32 ms·

To do politics or not do politics? Tech startups are divided

gotoeleven 6y ago
I would pay a premium for employees who can work with people whose opinions they strongly disagree with. If you're one these people please try to signal it somehow during the interview process.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  There are opinions about technology stacks and code style, and there are opinions about whether Black people deserve to be alive. We can disagree about code style.
  - gotoeleven 6y ago
    Have you ever actually met anyone who thought black people didn't deserve to be alive?
    - eat_veggies 6y ago
      Yes, I have.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        Working in tech companies? I'm sure it happens sometimes, but it must be extremely rare.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
        Have you checked the dark corners of the web, in the last time? Or did you do (unmoderated) gaming at some point? Maybe don't, if you want to keep your point of view. The point is exactly, that those people spreading the hate online - are very reservated when you meet them in person. Because they have a mask. But when they do gaming or chatting on 4chan or wherever - then all their hidden opinions, they are not allowed to express at daytime, burst out.
        zarkov99 6y ago
        I think that perhaps we have not yet adjusted to the full implications of the democratization of speech. Extreme opinions, held by the tiniest, most unhinged minorities, get amplified precisely because they are so unusual. In other words, its not so much that violent, racist ideologies are on the rise, as much as we have access to the ramblings of the entire country and the ideas that most easily stand out in the noise are the horrific ones.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
        " In other words, its not so much that violent, racist ideologies are on the rise, as much as we have access to the ramblings of the entire country and the ideas that most easily stand out in the noise are the horrific ones." Comforting theory and yes, surely the horrific opinions stand out. I remember visiting 4chan/pol the first time and how shocked I was. But now I know a bit more of the internet and I would rather say, that most of the things you see, are just the tip of the iceberg.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        Such people can be found if you go looking for them, but that doesn't mean they are common. Even a few dozen of them in an industry of hundreds of thousands is enough to create a web forum with the appearance of popularity. That they're easy to find online may be proof that search engines are effective, but I don't consider it evidence of their prevalence.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
  - username90 6y ago
    Refusing to work with people encouraging genocide is a bit different from refusing to work with a person who wants to reduce social benefits to the poor.
    - lghh 6y ago
      Yes, they are different. Yet, I also don't want to work with anyone who doesn't think a child born to a poor family should be allowed to eat.
      - zarkov99 6y ago
        Does anyone actually advocate that? insane mis characterization of the other side is another reason politics should be avoided at work. People who would otherwise get along just fine become enemies because they are fighting the most despicable possible interpretation of the others position. It's nuts.
        lghh 6y ago
        If people rely on food stamps to eat and you cut food stamps, what happens?
  - hnracer 6y ago
    And almost everyone will agree with you, as long as you're not using the latter as a strawman for arguments that advocate no such agenda.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    Jesus, how many people have you ever met that openly stated that X people do not deserve to be alive?
    - Der_Einzige 6y ago
      In real life? Maybe 10. On the internet? Maybe I spend too much time on discord, but I've met potentially hundreds of people who unironically believe that the value to life of non-white people is very low and that most do not deserve life. Lots of actual crypto Nazis and fascists are there and they radicalize young and impressionable gamers...
    - Kye 6y ago
      Quite a few. I see prominent people on my own "side" calling for the genocide or isolation of entire states, one of which I'm in, because an election swung the wrong way by a few percent.
    - cco 6y ago
      In San Francisco? No one I ever met personally said that, but I heard plenty of "chatter" at BBQs where SF police officers were guests. Where I grew up, in the "East Pacific Northwest", some were violent enough to actually say that out loud. I never knew anyone personally that murdered a black person, but I knew several who got into fights for this reason. These were kids in high school, police officers, elected political officials, etc. I'm very happy to say I've never personally heard anything like that in a professional setting, but I'm sure it exists and I hope it'd be treated very seriously.
    - mas3god 6y ago
      Mccarthyism is alive and well in 2020
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't take HN threads into pointless flamewar like this. It helps no one and leads noplace interesting or new. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In fact, it's so over the top that it's basically trolling. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  Let a hundred flowers bloom.
sandworm101 6y ago
If you are a US company, or have a US user base, politics is non-optional. How do you deal with "hateful" user-generated content? Hate is now politics. How do you deal with employees expressing thier opinions at work? Basic fashion is now politics (masks). Which health care plan do you adopt? There are right and left-wing plans (birth control etc). The holidays are comming. Do your employees say "merry christmas" or "happy holidays"? Dont think you can avoid that one. Letting them pick is still taking sides. What is your policy on weapons? Can guns be sold/discussed on your platform? Then politics comes knocking on the door directly. To which parties or candidates will you donate? Will you create special rules for well-connected users? (Facebook). Will you turn off a politician's account when it violates your rules? (Twitter). Will you accept a political party as a customer? What if they insist you then turn away a different party? Politics cannot be avoided. It is part of the US tech landscape. The only option is to plan and engage thoughtfully.
- cscurmudgeon 6y ago
  > How do you deal with "hateful" user-generated content Consistently. Whatever you policies, apply them as consistently as possible.
  - danarmak 6y ago
    Then all political camps will be against you, as you violate each of their norms in turn. Once at least one major (political) group calls views held by tens of millions of people hate speech, there is no way to avoid being in someone's black book. This is why many companies are aligning with one party - they can't have both, and it's better than none.
    - m0ck 6y ago
      >black book Careful with those metaphors!
    - spiderfarmer 6y ago
      People shouldn’t care if trying to do the right thing makes you end up in someones black book. There will always be people who are on the wrong side of things. Just do what you think is best for our society.
wrnr 6y ago
I just can't wait for the 2020 presidential elections to be over already.
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  politics goes beyond the presidential election every four years
  - rayiner 6y ago
    One of the great and durable things about America is that, for most people, it doesn’t. As someone who comes from a country where there are violent riots after every election, I have watched the last four years (starting with the 2016 protests and four years of “resistance”) with tremendous alarm.
  - wrnr 6y ago
    Heavens it is exhausting to deal with this partisan bickering in a sincere manner, what's next, are you going to tell me what to eat?
- sgift 6y ago
  Honest question: Do you expect these topics to go away when the "elections are over" (let's say at latest on January 21th)?
  - vsareto 6y ago
    No, the momentum of left-wing media covering Trump is going to swing to the other side with right-wing media covering Biden. It's a perpetual, cyclical attention grabber. It won't go away.
- lghh 6y ago
  Luckily, they are.
  - bird_monster 6y ago
rayiner 6y ago
> Dick Costolo, a former chief executive of Twitter, tweeted that “me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business” would be shot in “the revolution.” He deleted the post after, he said, it set off violent threats and harassment Reminds me of this: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/america-is-on-the-road-to-revolution/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/america-is-... > One of contemporary progressivism’s commonly used phrases—the personal is political—captures the totalitarian spirit, which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political consciousness. Indeed, the Left today pushes its ideology ever deeper into the private realm, leaving fewer and fewer areas of daily life uncontested. This, warned Arendt, is a sign that a society is ripening for totalitarianism, because that is what totalitarianism essentially is: the politicization of everything. > Early in the Stalin era, N. V. Krylenko, a Soviet commissar (political officer), steamrolled over chess players who wanted to keep politics out of the game. “We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess,” he said. “We must condemn once and for all the formula ‘chess for the sake of chess,’ like the formula ‘art for art’s sake.’ We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess.”
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  For every Dick Costolo there are 100 execs of small midwestern firms that hire exclusively from the protestant church/christian private school network. Even after Bostock people are still explicitly fired for being gay [1], and before Bostock it was extremely common. To say nothing of huge employers arguing You literally can't get a job at many firms around Springfield, MO without attending the right (right-wing evangelical) church. And don't expect promotions into upper management if you're not part of the right small group at the right church. This is particularly true in accounting/finance, but it's also a problem in some of the region's tech shops. Ironically, "politics seeping into the workplace is a left-wing problem" sounds totally insane to anyone who has spent significant time outside of the coastal/metro bubble. It's a huge problem on both sides of the political spectrum. [1] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commentary/os-op-gay-teacher-fired-florida-scott-maxwell-20201023-mnfwdiqejrd2blf4cermulgeji-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commen...
kelp 6y ago
I another problem is this can also lead to not being involved in the local community. In San Francisco, the collective "tech industry" has long been demonized for various things. IMO, some fair, some not. "Google Buses" taking space at MUNI stops was one for quite a while. Contributing to increasing housing costs is a long time favorite. But a lot of these come from a culture where you build your company on top of the infrastructure provided by the local community and government. Then build a very successful business on top of that, but have minimal engagement with the local government and community. So you create a perception that you're just taking, and not actually part of the local community. It seems to me that the Coinbase case just doubles down on this attitude. In contrast, Salesforce has the largest building in San Francisco named after them, and a huge urban park. I don't see them getting dragged into the anti-tech sentiment. Because I think they've effectively engaged with the local community and given back a lot. They have a culture of volunteer work, strongly encouraging employees to take time off to volunteer for local causes. They also donate to many local causes. Marc Benioff is certainly involved in politics, and advocating for specific ideas and policies. But because him and his company engage in various ways, and make substantial philanthropic contributions, they are usually respected for it.
- carapace 6y ago
  I grew up in SF, and I'm a tech weanie, and I gotta say: We have been terrible neighbors. We have been like the guy that bought a condo in North Beach and then sued the church for ringing their bells, but 10,000x worse. We've kind of ruined the city. As for Marc Benioff, he's the only billionaire who seems to actually, visibly give a shit. He's Jimmy James. (Even if that fwcking tower looks alternately like a phallus or a giant middle finger. Whatever, dude's cool.)
  - jseliger 6y ago
    SF politicians and the voters who keep them in office have "ruined" SF in the sense of driving up housing costs by restricting supply, and failing to build adequate transportation infrastructure expeditiously: https://www.city-journal.org/san-franciscos-municipal-budget https://www.city-journal.org/san-franciscos-municipal-budget or https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/, to cite two examples. Any time SF wants, it can allow the supply of housing to rise to meet demand, which will drastically improve the city's culture, diversity, and affordability. SF voters don't want that, though, and they've not yet been overruled at the state level. Let's get the diagnosis right first.
nullc 6y ago
> Dick Costolo, a former chief executive of Twitter, tweeted that “me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business” would be shot in “the revolution.” He deleted the post after, he said, it set off violent threats and harassment. I reported this tweet to twitter. Twitter responded that it violated their policies and was removed. I don't doubt that he was also subjected to threats-- after all, his own comments sets a tone where casual assault is, apparently, okay. It's not okay. It's not okay when he does it nor is it okay for people to do it in retaliation. "Don't be a dick" has always been good advice.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  This guy must be worth at least a million bucks. It's certainly weird to hear these ultra privileged people talking like they are far left wing revolutionaries or something... not realising they are the very establishment themselves. It's the purest example of "virtue signaling", because ultimately, it's all about clout. I'd like these people to focus on privacy, open standards, ethical business practices in IT and so on instead of calling every business who isn't displaying a "BLM" banner on their websites "traitors"... We went from "please join our righteous cause" to, "if don't ostensibly support our cause you're a f*cking bigot". It's like the good ol' Bush II's "Either you are with us or you're with the terrorists".
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Costello is worth $500 million.
    - throw_m239339 6y ago
      > Costello is worth $500 million. well well... such a deep far left anti capitalist revolutionary he is, isn't he?... who the hell is he kidding?
- rayiner 6y ago
  It’s hilarious that Dick Costello thinks that capitalists like him will be spared in “the revolution.” Costello is like the bourgeoisie in Russia that were sympathetic to Bolshevism and collaborated in their own executions.
freedomben 6y ago
Linked FTA an interesting piece by Rob Rhinehart: https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/ https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/
- carapace 6y ago
  Is it a joke? (I'm asking in earnest, I don't know who Rob Rhinehart is, is he a comedian? Is this satire?) Edit: AH! It is a joke. The whole site is a wonderful parody, like "The Onion" but in the form of pitch perfect clueless privileged tech weanie. - - - - "Ideas for the Board of Coke" > There is nothing better, than a Coke. It is the perfect product. It is so many things and all of them are wonderful. Coca-Cola is a beautiful, simple, quality, affordable, durable product that serves a real need, is available all over the world and appeals to pretty much every human alive, as well as many animals and single-celled organisms. It is liquid life. ROFL! THis is priceless! Cheers!
  - eat_veggies 6y ago
    He was the CEO of Soylent and it's not satire, he's just unhinged. Soylent had to write an announcement that Rob does not speak for them anymore. https://twitter.com/soylent/status/1322588020185341952 https://twitter.com/soylent/status/1322588020185341952 https://soylent.com/blogs/news/update-from-soylent-ceo-demir-vangelov https://soylent.com/blogs/news/update-from-soylent-ceo-demir...
    - carapace 6y ago
      I started to feel bad (for making fun of someone who might be having mental problems) but then I realized that being CEO of Soylent is consistent with my mental model of him as a brilliant performance artist/comedian. (If he breaks character now he could be liable for some lawsuits, I imagine, so we may never know.)
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Sounds like he confused coca-cola for the other sort of coke...
spiderfarmer 6y ago
Just do the right thing. If the thing happens to be heavily politicized, don’t try to defend yourself. Just say you’re trying to do the right thing.
- lolinder 6y ago
  If the thing happens to be heavily politicized, how can a diverse organization possibly agree that it's the right thing? That's the Coinbase idea, as I understand it. If we can't all agree it's the right thing, it's just divisive for the organization to try to push it on employees.
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    It's impossible to agree on one thing if your group is large enough. Even on trivial things. If Coinbase thinks it's the right thing to do: let them. If they are wrong, history will show. Why should outsiders judge that company? They aren't doing illegal things and it's their choice to make.
- carapace 6y ago
  "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." – Mark Twain
cercatrova 6y ago
Having an attitude like Coinbase is the way to go, in my opinion. That is to say, disinterest in politics while allowing employees to do whatever they want in their own time. As for politics entering aspects of the company, such as right vs left wing healthcare plans, wearing or not wearing masks, etc, the decision should be towards the most scientific approach that helps the most number of employees. For less scientific things, such as BLM or allowing/disallowing guns, where it's not related to any clear scientific purpose but to people's opinions, there should be no stance that the company should take, but it can encourage employees to support causes in their own time.
