up making me happy in the long run. As an individual, _most_ politics doesn't affect me and spending my time on it just ends up making my life less enjoyable. That said, there are some political issues we all care about more so, and we may pay attention to that more. But in a way, I do choose to avoid them (as an individual). Again, I don't mean this as an attack on your comment, just my adjacent thoughts. Edit: I do understand how fortunate I am to be in the situation I'm in. I didn't mean (but I see that it came off this way) that everyone should do this, and I didn't mean (again, I understand that I didn't explain myself above) that I'm applying those ideas to this situation (my mind immediately went to the previous flood of COVID stories).
  • ckocagil 6y ago
    You can ignore politics, but politics will not ignore you. What you're doing is burying your head in the sand, not avoiding.
    • malandrew 6y ago
      Not entirely true. The essence of the libertarian platform is a political platform that tries its best to ignore you as an individual and let you be free. If libertarians were running things, you'd be left not entirely but largely alone.
      • livingparadox 6y ago
        Well, libertarians are not running things. So the government will not be leaving you alone of its own accord.
      • lallysingh 6y ago
• nailer 6y ago
  > It’s the same deal with Amazon or Facebook or whoever. If you work for them you need to admit to yourself that you are an enabler. Perhaps consider that most people are aware: - that ICE exists - that ICE enforces migration law - that having ICE as a customer helps the US enforce migration laws Perhaps also consider that supporting the US having migration laws is a mainstream opinion outside a very small cadre of people in a few US cities, so very few people mind that companies serve them.
• akerro 6y ago
  >Guess what? Politics are interwoven in every aspect of our lives. Yes, but also companies exist literally only to make money. Companies can't exist without workers. Once a company finds itself in a position of conflict of interest between political views of workers and point of existence of the company - where contracts bring money... we're going to see interesting things. I wonder, who will break first? The company will decide it's better to bend to political opinions of employees and end the contract == pay a lot of $money$ for breaking the contract early without delivery and set another precedent where employees decide how and with whom company makes money = uncertain company. Who will make future contracts with such company? Would you outsource your project delivery to a company where employees decide whether your project/office/political stand is good or bad? Or maybe employees will decide they don't want to work for a company and risk unemployment? Who will risk employing a person who rebels against board members of a company and causes financial damages over broken contract? I would like to see 100s of GitHub employees leaving GitHub and MS to prove their point, rather than working on the contract, being paid 10x salary of their immigrant desk cleaners and shouting how bad it is the contract exists.
  • amcoastal 6y ago
    So you don't agree with employees disagreeing with their company hosting code or developing tools for the Chinese government to run their concentration camps? Like the parent says, being non-political IS being political. You cannot separate it. What is so bad about employees at a company having a say in what type of work the company does?
    • akerro 6y ago
      >What is so bad about employees at a company having a say in what type of work the company does? No, I don't think there is anything wrong with it, that's how we can change direction of the company and produce good. I think that's a very problematic path filled with mine-lands where employees decide how company makes money. GitHub can just outsource this project to Russia, Australia or India, still make money and deliver the project. Silencing voiced of those who speak, but still, being on a path of conflict of interests between board members and workers.
• overgard 6y ago
  So who decides? Do companies now need a chief political officer? Do they do some sort of political review of each new customer? What issues do they use to decide on? Do they deny Apple or Nike because of overseas labour conditions? IMO it's foolish for a company to wade into these waters at all unless activism is part of their brand. If you signal you're going to take a stand it ends up having to be around everything and people are going to have a lot of conflicting agendas. Or you could just sell software tools to people who pay for them.
  • tpmx 6y ago
    There are interesting parallels to this well-defined role: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar
  • shaggyfrog 6y ago
    Every decision made at the executive level is inherently a political decision, because someone will benefit. But not just affirmative actions: not cancelling a contract with an organization that builds concentration camps is making a strong political statement in itself. They “waded into the waters” the moment they accepted the contract with ICE. What they are seeing now is that their actions have consequences. And while you don’t necessarily intend the consequences of your actions, you must accept them. Only children have trouble doing so.
