4 ms·

I see that JetBrains is again pretending that Taiwan doesn't exist in the analytics of its survey results. In prior year's survey you can still get at this demo

by Benneb 6y ago

I see that JetBrains is again pretending that Taiwan doesn't exist in the analytics of its survey results. In prior year's survey you can still get at this demographic data in the raw results that they released, we'll see if it's the same for this year.

mxschumacher 6y ago
while this is unfortunate I think it is understandable. Why would they risk offending the Chinese government and risk getting blocked? It's not Jetbrains' responsibility to resolve these geopolitical tensions
- mabbo 6y ago
  > It's not Jetbrains' responsibility to resolve these geopolitical tensions It's everyone's responsibility to stand up against tyranny, for ethics. Saying it's not your problem because you'd lose money if you did the ethical thing doesn't absolve you- it makes you just as bad. I'm reminded of the small and rather racist town I grew up in. I heard someone say once "I have no problem with <race>, but I couldn't possibly hire one of them because too many of my customers would get upset". They weren't racist, but they'd cater to racists because it was financially better for them. Oh, I'll do the right thing, unless it costs me a penny.
  - Quarrelsome 6y ago
    > Oh, I'll do the right thing, unless it costs me a penny. There are so very few people that fit that criteria of doing the right thing even if it costs them. As an example: its the reason we kid ourselves into thinking we care about global warming while driving cars into supermarkets for shopping. Sure, we'll protest but that costs us just an afternoon and acts as guilt-offset as opposed to giving up habits that bring us great convenience but do significant environmental damage like supermarkets and cars. So its the same here, there is barely _anyone_ who would give up something _real_ for Taiwan so IMO its a bit harsh to expect Jetbrains to give up something when we ourselves probably have very little to lose. Now if we were speaking from a position of a company that did have something to lose, _that_ would be something.
    - jmcqk6 6y ago
      >There are so very few people that fit that criteria of doing the right thing even if it costs them. The world would be a much better place if there were many more people like this. Trying to get people to meet that standard is not a bad effort to exert.
      - Quarrelsome 6y ago
        Yes but it has to started by someone who is willing to sacrifice something to obtain it. If its only people who have nothing to lose that are supporting it then its hollow and nobody will shift. Its by having positive examples that we can inspire more intransigent types to come with.
  - fs111 6y ago
    Pissing off the rulers of the biggest potential market for your product is not a popular choice these days I am afraid. Sad, but true.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    What's the actual lever that including Taiwan in the Jetbrain's survey result will actually pull? In smaller examples like yours there's actually the chance to move but China's strong enough to face down actual geopolitical pressure what in the world does a tiny IDE company stand to do?
  - nonbirithm 6y ago
    I have learned the hard way that large corporations will not think like this. Lots of them will stand up for LGBTQ+ rights, because it's a relatively easy thing to do. They will even put up posters in their offices or make press releases supporting this cause or that. But stand up for Hong Kong where so many people are being brutalized or repressed every day and your biggest customer is out. Look at the contrast with Blizzard's acquiescence. It's stark. The companies only really do this in situations where the incentives line up - low risk, high financial/PR return. I hate being cynical when it comes to "changing the world" style arguments, but the fact is that companies are only going to make them when it's convenient, and nobody is going to confront China because they simply have too much power. It would be better if the media or another powerful enough entity would really against companies being ethically shot for these transgressions, but it seems like they have more or less forgotten about Blizzard and the like by now.
    - apta 6y ago
      > because it's a relatively easy thing to do. Profitable as well, it's always been about the $$$.
      - phist_mcgee 6y ago
        As long as the charter for corporations is profit, then yes, this is the definition of what they want. And don't blame companies for this, blame governments for not incentivizing the right things.
        apta 6y ago
        Isn't that the definition of capitalism?

by Benneb 6y ago

mxschumacher 6y ago

while this is unfortunate I think it is understandable. Why would they risk offending the Chinese government and risk getting blocked? It's not Jetbrains' responsibility to resolve these geopolitical tensions

mabbo 6y ago
> It's not Jetbrains' responsibility to resolve these geopolitical tensions It's everyone's responsibility to stand up against tyranny, for ethics. Saying it's not your problem because you'd lose money if you did the ethical thing doesn't absolve you- it makes you just as bad. I'm reminded of the small and rather racist town I grew up in. I heard someone say once "I have no problem with <race>, but I couldn't possibly hire one of them because too many of my customers would get upset". They weren't racist, but they'd cater to racists because it was financially better for them. Oh, I'll do the right thing, unless it costs me a penny.
- Quarrelsome 6y ago
  > Oh, I'll do the right thing, unless it costs me a penny. There are so very few people that fit that criteria of doing the right thing even if it costs them. As an example: its the reason we kid ourselves into thinking we care about global warming while driving cars into supermarkets for shopping. Sure, we'll protest but that costs us just an afternoon and acts as guilt-offset as opposed to giving up habits that bring us great convenience but do significant environmental damage like supermarkets and cars. So its the same here, there is barely _anyone_ who would give up something _real_ for Taiwan so IMO its a bit harsh to expect Jetbrains to give up something when we ourselves probably have very little to lose. Now if we were speaking from a position of a company that did have something to lose, _that_ would be something.
  - jmcqk6 6y ago
    >There are so very few people that fit that criteria of doing the right thing even if it costs them. The world would be a much better place if there were many more people like this. Trying to get people to meet that standard is not a bad effort to exert.
    - Quarrelsome 6y ago
      Yes but it has to started by someone who is willing to sacrifice something to obtain it. If its only people who have nothing to lose that are supporting it then its hollow and nobody will shift. Its by having positive examples that we can inspire more intransigent types to come with.
- fs111 6y ago
  Pissing off the rulers of the biggest potential market for your product is not a popular choice these days I am afraid. Sad, but true.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  What's the actual lever that including Taiwan in the Jetbrain's survey result will actually pull? In smaller examples like yours there's actually the chance to move but China's strong enough to face down actual geopolitical pressure what in the world does a tiny IDE company stand to do?
- nonbirithm 6y ago
  I have learned the hard way that large corporations will not think like this. Lots of them will stand up for LGBTQ+ rights, because it's a relatively easy thing to do. They will even put up posters in their offices or make press releases supporting this cause or that. But stand up for Hong Kong where so many people are being brutalized or repressed every day and your biggest customer is out. Look at the contrast with Blizzard's acquiescence. It's stark. The companies only really do this in situations where the incentives line up - low risk, high financial/PR return. I hate being cynical when it comes to "changing the world" style arguments, but the fact is that companies are only going to make them when it's convenient, and nobody is going to confront China because they simply have too much power. It would be better if the media or another powerful enough entity would really against companies being ethically shot for these transgressions, but it seems like they have more or less forgotten about Blizzard and the like by now.
  - apta 6y ago
    > because it's a relatively easy thing to do. Profitable as well, it's always been about the $$$.
    - phist_mcgee 6y ago
      As long as the charter for corporations is profit, then yes, this is the definition of what they want. And don't blame companies for this, blame governments for not incentivizing the right things.
      - apta 6y ago
        Isn't that the definition of capitalism?