- theplague42 6y ago
  Both of your "scientific" issues are fantastic examples of science having been politicized. Or at least trust in or acceptance of science.
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    Yeah I know they've been politicized but people not believing in science is not my problem. If they don't want to wear masks that is their problem. If I ran a company I wouldn't care that masks for example are politicized, I'd just mandate that all employees wear them.
    - logicchains 6y ago
      > not believing in science is not my problem Science like https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 ?
      - cercatrova 6y ago
        Sure
  - christophilus 6y ago
    My guess is that even your below average computer scientist will have a reasonable respect for science. So, assuming that we’re talking about tech companies here, I think this is decent approach to policy.
tuna-piano 6y ago
This is a somewhat tough problem for companies at this point in time. To executives focused on customers, sales, product - this is an even more interesting issue because it has really nothing to do directly with the company itself. Most customer segmentation problems can be solved with an optional feature or a new product line - make both chunky marinara sauce and a smooth variety. Most employee problems can be solved similarly - optional programs, different roles for different folks, etc. But this problem is unique because a certain segment of the employee+customer base is asking the complete company to take their side in certain matters. Of course the company taking that stand alienates the other segment of the population. However, rationally, it becomes much easier to deal with this than what Coinbase did. It seems though that the vocal side (liberal) is vocal because they care about companies stances on these matters, while the silent (conservatives) are silent because they don't seem to care as much. Therefore, rationally, companies generally take the liberal position or no position at all. When conservatives listen to politically-left company seminars, see liberal company statements, etc - they mostly just ignore and move on with their day. I don't think many conservatives would be motivated to quit or boycott a company due to a liberal company seminar that they disagree with. I get the feeling (due to the walkouts, etc) that liberals are much more likely to sever relationships due to differences in political beliefs.
- theplague42 6y ago
  Conservatives burned their Nikes because Colin Kaepernick was in an ad. Not to mention the months-long propaganda campaign claiming that Big Tech was silencing conservatives on social media. Also, conservatism is basically supporting the status quo. Why would conservatives have labor protests against the status quo?
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > conservatism is basically supporting the status quo what’s more status quo than Joe Biden?
    - theplague42 6y ago
zabhi 6y ago
Isn't choosing not to participate in politics just another political stand?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- irateswami 6y ago
  I strongly disagree with this statement. A corporation (despite our current legal definition in the US) is not a person, and therefore shouldn't take sides in political matters, nor should it's representatives make overt political statements as though the company is a monolith. Companies are made up of people, and as individuals on their personal time and without conveying themselves as representatives of the company, should be able to to engage in politics. If Silicon Valley executives are now going to be the arbiters of all that is good, we are in for a load of trouble. At best it's cringeworthy, at worst it's a load of limousine liberals wagging their fingers at the rest of us from their ivory towers.
  - d4rti 6y ago
    At least in the US, the current case law is against your conclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Corporations_as_part_of_the_political_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Corpora...
    - irateswami 6y ago
      > A corporation (despite our current legal definition in the US) is not a person What part of that was difficult for you to understand?
  - judge2020 6y ago
    "not participating in politics" is impossible, like another person in the thread stated[0], so simply not taking a side is taking a side, such as when deciding if your employees must wear a mask during work or if they can choose not to. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25178761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25178761
pochamago 6y ago
Did I miss it, or did this article specifically leave out the paid leave packages Coinbase put together for the employees who wouldn't want to stay after his post?
- wskinner 6y ago
  You didn’t miss it. If you’re aware that these packages exist, the wording is extremely misleading. Hard to imagine someone reading the article with no prior context and guessing that employees who left received 3 months (IIRC) of severance. This type of of misleading framing is not uncommon at the NYT.
intended 6y ago
The answer is yes. All precious entities, realized that power will be used. Politics is essentially the superior level of effective communication. For firms to exist and make their point of view heard they will engage in politics. And they will get good at it.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "Politics is essentially the superior level of effective communication. " You mean, communicating, what other people are allowed to do and what not? Politics is first about power (so the big companys were always involved in it). Not about communicating.
  - intended 6y ago
    I’ve not been dismissive of the power argument. But the more I see of what underpins politics, and it’s at essence the highest level of communication. It’s signaling status, credibility, threat, etc. Nothing is done which isn’t a message or resource for future messages to achieve better negotiating outcomes. So while earlier I saw it fundamentally about power, I now see that the mechanism of politics as the ultimate evolutionary form of communication. I hope that shows how our points aren’t exactly in opposition.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      Effective communicating is surely important to power plays. But you can communicate all you want, if your opponent has the guns and firepower and you don't.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
LatteLazy 6y ago
Pay wall bypass: https://web.archive.org/web/20201122160535/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/technology/politics-tech-start-ups-culture-war.html https://web.archive.org/web/20201122160535/https://www.nytim...
satya71 6y ago
Everyone is so focused on making money that they're missing the foundations of that money-making collapsing underneath them. When the society no longer operates on rule-of-law, and people are impoverished, there is no market anymore.
- jpdus 6y ago
  This. I cannot understand why so many people here want to "ban politics" from the workplace. What are your working for at that workplace? Honest question. How to spend your hard-earned money when there is no society and market? Do you want your children to live in a peaceful, prospering world or a burning one (maybe with slightly more dollars in their account)? I don't get this sentiment. Everything is politics nowadays and choosing to "ban" it just means egocentrically accepting that we are heading for a worse future. (And no, "politics" doesnt mean that the company will become an echo chamber and different opinions should be silenced - the opposite is the case. But BS needs to be called out as what it is...)
  - krapp 6y ago
    >This. I cannot understand why so many people here want to "ban politics" from the workplace. What 99% of people who want to "ban politics" from the workplace mean is that they want to ban progressive politics from the workplace, and more specifically any effect of progressive politics that would lead to negative consequences for their own politically incorrect behavior or views.
    - john_moscow 6y ago
      Or, in other words, they don't want a non-elected group of activists decide what views are politically acceptable, and then have unrestricted power to punish those, whos views don't fit.
      - krapp 6y ago
        A "non-elected group of activists" is just another term for "society," "deciding what views are politically acceptable" is exactly what both groups want to do (and by the way, no one elected the side that wants the "activists" to sit down and shut up either,) and no one involved has "unrestricted power to punish" anyone. But sure, spin it however you like.
ThomPete 6y ago
Politics not software is eating the world. I will never turn my company into a political cause. I don't care what the cost is and my guess is that in February next year companies will realize that this is a bad move as their sworn enemy the big bad orange man is gone and all they can now do is turn on each other and they will finally start eating their own.
kodah 6y ago
Businesses were always involved in politics but you didn't really know the politics of your business or leaders as you do today. They did lobbying but it really wasn't something discussed openly and often-times had varied interests. > “Anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy,” Mr. Barrett proclaimed. To see a business say this nature of thing is really shocking. I have a hope that all of this behavior is a one-off to rid the world of Donald Trump, but I really doubt it. Judging by the respondents just on this thread, people aren't bothered by this. This is very dystopian.
- bitmunk 6y ago
  > Businesses were always involved in politics but you didn't really know the politics of your business or leaders as you do today. They did lobbying but it really wasn't something discussed openly and often-times had varied interests. This is the dystopian part.
bitmunk 6y ago
An apolitical being is as real as a unicorn.
- albntomat0 6y ago
  Technically, I agree, but there is a sizable range of opinions where reasonable folks can agree to disagree, and produce good work. The set of people holding opinions in that range is larger than some of the commenters in this thread seem to believe.
  - bitmunk 6y ago
    That's another issue, my point is that this isn't new. Business have always had political postures and actions, the only different thing is that the illusion of Silicon Valley being "neutral" isn't working anymore.
  - danbolt 6y ago
    I think that range ebbs and flows over time, to be honest. I'm not American, but it seems like there was less polarization in the US the 1950s than there was in the early 1900s, for example. I don't think it's unfair to not assume some "happy median" will always be there or a certain size, especially as circumstances change over time.
- judge2020 6y ago
  Just to be clear, we're talking about a real unicorn, not the SV term "unicorn" since those are comparatively common.
awak3ning 6y ago
The answer to the question is no. Companies should not do politics. Companies, however, will continue to do politics so long as it furthers their self-interest as there is a failure of separation of powers between government and corporations in the modern age.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Problem with companies doing politics is it's the corporate officers using shareholders money to do politics to push officers agenda not the shareholders.
- jcfrei 6y ago
  Why should there be a separation between corporations and government? I could see a valid argument for limiting their influence on government but they are an important stakeholder in society. So why shouldn't they have some influence (in particular on the legislative process)?
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    > Why should there be a separation between corporations and government? I wouldn’t say there should or shouldn’t be. I look at it like this... do you have a job to do? Is that job directly tied to a political position? If not, do your job. Don’t talk about politics or religion (if they’re even a different thing anymore) at work. You are just going to offend someone for no reason.
  - zanny 6y ago
    People are the stakeholders in society. The CEO, board, management, and investors of every company are people and are by and large residents of a democratic state they can vote in. That should the extent of their legislative and electoral influence. As soon as corporations have any voice in government beyond that you are left with a facsimile of democracy where the amount of power and money you control directly correlates to your influence in the purported democratic institutions of your government. A corporation involved in politics is exclusively behaving to the whims of its controlling interest which is almost always an investor class numbering between one and a hundred persons. Their interests are obviously and profoundly over-represented in the legislative agendas of practically every government on Earth and its due to the double edged sword of their personal wealth directly buying them political will and their ownership of business giving them a mouthpiece and apparatus to also influence politics through. Both are destructive to civilization, whose their influence has waxed and waned for half a millennia. Where their peaks often bore a prelude to catastrophic events in history.
Sophistifunk 6y ago
Not every entity (person / business) needs to have an opinion on every political topic. Nor do you need to tell people what your position is when the screaming hordes demand it.
CyberRabbi 6y ago
One of my favorite moments of 2020 was when coinbase stood up against the madness of people using the company as a vehicle to promote their irrelevant politics. Politics has its place but just gets in the way of doing work in the workplace. The only politics that should be promoted in the workplace is the politics that helps the company accomplish its specific goals. I predict that market forces will cause more startups to follow suit.
- baby 6y ago
  and then 5% (60 employees) of its taskforce quit, I remember that.
  - kingTug 6y ago
    They were offered exit packages, iirc.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- zdragnar 6y ago
  One of the things that made me quit my last job was the director frequently talking politics before meetings while waiting for everyone to join. There's no winning. Agree and risk setting yourself at odds against your peers and future managers, or disagree and put yourself at odds with the person who holds the purse for your team. Even worse, complain to HR, and risk politically disagreeing with them. I stuck with that job long enough to find something better, and almost regret staying with it as long as I did.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - manquer 6y ago
    Wasn't it possible to have politely told him 1:1 that talking politics is making you uncomfortable? Many times managers are just unaware that their actions cause discomfort, and feedback could help and it is on the manager to encourage that process. On a side note: small topics are always tricky , even sports can alienate co workers.
lle-bout 6y ago
It is nonsensical to write the title as such, all tech startups (since we're talking about them, but not only) do politics. They just choose it to do it in different directions. Most often when someone says they don't want to involve themselves with politics they are alright with the status-quo, which is a political position in itself. Politics is not just about a vote at a presidential election, it's the how and why of everything you do and will do, be it in the tech startup or elsewhere.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  > Most often when someone says they don't want to involve themselves with politics they are alright with the status-quo, which is a political position in itself. Or they just do not want to get involved in a complex, messy, and and potentially expensive social conflict.
  - boldslogan 6y ago
    The quoted post is talking about the benefits of non action(are more than the implicit cost) where I think you are saying the costs of the action are more than the benefits. These seem really similar. Did you mean to say the same thing?
    - apocolyps6 6y ago
      Yes, but spun in such a way as to frame not interfering with the status quo as the middle position to opposing it and furthering it. (Just to be clear no deliberate response is neutral here)
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      I interpreted the comment I replied to as having two bins. Those who oppose and those who support. My comment was intended to argue that there are three bins. Oppose, support, and those who don't want to fight either way.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > Politics is not just about a vote at a presidential election, it's the how and why of everything you do and will do, be it in the tech startup or elsewhere. That’s certainly not true, outside an extremely expansive definition of politics.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
errantmind 6y ago
Companies are collections of people, each of which are free to have their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean the company should officially share and support their individual beliefs. I see this only causing endless division within the company, instead of people being (more) unified in their pursuit of the company's vision. Why not encourage employees to represent their beliefs individually, and off company time, by giving them more vacation and flexible working hours instead? Empower the employees to participate in politics without the company taking a side itself? I'm tired of people pushing their political beliefs onto me at every opportunity, in every available setting, IRL and online.
- exogeny 6y ago
  Ironically, I'll bet most people think they can assume what your politics are just based on this post alone.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    You might be surprised. There are a lot of traditional liberals who are beginning to take exception to this sort of thing. Megyn Kelly had Matt Taibbi on her show recently to talk about this and it was quite odd to see them agreeing on something.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Matt Taibbi isn't a traditional liberal, and his current flavor of accelerationist contrarianism is very compatible with Kelly. Not for nothing, but this Taibbi trait was amplified by him being pretty persuasively MeToo'd a couple years back; he tried to fend off criticism of his work in The eXile, but again, Rule of Goats. Honestly I think this says more surprising about Kelly than it does about Taibbi.