  • nemetroid 6y ago
    > Or you could just sell software tools to people who pay for them. Yes, that’s one of the (political) options.
  • moolcool 6y ago
    > So who decides? Do companies now need a chief political officer? Companies make "political" decisions every single day, in literally everything they do. Just as Apple and Nike make the _decision_ to employ the questionable overseas labour practices, providing services to them is also a _decision_. The whole point of the corporate executive branch is to make decisions for the company, it's the difference between McDonalds and a bunch of random stores making hamburgers. You can't hand-wave your way out of accountability with statements like this whenever you start having to face hard decisions like this.
• goatinaboat 6y ago
  even suggesting you can be politically neutral is a political stance that comes from a place of privilege, because only the privileged can avoid experiencing negative political consequences inside their bubble Yeah... no. I’m politically active, I support a variety of causes. But I can’t support every cause - I’m not privileged enough to be a full-time “activist” of which there seem to be a surprising number these days - and sometimes I just want to write some damn code and focus on that and put food on the table and donate what I can after.
• lurknn 6y ago
  I once met a man who was a who believed deeply in aestheticism. His perception was that the only thing that mattered was the aesthetics of the thing, nothing more. Morality took a second seat, as did everything else. I could not, for the life of me, convince him that life is a bit more multidimensional than that. With each topic, he would aestheticize it, if you will, then speak of how his aesthetization of the topic proved his point. "See: aesthetics!" It's no different than those who claim everything is "political", which of course all too clearly betrays their steadfast belief in "historical materialism". If you make everything political, refuse to see anything except through a political lens, then yes - everything is political. I must say, the man of aesthetics was much more interesting to talk to.
  • shaggyfrog 6y ago
    Politics is the process of making a decision, so my point is that decision-making is inherently political. Your comment — and subtle trailing insult — is not constructive and non-sequitur.
    • lurknn 6y ago
      Your definition is a bit circular, friend. :)
      • shaggyfrog 6y ago
        It’s sine qua non. You are arguing against the very essence of something having that essence. Please don’t insult me and then call me “friend”. It’s passive-aggressive and not suitable for this site.
    • dingaling 6y ago
      > Politics is the process of making a decision That seems to be based on an invalid definition: Politics: (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities')
• Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > You cannot choose to “avoid” them; even suggesting you can be politically neutral is a political stance that comes from a place of privilege, because only the privileged can avoid experiencing negative political consequences inside their bubble. There are well-known historical analogues for many of the people now attempting to refrain from making political statements. Namely, there were those Germans in the Nazi era who were neither pro-Nazi nor openly anti-Nazi and who underwent so-called "internal emigration". And there were those Soviet dissidents who didn’t want to have any part in that decades-long fight between the West ("You Communist countries don't respect individual liberty and free markets!") and the Socialist Bloc ("You capitalist nations don’t respect workers, lynch black people and engage in colonialist oppression!"). Neither of those groups were "privileged", indeed these particular analogues were living in oppressive regimes that were suspicious of lack of enthusiasm and these people often suffered for that. But now, from our modern vantage point, we can have a lot of sympathy for them. They made a decision that was right for their own lives, and some of what these groups’ artists created may not have been fashionable at the time among all the polemic, but now it is seen to be very moving and have great staying power. Of course, a big corporation with large government contracts is quite different from individuals choosing to refrain from being involved, or a small circle of people thereof that constructs its own shared private world to retreat into, separated from contemporary debates. But still, I think that we should refrain from condemning cases where one group of people has not joined its peers in adopting political statements or actions, even if we strongly sympathize with those political movements and believe them just.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• mahart 6y ago
  >As developers we are no longer seeing our actions as “politically neutral” and are starting to understand the power we yield collectively to make positive change to our industry. The only thing it changes in the industry is who gets a contract.
• camdenlock 6y ago
  Imagine thinking that someone is “on the wrong side of history”. Imagine how ideologically blinded one must be to say that about someone else.