- adamsea 6y ago
  > Why not encourage employees to represent their beliefs individually, and off company time, by giving them more vacation and flexible working hours instead? Empower the employees to participate in politics without the company taking a side itself? IMHO it's about power and the profits power leads to, and the desire of large companies to maintain their power and their profit. IMHO on some level large corporations know that if they did this employees would get politically active and push more for their own interests to be represented in government over that of the large companies, resulting in less profit for said companies because government is investing in civil society and public infrastructure instead. IMHO part of the reason the George Floyd protests were as big as they were is that folks had time on their hands, which is not the normal case for most folks in our system as it is today.
baybal2 6y ago
The World needs more politics, not less. USA particularly needs more politics.
- umvi 6y ago
  I'm not sure what this comment means. Are you saying we should be at each other's throats in the workplace as well as on social media?
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Yes, Sounds like "beatings will continue until the moral improves," but that's how it was at least for Europe. It needed to go multiple rounds of very brutal collective self-punishment for popular politics to kind of start minimally working. Stopping doing politics, means to leave the status quo as is, and give the at the time "leading brand" of political though no contest. History tells us, giving up on politics usually means to leave one group of political extremists uncontested by all others.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
“Others said opting out of politics was itself a political statement.” Kind of like saying atheism is a religion.
- cgrealy 6y ago
  Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a position on religion. An atheist may not believe in god, but all of them have a position on whether religion belongs in a science class, for instance. You can opt out and say "I don't care if biology is taught using creationism or evolution", but opting out means you are ok with creationism being taught. And if you're ok with that, fine (I mean, you're wrong, but you're entitled to an opinion). But you can't pretend you haven't taken a position on it.
coding123 6y ago
It should be simple: No party politics. Everything else is fair game, even if it typically falls under a party. For example: Gay stuff - it's typically democratic/liberal - although many would argue it's being supported more and more by the right. But one should be able to discuss and support gay agendas - as long as there's no specific party endorsement. Stick to specifics like bathrooms (for example) but don't mention "democrats support this too" or whatever. Another example would be to around climate change. It's okay to discuss ways to reduce pollution, just don't endorse candidate or party X as the way that's going to happen. So stop mentioning parties or candidates and shit - just issues.
- readams 6y ago
  That doesn't help at all. It would just be a long list of the issues that a particular party espouses, and just as toxic.
- mikkergp 6y ago
  This is a really binary view of politics and to me represents why we shouldn’t talk politics at work. People’s views on issues aren’t binary and people on the same side of the left right political divide can disagree on issues. How many leftists disagrees with Expensify’s promotion of Joe Biden? How many black people may not want to get into the nuances of Joe Biden’s support of the 1994 crime bill, even if they end up supporting him? Does a woman who just went through a difficult abortion want to be around people passionately supporting abortion rights? The problem with discussing politics at work is that we are not all 100% free to be there. We depend on being at work and potentially being offended by people who we have to continue to work with for our livelihoods. That being said it’s incredibly nuanced. People should be able to be unabashedly out at work. People should be able to talk about why they support having birth control as part of their health plan. Vulnerable and targeted populations should be able to talk about the struggle and discrimination they experience.
mas3god 6y ago
Im very concerned hearing this from a newspaper that told us Saddam had WMDs
shruubi 6y ago
As someone who lives outside America, the obvious answer to me is unless your product is directly related to politics, a company as an entity should have no public stance on politics. From the outside looking in, American politics has long since ceased being about policy and idea's, it is now a contest of identity where it doesn't matter what someone stands for so long as they are on the team I support. In this kind of climate, for a business or other entity to involve themselves in politics would be consciously choosing to more or less blacklist themselves from doing business with the other side or run the risk of having their brand tarnished via social media for whatever stance they take. Finally, a business that takes a political stance does damage not just to themselves but to their employees as in the current political climate, both sides have no problems harassing a person or worse if they are viewed as not "on their team". Once a company takes a political stance, it doesn't matter if what that employee believes or does nor does it matter that said employee might be working for this company because they have a family to feed and don't have the luxury of quitting and looking for a new job, the very fact that they work for said company means that they should be treated as persona-non-grata. Make it simple, a company can't vote, so a company doesn't have a political affiliation (unless of course, it is some kind of lobbying company etc).
- baby 6y ago
  American companies can legally affect politics via lobbies, so it is hard for large American companies to stay apolitical.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > American companies can legally affect politics via lobbies As opposed to non-American companies who never expose their preferences to leaders?
  - winston_smith 6y ago
    > can legally affect politics via lobbies, so it is hard for large American companies to stay apolitical I think they could manage it by, stick with me here, not lobbying. Especially on issues unrelated to their core business.
RickJWagner 6y ago
The danger in all this is that today's popular moral action is tomorrow's reprehensible mistake. Ask John Cleese. Or Harvey Weinstein. Or any one of a thousand people who became drunk on the nectar of pop approval, only to find they didn't go far enough, or chose a decision that didn't align with the way things turned out. I don't care what your politics are, nobody is going to take a position on controversial issues and be 100 percent correct. You're going to alienate a lot of people today, and significantly alient some more later. It's smarter to avoid it.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  Harvey Weinstein's alleged reprehensible mistake was allegedly sexually assaulting people. I don't think you're saying that was at one time a popular moral action, so I'm not sure what you mean about Weinstein learning that one day's popular moral action is the next's reprehensible mistake. Is there some position on controversial issues he took that I'm not thinking of, that at one point was popular but no longer is? Or what do you mean about Weinstein making a mistake by taking a controversial political stand?
  - newbie789 6y ago
    I'm sorry, I'm genuinely confused here. Harvey Weinstein is a convicted rapist that has been sentenced to 23 years in prison. As far as I understand it, that's not a political talking point on account of it being a quickly-verifiable fact. Is the distinction between "alleged" and "convicted" a political one? Again, not trying to start an argument or troll, but how would someone talk about this topic in a way that's "apolitical"?
    - jrochkind1 6y ago
      oh i honestly wasn't paying attention and forgot he had been convicted already. I should not have said "alleged". But yes, I share your confusion. I don't understand how Weinstein is an example of someone who "learned that one days' popular moral action is the next's reprehensible mistake" and thus should "avoid politics". What was his "popular moral action" that became considered as a "reprehensible mistake"? I'm confused too, thus my question. Including Weinstein as an example here is extremely strange and rather disturbing.
lsiebert 6y ago
Politics is not just electing people. Politics includes advocating for issues, viewpoints. Net Neutrality is politics. Right to Repair is politics. Broadband Initiatives are politics. Internet Censorship is politics. Section 230 immunity is politics. APIs being copyrightable or not is politics. Antitrust is politics. At a more basic level, there are certain values that must be preserved for a company to have a fair chance for success. Neither fascism nor state run communism is a good environment for a startup. So yes, companies can and should heed politics. They need not even donate to or endorse or promote people, they can endorse policies or come out against people who are against the policies they support. People that want to keep politics out of the workplace ignore how a startup workplace is the intersection of politics and markets, of governance and growth. Companies should take the long view, and advocate for what's best for themselves, but also their country and the world.
norswap 6y ago
This got me to read "Why I am Voting for Kanye West" by Rob Rineheart (1), and now I am REALLY confused. (1) https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/ https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/
toofy 6y ago
I’d feel much more strongly about companies having policies asking people to stay out of politics if this meant money could go nowhere near politics. If we allow the money from those who control that money to be used as cudgels to sway politics, how can anyone imply with a straight face that the lowly employees can never speak about politics?
jrochkind1 6y ago
They're not talking about whether companies should give money to politicians' campaigns, in hopes that the politician will then support their interests? Those who think companies should under no circumstances "do politics", are you bothered by that too? That's the most popular form of "doing politics" across the entire economy I think, and it probably has an affect on legislation and policy that effects us all.
dmingod666 6y ago
It looks like a lot of americans companies think that if they focus on things that are not related to making money and adding value to their customers, it will somehow make them successful. Let us know how it works out for you guys..
john_moscow 6y ago
The reason why politics used to be separated from business is that political processes must follow certain rules: * If you wish to run a political campaign, you need to be very transparent about your sources of funding. * If you wish to make certain idea into a law (that would force others to follow it), it must be approved by several layers of elected representatives, before it becomes mandatory. * If someone believes that someone else does not comply with the law, they bring it to the court. Where the independent judiciary branch uses the due process to independently evaluate the situation and decide who wins the case. These safeguards are put in place to counter abuse. They make sure that the laws (and their interpretation) serves the best interests of the general population. Modern workplace politics completely bypasses these principles. If your activism fits a few select topics, you get to conduct it on your company's expense. You get to force people to follow the rules you set without any semblance of voting. You get to punish people you don't like without any due process. You can respond to any criticism of yourself with an accusation of one of the new deadly sins, and this immediately destroys your opponent politically and financially.
schimmy_changa 6y ago
I thought a bit about this, y'all might find this interesting: https://twitter.com/schimmy_changa/status/1315001751666188288?s=20 https://twitter.com/schimmy_changa/status/131500175166618828... Basically, companies have an obligation to 'do the right thing' when it comes to universal human rights, but not beyond. The only exception is when it comes to their own industry where the companies have an obligation to share knowledge with the public / regulators. I'd like to note that, if companies don't want politics, then maybe they should have less power in our system...! Activists only care because companies have a HUGE impact on government policy compared to normal citizens.
KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
IBM recently apologized to one of its former computer scientists Lynn Conway whom it fired 50 years ago for being trans. When she was fired, she was a nobody and IBM felt that her transition would attract scandalous publicity. Now she's an accomplished award-winning professor. Is IBM playing politics? Was Conway playing politics when she decided to transition? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/21/business/lynn-conway-ibm-transgender.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/21/business/lynn-conway-ibm-...
- tolbish 6y ago
  Is deciding that you "don't do politics" itself a political statement of accepting the status quo?
  - radicalriddler 6y ago
    On a personal, individual level, I believe yes. Not sure if being a corporate entity changes that though.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > Is IBM playing politics? It sounds to me like IBM apologized for committing a wrongful termination, so no. Even the staunchest of conservatives would not consider it a "scandal" to have a trans employee in 2020. IBM is just trying to maintain a positive reputation in today's social climate, just like they were doing 50 years ago. > Was Conway playing politics when she decided to transition? Conway is a person, not a business, so I'm not sure what this has to do with the conversation about businesses engaging in politics.
charliebrownau 6y ago
Here is a novel idea Start a business to offer a product or service, employ the best person for the job and keep your Anti White, Anti Western poltical bullshit out of business Focus instead on Customers Product/Service and Staff You know that old hat conncept
anonytrary 6y ago
Startups who engage in CSR and virtue signaling are extremely cringeworthy. As an investor, I don't want my investments directing resources to BLM and other charities. Companies should focus on what they were meant to focus on: their product. Let non-profits focus on the other stuff. CSR is a misappropriation of funds.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 6y ago
I would find politics at work feasible if there weren't people who turned political opinions into issues of safety. "You voted for Trump? Or, you voted for Prop 123XYZ? I don't feel safe working here anymore. You're putting at risk my existence and my validity as a human being." How do we move past "I'm in real physical danger because you disagree on my party choice"? Are HR departments currently equipped to tell their employees that perhaps they're being hyperbolic and political disagreements aren't equal to threats of physical violence? Like many others said here, we're making it more and more unacceptable for people who vote differently in private to work together, which of course leads to more polarization, tribalism, and the formation of echo chambers that self-radicalize.
known 6y ago
"Man is by nature a political animal" --Aristotle (b. 384 BC)
Cyberthal 6y ago
Do politics, and politics will do you.
bumblebritches5 6y ago
> should tiny companies waste their time on bullshit? No, they should not. Only an idiot wouldn't know this obvious answer.
steve76 6y ago
If someone wants to "do politics", I suggest they start by making a list of people who need to die. Kill them and then take power. That way, all the misery is contained and over before you put your name on it. There will always be people who need to die, for instance, Joseph Duncan. I would hit him with some antibiotic resistant airborne tetanus. Spread panic through the global economy to make my backers rich and my opponents poor. Crash the over-leveraged investments of competitors. And you wouldn't even need to do it. Just make it look like it and convince everyone. Use the panic to cover up the removal of signature requirements and deadlines on ballots, as well as media collusion and corruption of federal police and attorneys. I guess it's only voter fraud if you loose. Good one. And it doesn't hurt democracy at all. To be able to launch hundreds of court cases, to fight dirty, to push what it means to be called human in all aspects of reality, nothing wins over that. What requires focus is not the bad part, but the good part. Use panic to cure the common cold or reverse aging. Troll the world into serving up society's fingernail clippings to the head transplant doctor, and his soul to the people who image surfaces of black holes. People hide their true intentions. Marxism, anarchism, decadence and debauchery. How little do they know Americans have done it already. The only choice is to walk away from power. It belongs to someone else. The world is much too big for authoritarianism, for one person to control. And the hellbound heart, this puzzle we all spend so much effort on to only tear ourselves apart, takes many forms, the least of which are militaristic. No matter your ideology, your vision, there will always be one law, that there is no law. Take all who dare bother me to the house of pain!!! Knives!!! Sharp things!!!
PradeetPatel 6y ago
Disclaimer: I'm the owner of a small start up based in Asia, some things may not apply to the US. My startup mentor has always told me that to observe the trend and play to the crowd. In the age of social media, it is extremely risky to go against the accepted narrative in different parts of the world. For example, many large entertainment firms display pro LGBT messages in the States. However, they choose to selectively remove those messages in Asia. It's been established that knowing your audience, their political leanings, so that you can shape your narratives correctly is key. Publicly supporting an incorrect political agenda can often lead to damage to the brand's reputation.

I would pay a premium for employees who can work with people whose opinions they strongly disagree with. If you're one these people please try to signal it somehow during the interview process.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eat_veggies 6y ago
There are opinions about technology stacks and code style, and there are opinions about whether Black people deserve to be alive. We can disagree about code style.
- gotoeleven 6y ago
  Have you ever actually met anyone who thought black people didn't deserve to be alive?
  - eat_veggies 6y ago
    Yes, I have.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Working in tech companies? I'm sure it happens sometimes, but it must be extremely rare.
      - hutzlibu 6y ago
        Have you checked the dark corners of the web, in the last time? Or did you do (unmoderated) gaming at some point? Maybe don't, if you want to keep your point of view. The point is exactly, that those people spreading the hate online - are very reservated when you meet them in person. Because they have a mask. But when they do gaming or chatting on 4chan or wherever - then all their hidden opinions, they are not allowed to express at daytime, burst out.
        zarkov99 6y ago
        I think that perhaps we have not yet adjusted to the full implications of the democratization of speech. Extreme opinions, held by the tiniest, most unhinged minorities, get amplified precisely because they are so unusual. In other words, its not so much that violent, racist ideologies are on the rise, as much as we have access to the ramblings of the entire country and the ideas that most easily stand out in the noise are the horrific ones.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
        " In other words, its not so much that violent, racist ideologies are on the rise, as much as we have access to the ramblings of the entire country and the ideas that most easily stand out in the noise are the horrific ones." Comforting theory and yes, surely the horrific opinions stand out. I remember visiting 4chan/pol the first time and how shocked I was. But now I know a bit more of the internet and I would rather say, that most of the things you see, are just the tip of the iceberg.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        Such people can be found if you go looking for them, but that doesn't mean they are common. Even a few dozen of them in an industry of hundreds of thousands is enough to create a web forum with the appearance of popularity. That they're easy to find online may be proof that search engines are effective, but I don't consider it evidence of their prevalence.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
- username90 6y ago
  Refusing to work with people encouraging genocide is a bit different from refusing to work with a person who wants to reduce social benefits to the poor.
  - lghh 6y ago
    Yes, they are different. Yet, I also don't want to work with anyone who doesn't think a child born to a poor family should be allowed to eat.
    - zarkov99 6y ago
      Does anyone actually advocate that? insane mis characterization of the other side is another reason politics should be avoided at work. People who would otherwise get along just fine become enemies because they are fighting the most despicable possible interpretation of the others position. It's nuts.
      - lghh 6y ago
        If people rely on food stamps to eat and you cut food stamps, what happens?
- hnracer 6y ago
  And almost everyone will agree with you, as long as you're not using the latter as a strawman for arguments that advocate no such agenda.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  Jesus, how many people have you ever met that openly stated that X people do not deserve to be alive?
  - Der_Einzige 6y ago
    In real life? Maybe 10. On the internet? Maybe I spend too much time on discord, but I've met potentially hundreds of people who unironically believe that the value to life of non-white people is very low and that most do not deserve life. Lots of actual crypto Nazis and fascists are there and they radicalize young and impressionable gamers...
  - Kye 6y ago
    Quite a few. I see prominent people on my own "side" calling for the genocide or isolation of entire states, one of which I'm in, because an election swung the wrong way by a few percent.
  - cco 6y ago
    In San Francisco? No one I ever met personally said that, but I heard plenty of "chatter" at BBQs where SF police officers were guests. Where I grew up, in the "East Pacific Northwest", some were violent enough to actually say that out loud. I never knew anyone personally that murdered a black person, but I knew several who got into fights for this reason. These were kids in high school, police officers, elected political officials, etc. I'm very happy to say I've never personally heard anything like that in a professional setting, but I'm sure it exists and I hope it'd be treated very seriously.
  - mas3god 6y ago
    Mccarthyism is alive and well in 2020
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into pointless flamewar like this. It helps no one and leads noplace interesting or new. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In fact, it's so over the top that it's basically trolling. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
octoberfranklin 6y ago
Let a hundred flowers bloom.

sandworm101 6y ago

If you are a US company, or have a US user base, politics is non-optional. How do you deal with "hateful" user-generated content? Hate is now politics. How do you deal with employees expressing thier opinions at work? Basic fashion is now politics (masks). Which health care plan do you adopt? There are right and left-wing plans (birth control etc). The holidays are comming. Do your employees say "merry christmas" or "happy holidays"? Dont think you can avoid that one. Letting them pick is still taking sides. What is your policy on weapons? Can guns be sold/discussed on your platform? Then politics comes knocking on the door directly. To which parties or candidates will you donate? Will you create special rules for well-connected users? (Facebook). Will you turn off a politician's account when it violates your rules? (Twitter). Will you accept a political party as a customer? What if they insist you then turn away a different party? Politics cannot be avoided. It is part of the US tech landscape. The only option is to plan and engage thoughtfully.

cscurmudgeon 6y ago
> How do you deal with "hateful" user-generated content Consistently. Whatever you policies, apply them as consistently as possible.
- danarmak 6y ago
  Then all political camps will be against you, as you violate each of their norms in turn. Once at least one major (political) group calls views held by tens of millions of people hate speech, there is no way to avoid being in someone's black book. This is why many companies are aligning with one party - they can't have both, and it's better than none.
  - m0ck 6y ago
    >black book Careful with those metaphors!
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    People shouldn’t care if trying to do the right thing makes you end up in someones black book. There will always be people who are on the wrong side of things. Just do what you think is best for our society.

wrnr 6y ago

I just can't wait for the 2020 presidential elections to be over already.

eat_veggies 6y ago
politics goes beyond the presidential election every four years
- rayiner 6y ago
  One of the great and durable things about America is that, for most people, it doesn’t. As someone who comes from a country where there are violent riots after every election, I have watched the last four years (starting with the 2016 protests and four years of “resistance”) with tremendous alarm.
- wrnr 6y ago
  Heavens it is exhausting to deal with this partisan bickering in a sincere manner, what's next, are you going to tell me what to eat?
sgift 6y ago
Honest question: Do you expect these topics to go away when the "elections are over" (let's say at latest on January 21th)?
- vsareto 6y ago
  No, the momentum of left-wing media covering Trump is going to swing to the other side with right-wing media covering Biden. It's a perpetual, cyclical attention grabber. It won't go away.
lghh 6y ago
Luckily, they are.
- bird_monster 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

> Dick Costolo, a former chief executive of Twitter, tweeted that “me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business” would be shot in “the revolution.” He deleted the post after, he said, it set off violent threats and harassment Reminds me of this: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/america-is-on-the-road-to-revolution/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/america-is-... > One of contemporary progressivism’s commonly used phrases—the personal is political—captures the totalitarian spirit, which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political consciousness. Indeed, the Left today pushes its ideology ever deeper into the private realm, leaving fewer and fewer areas of daily life uncontested. This, warned Arendt, is a sign that a society is ripening for totalitarianism, because that is what totalitarianism essentially is: the politicization of everything. > Early in the Stalin era, N. V. Krylenko, a Soviet commissar (political officer), steamrolled over chess players who wanted to keep politics out of the game. “We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess,” he said. “We must condemn once and for all the formula ‘chess for the sake of chess,’ like the formula ‘art for art’s sake.’ We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess.”

throwawaygh 6y ago
For every Dick Costolo there are 100 execs of small midwestern firms that hire exclusively from the protestant church/christian private school network. Even after Bostock people are still explicitly fired for being gay [1], and before Bostock it was extremely common. To say nothing of huge employers arguing You literally can't get a job at many firms around Springfield, MO without attending the right (right-wing evangelical) church. And don't expect promotions into upper management if you're not part of the right small group at the right church. This is particularly true in accounting/finance, but it's also a problem in some of the region's tech shops. Ironically, "politics seeping into the workplace is a left-wing problem" sounds totally insane to anyone who has spent significant time outside of the coastal/metro bubble. It's a huge problem on both sides of the political spectrum. [1] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commentary/os-op-gay-teacher-fired-florida-scott-maxwell-20201023-mnfwdiqejrd2blf4cermulgeji-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commen...

kelp 6y ago

I another problem is this can also lead to not being involved in the local community. In San Francisco, the collective "tech industry" has long been demonized for various things. IMO, some fair, some not. "Google Buses" taking space at MUNI stops was one for quite a while. Contributing to increasing housing costs is a long time favorite. But a lot of these come from a culture where you build your company on top of the infrastructure provided by the local community and government. Then build a very successful business on top of that, but have minimal engagement with the local government and community. So you create a perception that you're just taking, and not actually part of the local community. It seems to me that the Coinbase case just doubles down on this attitude. In contrast, Salesforce has the largest building in San Francisco named after them, and a huge urban park. I don't see them getting dragged into the anti-tech sentiment. Because I think they've effectively engaged with the local community and given back a lot. They have a culture of volunteer work, strongly encouraging employees to take time off to volunteer for local causes. They also donate to many local causes. Marc Benioff is certainly involved in politics, and advocating for specific ideas and policies. But because him and his company engage in various ways, and make substantial philanthropic contributions, they are usually respected for it.

carapace 6y ago
I grew up in SF, and I'm a tech weanie, and I gotta say: We have been terrible neighbors. We have been like the guy that bought a condo in North Beach and then sued the church for ringing their bells, but 10,000x worse. We've kind of ruined the city. As for Marc Benioff, he's the only billionaire who seems to actually, visibly give a shit. He's Jimmy James. (Even if that fwcking tower looks alternately like a phallus or a giant middle finger. Whatever, dude's cool.)
- jseliger 6y ago
  SF politicians and the voters who keep them in office have "ruined" SF in the sense of driving up housing costs by restricting supply, and failing to build adequate transportation infrastructure expeditiously: https://www.city-journal.org/san-franciscos-municipal-budget https://www.city-journal.org/san-franciscos-municipal-budget or https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/, to cite two examples. Any time SF wants, it can allow the supply of housing to rise to meet demand, which will drastically improve the city's culture, diversity, and affordability. SF voters don't want that, though, and they've not yet been overruled at the state level. Let's get the diagnosis right first.

nullc 6y ago

throw_m239339 6y ago
This guy must be worth at least a million bucks. It's certainly weird to hear these ultra privileged people talking like they are far left wing revolutionaries or something... not realising they are the very establishment themselves. It's the purest example of "virtue signaling", because ultimately, it's all about clout. I'd like these people to focus on privacy, open standards, ethical business practices in IT and so on instead of calling every business who isn't displaying a "BLM" banner on their websites "traitors"... We went from "please join our righteous cause" to, "if don't ostensibly support our cause you're a f*cking bigot". It's like the good ol' Bush II's "Either you are with us or you're with the terrorists".
- rayiner 6y ago
  Costello is worth $500 million.
  - throw_m239339 6y ago
    > Costello is worth $500 million. well well... such a deep far left anti capitalist revolutionary he is, isn't he?... who the hell is he kidding?
rayiner 6y ago
It’s hilarious that Dick Costello thinks that capitalists like him will be spared in “the revolution.” Costello is like the bourgeoisie in Russia that were sympathetic to Bolshevism and collaborated in their own executions.

freedomben 6y ago

Linked FTA an interesting piece by Rob Rhinehart: https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/ https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/

carapace 6y ago
Is it a joke? (I'm asking in earnest, I don't know who Rob Rhinehart is, is he a comedian? Is this satire?) Edit: AH! It is a joke. The whole site is a wonderful parody, like "The Onion" but in the form of pitch perfect clueless privileged tech weanie. - - - - "Ideas for the Board of Coke" > There is nothing better, than a Coke. It is the perfect product. It is so many things and all of them are wonderful. Coca-Cola is a beautiful, simple, quality, affordable, durable product that serves a real need, is available all over the world and appeals to pretty much every human alive, as well as many animals and single-celled organisms. It is liquid life. ROFL! THis is priceless! Cheers!
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  He was the CEO of Soylent and it's not satire, he's just unhinged. Soylent had to write an announcement that Rob does not speak for them anymore. https://twitter.com/soylent/status/1322588020185341952 https://twitter.com/soylent/status/1322588020185341952 https://soylent.com/blogs/news/update-from-soylent-ceo-demir-vangelov https://soylent.com/blogs/news/update-from-soylent-ceo-demir...
  - carapace 6y ago
    I started to feel bad (for making fun of someone who might be having mental problems) but then I realized that being CEO of Soylent is consistent with my mental model of him as a brilliant performance artist/comedian. (If he breaks character now he could be liable for some lawsuits, I imagine, so we may never know.)
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Sounds like he confused coca-cola for the other sort of coke...

spiderfarmer 6y ago

Just do the right thing. If the thing happens to be heavily politicized, don’t try to defend yourself. Just say you’re trying to do the right thing.

lolinder 6y ago
If the thing happens to be heavily politicized, how can a diverse organization possibly agree that it's the right thing? That's the Coinbase idea, as I understand it. If we can't all agree it's the right thing, it's just divisive for the organization to try to push it on employees.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  It's impossible to agree on one thing if your group is large enough. Even on trivial things. If Coinbase thinks it's the right thing to do: let them. If they are wrong, history will show. Why should outsiders judge that company? They aren't doing illegal things and it's their choice to make.
carapace 6y ago
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." – Mark Twain

cercatrova 6y ago

Having an attitude like Coinbase is the way to go, in my opinion. That is to say, disinterest in politics while allowing employees to do whatever they want in their own time. As for politics entering aspects of the company, such as right vs left wing healthcare plans, wearing or not wearing masks, etc, the decision should be towards the most scientific approach that helps the most number of employees. For less scientific things, such as BLM or allowing/disallowing guns, where it's not related to any clear scientific purpose but to people's opinions, there should be no stance that the company should take, but it can encourage employees to support causes in their own time.

theplague42 6y ago
Both of your "scientific" issues are fantastic examples of science having been politicized. Or at least trust in or acceptance of science.
- cercatrova 6y ago
  Yeah I know they've been politicized but people not believing in science is not my problem. If they don't want to wear masks that is their problem. If I ran a company I wouldn't care that masks for example are politicized, I'd just mandate that all employees wear them.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    > not believing in science is not my problem Science like https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 ?
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      Sure
- christophilus 6y ago
  My guess is that even your below average computer scientist will have a reasonable respect for science. So, assuming that we’re talking about tech companies here, I think this is decent approach to policy.

tuna-piano 6y ago

This is a somewhat tough problem for companies at this point in time. To executives focused on customers, sales, product - this is an even more interesting issue because it has really nothing to do directly with the company itself. Most customer segmentation problems can be solved with an optional feature or a new product line - make both chunky marinara sauce and a smooth variety. Most employee problems can be solved similarly - optional programs, different roles for different folks, etc. But this problem is unique because a certain segment of the employee+customer base is asking the complete company to take their side in certain matters. Of course the company taking that stand alienates the other segment of the population. However, rationally, it becomes much easier to deal with this than what Coinbase did. It seems though that the vocal side (liberal) is vocal because they care about companies stances on these matters, while the silent (conservatives) are silent because they don't seem to care as much. Therefore, rationally, companies generally take the liberal position or no position at all. When conservatives listen to politically-left company seminars, see liberal company statements, etc - they mostly just ignore and move on with their day. I don't think many conservatives would be motivated to quit or boycott a company due to a liberal company seminar that they disagree with. I get the feeling (due to the walkouts, etc) that liberals are much more likely to sever relationships due to differences in political beliefs.

theplague42 6y ago
Conservatives burned their Nikes because Colin Kaepernick was in an ad. Not to mention the months-long propaganda campaign claiming that Big Tech was silencing conservatives on social media. Also, conservatism is basically supporting the status quo. Why would conservatives have labor protests against the status quo?
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > conservatism is basically supporting the status quo what’s more status quo than Joe Biden?
  - theplague42 6y ago

zabhi 6y ago

Isn't choosing not to participate in politics just another political stand?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
irateswami 6y ago
I strongly disagree with this statement. A corporation (despite our current legal definition in the US) is not a person, and therefore shouldn't take sides in political matters, nor should it's representatives make overt political statements as though the company is a monolith. Companies are made up of people, and as individuals on their personal time and without conveying themselves as representatives of the company, should be able to to engage in politics. If Silicon Valley executives are now going to be the arbiters of all that is good, we are in for a load of trouble. At best it's cringeworthy, at worst it's a load of limousine liberals wagging their fingers at the rest of us from their ivory towers.
- d4rti 6y ago
  At least in the US, the current case law is against your conclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Corporations_as_part_of_the_political_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Corpora...
  - irateswami 6y ago
    > A corporation (despite our current legal definition in the US) is not a person What part of that was difficult for you to understand?
- judge2020 6y ago
  "not participating in politics" is impossible, like another person in the thread stated[0], so simply not taking a side is taking a side, such as when deciding if your employees must wear a mask during work or if they can choose not to. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25178761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25178761

pochamago 6y ago

Did I miss it, or did this article specifically leave out the paid leave packages Coinbase put together for the employees who wouldn't want to stay after his post?

wskinner 6y ago
You didn’t miss it. If you’re aware that these packages exist, the wording is extremely misleading. Hard to imagine someone reading the article with no prior context and guessing that employees who left received 3 months (IIRC) of severance. This type of of misleading framing is not uncommon at the NYT.

intended 6y ago

The answer is yes. All precious entities, realized that power will be used. Politics is essentially the superior level of effective communication. For firms to exist and make their point of view heard they will engage in politics. And they will get good at it.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"Politics is essentially the superior level of effective communication. " You mean, communicating, what other people are allowed to do and what not? Politics is first about power (so the big companys were always involved in it). Not about communicating.
- intended 6y ago
  I’ve not been dismissive of the power argument. But the more I see of what underpins politics, and it’s at essence the highest level of communication. It’s signaling status, credibility, threat, etc. Nothing is done which isn’t a message or resource for future messages to achieve better negotiating outcomes. So while earlier I saw it fundamentally about power, I now see that the mechanism of politics as the ultimate evolutionary form of communication. I hope that shows how our points aren’t exactly in opposition.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    Effective communicating is surely important to power plays. But you can communicate all you want, if your opponent has the guns and firepower and you don't.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

LatteLazy 6y ago

Pay wall bypass: https://web.archive.org/web/20201122160535/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/technology/politics-tech-start-ups-culture-war.html https://web.archive.org/web/20201122160535/https://www.nytim...

satya71 6y ago

Everyone is so focused on making money that they're missing the foundations of that money-making collapsing underneath them. When the society no longer operates on rule-of-law, and people are impoverished, there is no market anymore.

jpdus 6y ago
This. I cannot understand why so many people here want to "ban politics" from the workplace. What are your working for at that workplace? Honest question. How to spend your hard-earned money when there is no society and market? Do you want your children to live in a peaceful, prospering world or a burning one (maybe with slightly more dollars in their account)? I don't get this sentiment. Everything is politics nowadays and choosing to "ban" it just means egocentrically accepting that we are heading for a worse future. (And no, "politics" doesnt mean that the company will become an echo chamber and different opinions should be silenced - the opposite is the case. But BS needs to be called out as what it is...)
- krapp 6y ago
  >This. I cannot understand why so many people here want to "ban politics" from the workplace. What 99% of people who want to "ban politics" from the workplace mean is that they want to ban progressive politics from the workplace, and more specifically any effect of progressive politics that would lead to negative consequences for their own politically incorrect behavior or views.
  - john_moscow 6y ago
    Or, in other words, they don't want a non-elected group of activists decide what views are politically acceptable, and then have unrestricted power to punish those, whos views don't fit.
    - krapp 6y ago
      A "non-elected group of activists" is just another term for "society," "deciding what views are politically acceptable" is exactly what both groups want to do (and by the way, no one elected the side that wants the "activists" to sit down and shut up either,) and no one involved has "unrestricted power to punish" anyone. But sure, spin it however you like.

ThomPete 6y ago

Politics not software is eating the world. I will never turn my company into a political cause. I don't care what the cost is and my guess is that in February next year companies will realize that this is a bad move as their sworn enemy the big bad orange man is gone and all they can now do is turn on each other and they will finally start eating their own.

kodah 6y ago

Businesses were always involved in politics but you didn't really know the politics of your business or leaders as you do today. They did lobbying but it really wasn't something discussed openly and often-times had varied interests. > “Anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy,” Mr. Barrett proclaimed. To see a business say this nature of thing is really shocking. I have a hope that all of this behavior is a one-off to rid the world of Donald Trump, but I really doubt it. Judging by the respondents just on this thread, people aren't bothered by this. This is very dystopian.

bitmunk 6y ago
> Businesses were always involved in politics but you didn't really know the politics of your business or leaders as you do today. They did lobbying but it really wasn't something discussed openly and often-times had varied interests. This is the dystopian part.

bitmunk 6y ago

An apolitical being is as real as a unicorn.

albntomat0 6y ago
Technically, I agree, but there is a sizable range of opinions where reasonable folks can agree to disagree, and produce good work. The set of people holding opinions in that range is larger than some of the commenters in this thread seem to believe.
- bitmunk 6y ago
  That's another issue, my point is that this isn't new. Business have always had political postures and actions, the only different thing is that the illusion of Silicon Valley being "neutral" isn't working anymore.
- danbolt 6y ago
  I think that range ebbs and flows over time, to be honest. I'm not American, but it seems like there was less polarization in the US the 1950s than there was in the early 1900s, for example. I don't think it's unfair to not assume some "happy median" will always be there or a certain size, especially as circumstances change over time.
judge2020 6y ago
Just to be clear, we're talking about a real unicorn, not the SV term "unicorn" since those are comparatively common.

awak3ning 6y ago

The answer to the question is no. Companies should not do politics. Companies, however, will continue to do politics so long as it furthers their self-interest as there is a failure of separation of powers between government and corporations in the modern age.

Gibbon1 6y ago
Problem with companies doing politics is it's the corporate officers using shareholders money to do politics to push officers agenda not the shareholders.
jcfrei 6y ago
Why should there be a separation between corporations and government? I could see a valid argument for limiting their influence on government but they are an important stakeholder in society. So why shouldn't they have some influence (in particular on the legislative process)?
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  > Why should there be a separation between corporations and government? I wouldn’t say there should or shouldn’t be. I look at it like this... do you have a job to do? Is that job directly tied to a political position? If not, do your job. Don’t talk about politics or religion (if they’re even a different thing anymore) at work. You are just going to offend someone for no reason.
- zanny 6y ago
  People are the stakeholders in society. The CEO, board, management, and investors of every company are people and are by and large residents of a democratic state they can vote in. That should the extent of their legislative and electoral influence. As soon as corporations have any voice in government beyond that you are left with a facsimile of democracy where the amount of power and money you control directly correlates to your influence in the purported democratic institutions of your government. A corporation involved in politics is exclusively behaving to the whims of its controlling interest which is almost always an investor class numbering between one and a hundred persons. Their interests are obviously and profoundly over-represented in the legislative agendas of practically every government on Earth and its due to the double edged sword of their personal wealth directly buying them political will and their ownership of business giving them a mouthpiece and apparatus to also influence politics through. Both are destructive to civilization, whose their influence has waxed and waned for half a millennia. Where their peaks often bore a prelude to catastrophic events in history.

Sophistifunk 6y ago

Not every entity (person / business) needs to have an opinion on every political topic. Nor do you need to tell people what your position is when the screaming hordes demand it.

CyberRabbi 6y ago

One of my favorite moments of 2020 was when coinbase stood up against the madness of people using the company as a vehicle to promote their irrelevant politics. Politics has its place but just gets in the way of doing work in the workplace. The only politics that should be promoted in the workplace is the politics that helps the company accomplish its specific goals. I predict that market forces will cause more startups to follow suit.

baby 6y ago
and then 5% (60 employees) of its taskforce quit, I remember that.
- kingTug 6y ago
  They were offered exit packages, iirc.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
zdragnar 6y ago
One of the things that made me quit my last job was the director frequently talking politics before meetings while waiting for everyone to join. There's no winning. Agree and risk setting yourself at odds against your peers and future managers, or disagree and put yourself at odds with the person who holds the purse for your team. Even worse, complain to HR, and risk politically disagreeing with them. I stuck with that job long enough to find something better, and almost regret staying with it as long as I did.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- manquer 6y ago
  Wasn't it possible to have politely told him 1:1 that talking politics is making you uncomfortable? Many times managers are just unaware that their actions cause discomfort, and feedback could help and it is on the manager to encourage that process. On a side note: small topics are always tricky , even sports can alienate co workers.

lle-bout 6y ago

It is nonsensical to write the title as such, all tech startups (since we're talking about them, but not only) do politics. They just choose it to do it in different directions. Most often when someone says they don't want to involve themselves with politics they are alright with the status-quo, which is a political position in itself. Politics is not just about a vote at a presidential election, it's the how and why of everything you do and will do, be it in the tech startup or elsewhere.

MattGaiser 6y ago
> Most often when someone says they don't want to involve themselves with politics they are alright with the status-quo, which is a political position in itself. Or they just do not want to get involved in a complex, messy, and and potentially expensive social conflict.
- boldslogan 6y ago
  The quoted post is talking about the benefits of non action(are more than the implicit cost) where I think you are saying the costs of the action are more than the benefits. These seem really similar. Did you mean to say the same thing?
  - apocolyps6 6y ago
    Yes, but spun in such a way as to frame not interfering with the status quo as the middle position to opposing it and furthering it. (Just to be clear no deliberate response is neutral here)
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    I interpreted the comment I replied to as having two bins. Those who oppose and those who support. My comment was intended to argue that there are three bins. Oppose, support, and those who don't want to fight either way.
rayiner 6y ago
> Politics is not just about a vote at a presidential election, it's the how and why of everything you do and will do, be it in the tech startup or elsewhere. That’s certainly not true, outside an extremely expansive definition of politics.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

errantmind 6y ago

Companies are collections of people, each of which are free to have their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean the company should officially share and support their individual beliefs. I see this only causing endless division within the company, instead of people being (more) unified in their pursuit of the company's vision. Why not encourage employees to represent their beliefs individually, and off company time, by giving them more vacation and flexible working hours instead? Empower the employees to participate in politics without the company taking a side itself? I'm tired of people pushing their political beliefs onto me at every opportunity, in every available setting, IRL and online.

exogeny 6y ago
Ironically, I'll bet most people think they can assume what your politics are just based on this post alone.
- rayiner 6y ago
  You might be surprised. There are a lot of traditional liberals who are beginning to take exception to this sort of thing. Megyn Kelly had Matt Taibbi on her show recently to talk about this and it was quite odd to see them agreeing on something.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Matt Taibbi isn't a traditional liberal, and his current flavor of accelerationist contrarianism is very compatible with Kelly. Not for nothing, but this Taibbi trait was amplified by him being pretty persuasively MeToo'd a couple years back; he tried to fend off criticism of his work in The eXile, but again, Rule of Goats. Honestly I think this says more surprising about Kelly than it does about Taibbi.
adamsea 6y ago
> Why not encourage employees to represent their beliefs individually, and off company time, by giving them more vacation and flexible working hours instead? Empower the employees to participate in politics without the company taking a side itself? IMHO it's about power and the profits power leads to, and the desire of large companies to maintain their power and their profit. IMHO on some level large corporations know that if they did this employees would get politically active and push more for their own interests to be represented in government over that of the large companies, resulting in less profit for said companies because government is investing in civil society and public infrastructure instead. IMHO part of the reason the George Floyd protests were as big as they were is that folks had time on their hands, which is not the normal case for most folks in our system as it is today.

baybal2 6y ago

The World needs more politics, not less. USA particularly needs more politics.

umvi 6y ago
I'm not sure what this comment means. Are you saying we should be at each other's throats in the workplace as well as on social media?
- baybal2 6y ago
  Yes, Sounds like "beatings will continue until the moral improves," but that's how it was at least for Europe. It needed to go multiple rounds of very brutal collective self-punishment for popular politics to kind of start minimally working. Stopping doing politics, means to leave the status quo as is, and give the at the time "leading brand" of political though no contest. History tells us, giving up on politics usually means to leave one group of political extremists uncontested by all others.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

“Others said opting out of politics was itself a political statement.” Kind of like saying atheism is a religion.

cgrealy 6y ago
Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a position on religion. An atheist may not believe in god, but all of them have a position on whether religion belongs in a science class, for instance. You can opt out and say "I don't care if biology is taught using creationism or evolution", but opting out means you are ok with creationism being taught. And if you're ok with that, fine (I mean, you're wrong, but you're entitled to an opinion). But you can't pretend you haven't taken a position on it.

coding123 6y ago

It should be simple: No party politics. Everything else is fair game, even if it typically falls under a party. For example: Gay stuff - it's typically democratic/liberal - although many would argue it's being supported more and more by the right. But one should be able to discuss and support gay agendas - as long as there's no specific party endorsement. Stick to specifics like bathrooms (for example) but don't mention "democrats support this too" or whatever. Another example would be to around climate change. It's okay to discuss ways to reduce pollution, just don't endorse candidate or party X as the way that's going to happen. So stop mentioning parties or candidates and shit - just issues.

readams 6y ago
That doesn't help at all. It would just be a long list of the issues that a particular party espouses, and just as toxic.
mikkergp 6y ago
This is a really binary view of politics and to me represents why we shouldn’t talk politics at work. People’s views on issues aren’t binary and people on the same side of the left right political divide can disagree on issues. How many leftists disagrees with Expensify’s promotion of Joe Biden? How many black people may not want to get into the nuances of Joe Biden’s support of the 1994 crime bill, even if they end up supporting him? Does a woman who just went through a difficult abortion want to be around people passionately supporting abortion rights? The problem with discussing politics at work is that we are not all 100% free to be there. We depend on being at work and potentially being offended by people who we have to continue to work with for our livelihoods. That being said it’s incredibly nuanced. People should be able to be unabashedly out at work. People should be able to talk about why they support having birth control as part of their health plan. Vulnerable and targeted populations should be able to talk about the struggle and discrimination they experience.

mas3god 6y ago

Im very concerned hearing this from a newspaper that told us Saddam had WMDs

shruubi 6y ago

As someone who lives outside America, the obvious answer to me is unless your product is directly related to politics, a company as an entity should have no public stance on politics. From the outside looking in, American politics has long since ceased being about policy and idea's, it is now a contest of identity where it doesn't matter what someone stands for so long as they are on the team I support. In this kind of climate, for a business or other entity to involve themselves in politics would be consciously choosing to more or less blacklist themselves from doing business with the other side or run the risk of having their brand tarnished via social media for whatever stance they take. Finally, a business that takes a political stance does damage not just to themselves but to their employees as in the current political climate, both sides have no problems harassing a person or worse if they are viewed as not "on their team". Once a company takes a political stance, it doesn't matter if what that employee believes or does nor does it matter that said employee might be working for this company because they have a family to feed and don't have the luxury of quitting and looking for a new job, the very fact that they work for said company means that they should be treated as persona-non-grata. Make it simple, a company can't vote, so a company doesn't have a political affiliation (unless of course, it is some kind of lobbying company etc).

baby 6y ago
American companies can legally affect politics via lobbies, so it is hard for large American companies to stay apolitical.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > American companies can legally affect politics via lobbies As opposed to non-American companies who never expose their preferences to leaders?
- winston_smith 6y ago
  > can legally affect politics via lobbies, so it is hard for large American companies to stay apolitical I think they could manage it by, stick with me here, not lobbying. Especially on issues unrelated to their core business.

RickJWagner 6y ago

The danger in all this is that today's popular moral action is tomorrow's reprehensible mistake. Ask John Cleese. Or Harvey Weinstein. Or any one of a thousand people who became drunk on the nectar of pop approval, only to find they didn't go far enough, or chose a decision that didn't align with the way things turned out. I don't care what your politics are, nobody is going to take a position on controversial issues and be 100 percent correct. You're going to alienate a lot of people today, and significantly alient some more later. It's smarter to avoid it.

jrochkind1 6y ago
Harvey Weinstein's alleged reprehensible mistake was allegedly sexually assaulting people. I don't think you're saying that was at one time a popular moral action, so I'm not sure what you mean about Weinstein learning that one day's popular moral action is the next's reprehensible mistake. Is there some position on controversial issues he took that I'm not thinking of, that at one point was popular but no longer is? Or what do you mean about Weinstein making a mistake by taking a controversial political stand?
- newbie789 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I'm genuinely confused here. Harvey Weinstein is a convicted rapist that has been sentenced to 23 years in prison. As far as I understand it, that's not a political talking point on account of it being a quickly-verifiable fact. Is the distinction between "alleged" and "convicted" a political one? Again, not trying to start an argument or troll, but how would someone talk about this topic in a way that's "apolitical"?
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    oh i honestly wasn't paying attention and forgot he had been convicted already. I should not have said "alleged". But yes, I share your confusion. I don't understand how Weinstein is an example of someone who "learned that one days' popular moral action is the next's reprehensible mistake" and thus should "avoid politics". What was his "popular moral action" that became considered as a "reprehensible mistake"? I'm confused too, thus my question. Including Weinstein as an example here is extremely strange and rather disturbing.

lsiebert 6y ago

Politics is not just electing people. Politics includes advocating for issues, viewpoints. Net Neutrality is politics. Right to Repair is politics. Broadband Initiatives are politics. Internet Censorship is politics. Section 230 immunity is politics. APIs being copyrightable or not is politics. Antitrust is politics. At a more basic level, there are certain values that must be preserved for a company to have a fair chance for success. Neither fascism nor state run communism is a good environment for a startup. So yes, companies can and should heed politics. They need not even donate to or endorse or promote people, they can endorse policies or come out against people who are against the policies they support. People that want to keep politics out of the workplace ignore how a startup workplace is the intersection of politics and markets, of governance and growth. Companies should take the long view, and advocate for what's best for themselves, but also their country and the world.

norswap 6y ago

This got me to read "Why I am Voting for Kanye West" by Rob Rineheart (1), and now I am REALLY confused. (1) https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/ https://www.robrhinehart.com/why-i-am-voting-for-kanye-west/

toofy 6y ago

I’d feel much more strongly about companies having policies asking people to stay out of politics if this meant money could go nowhere near politics. If we allow the money from those who control that money to be used as cudgels to sway politics, how can anyone imply with a straight face that the lowly employees can never speak about politics?

jrochkind1 6y ago

They're not talking about whether companies should give money to politicians' campaigns, in hopes that the politician will then support their interests? Those who think companies should under no circumstances "do politics", are you bothered by that too? That's the most popular form of "doing politics" across the entire economy I think, and it probably has an affect on legislation and policy that effects us all.

dmingod666 6y ago

It looks like a lot of americans companies think that if they focus on things that are not related to making money and adding value to their customers, it will somehow make them successful. Let us know how it works out for you guys..

john_moscow 6y ago

The reason why politics used to be separated from business is that political processes must follow certain rules: * If you wish to run a political campaign, you need to be very transparent about your sources of funding. * If you wish to make certain idea into a law (that would force others to follow it), it must be approved by several layers of elected representatives, before it becomes mandatory. * If someone believes that someone else does not comply with the law, they bring it to the court. Where the independent judiciary branch uses the due process to independently evaluate the situation and decide who wins the case. These safeguards are put in place to counter abuse. They make sure that the laws (and their interpretation) serves the best interests of the general population. Modern workplace politics completely bypasses these principles. If your activism fits a few select topics, you get to conduct it on your company's expense. You get to force people to follow the rules you set without any semblance of voting. You get to punish people you don't like without any due process. You can respond to any criticism of yourself with an accusation of one of the new deadly sins, and this immediately destroys your opponent politically and financially.

schimmy_changa 6y ago

I thought a bit about this, y'all might find this interesting: https://twitter.com/schimmy_changa/status/1315001751666188288?s=20 https://twitter.com/schimmy_changa/status/131500175166618828... Basically, companies have an obligation to 'do the right thing' when it comes to universal human rights, but not beyond. The only exception is when it comes to their own industry where the companies have an obligation to share knowledge with the public / regulators. I'd like to note that, if companies don't want politics, then maybe they should have less power in our system...! Activists only care because companies have a HUGE impact on government policy compared to normal citizens.

KKKKkkkk1 6y ago

IBM recently apologized to one of its former computer scientists Lynn Conway whom it fired 50 years ago for being trans. When she was fired, she was a nobody and IBM felt that her transition would attract scandalous publicity. Now she's an accomplished award-winning professor. Is IBM playing politics? Was Conway playing politics when she decided to transition? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/21/business/lynn-conway-ibm-transgender.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/21/business/lynn-conway-ibm-...

tolbish 6y ago
Is deciding that you "don't do politics" itself a political statement of accepting the status quo?
- radicalriddler 6y ago
  On a personal, individual level, I believe yes. Not sure if being a corporate entity changes that though.
CivBase 6y ago
> Is IBM playing politics? It sounds to me like IBM apologized for committing a wrongful termination, so no. Even the staunchest of conservatives would not consider it a "scandal" to have a trans employee in 2020. IBM is just trying to maintain a positive reputation in today's social climate, just like they were doing 50 years ago. > Was Conway playing politics when she decided to transition? Conway is a person, not a business, so I'm not sure what this has to do with the conversation about businesses engaging in politics.

charliebrownau 6y ago

Here is a novel idea Start a business to offer a product or service, employ the best person for the job and keep your Anti White, Anti Western poltical bullshit out of business Focus instead on Customers Product/Service and Staff You know that old hat conncept

anonytrary 6y ago

Startups who engage in CSR and virtue signaling are extremely cringeworthy. As an investor, I don't want my investments directing resources to BLM and other charities. Companies should focus on what they were meant to focus on: their product. Let non-profits focus on the other stuff. CSR is a misappropriation of funds.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 6y ago

I would find politics at work feasible if there weren't people who turned political opinions into issues of safety. "You voted for Trump? Or, you voted for Prop 123XYZ? I don't feel safe working here anymore. You're putting at risk my existence and my validity as a human being." How do we move past "I'm in real physical danger because you disagree on my party choice"? Are HR departments currently equipped to tell their employees that perhaps they're being hyperbolic and political disagreements aren't equal to threats of physical violence? Like many others said here, we're making it more and more unacceptable for people who vote differently in private to work together, which of course leads to more polarization, tribalism, and the formation of echo chambers that self-radicalize.

known 6y ago

"Man is by nature a political animal" --Aristotle (b. 384 BC)

Cyberthal 6y ago

Do politics, and politics will do you.

bumblebritches5 6y ago

> should tiny companies waste their time on bullshit? No, they should not. Only an idiot wouldn't know this obvious answer.

steve76 6y ago

If someone wants to "do politics", I suggest they start by making a list of people who need to die. Kill them and then take power. That way, all the misery is contained and over before you put your name on it. There will always be people who need to die, for instance, Joseph Duncan. I would hit him with some antibiotic resistant airborne tetanus. Spread panic through the global economy to make my backers rich and my opponents poor. Crash the over-leveraged investments of competitors. And you wouldn't even need to do it. Just make it look like it and convince everyone. Use the panic to cover up the removal of signature requirements and deadlines on ballots, as well as media collusion and corruption of federal police and attorneys. I guess it's only voter fraud if you loose. Good one. And it doesn't hurt democracy at all. To be able to launch hundreds of court cases, to fight dirty, to push what it means to be called human in all aspects of reality, nothing wins over that. What requires focus is not the bad part, but the good part. Use panic to cure the common cold or reverse aging. Troll the world into serving up society's fingernail clippings to the head transplant doctor, and his soul to the people who image surfaces of black holes. People hide their true intentions. Marxism, anarchism, decadence and debauchery. How little do they know Americans have done it already. The only choice is to walk away from power. It belongs to someone else. The world is much too big for authoritarianism, for one person to control. And the hellbound heart, this puzzle we all spend so much effort on to only tear ourselves apart, takes many forms, the least of which are militaristic. No matter your ideology, your vision, there will always be one law, that there is no law. Take all who dare bother me to the house of pain!!! Knives!!! Sharp things!!!

PradeetPatel 6y ago

Disclaimer: I'm the owner of a small start up based in Asia, some things may not apply to the US. My startup mentor has always told me that to observe the trend and play to the crowd. In the age of social media, it is extremely risky to go against the accepted narrative in different parts of the world. For example, many large entertainment firms display pro LGBT messages in the States. However, they choose to selectively remove those messages in Asia. It's been established that knowing your audience, their political leanings, so that you can shape your narratives correctly is key. Publicly supporting an incorrect political agenda can often lead to damage to the brand's reputation.