12 ms·

> 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. You make it

> 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. You make it sound simple, but it’s not. If you operate a SAAS company, and ICE approaches you to buy your service, you suspect it might be used in the family separation program. If you say: “I’m not doing politics!” and decide to sell them the service, you are being complacent in the policy that ICE enforces, and therefor just did some (highly questionable) politics. If you deny them, you also did (morally correct) politics. If your workers use open source software and ask if they can contribute back upstream, but you deny them on grounds of intellectual property, you just did politics. The same if you allow them. If you pay your workers above market rate, allow them to unionize, have a liberal vacation policy, or force them to work on-site, you are doing politics. Albeit on a more personal scale then in the previous example. If most of the other offices in your downtown building where your startup resides put a BLM flag in their window, but you opt not to, you just made a political decision. If an employee puts a prominent Palestinian flag on their desk, and you ask them to take that down, you do so on a political basis. I hope you get the point. Businesses simply don’t have the option of not doing politics. The power dynamics involved simply prevent that from being a possibility. “Not doing politics” is more often then not simply an excuse for doing highly questionable politics.

ThomPete 6y ago
Unless you only want to work for ICE but not for an emigration lawyer thats not a political choice thats an agnostic choice. When Google employees decided who google should work for THATS political.
Nimitz14 6y ago
You seem to not have read the sentence you quoted? In that case the product is directly related to politics.
- Jarwain 6y ago
  They never made any statement about what the product Is, so how can we make a determination about how related the product is to politics? The example product could be like Trello, but using the boards to organize their family separation programs. It's not directly a political product, but it's a tool that can be used to further some political policy. What about a SaaS product that provides facial recognition services for any usecase? It's not Directly political, but could definitely be used that way.
- evrydayhustling 6y ago
  His point is that the product wasn't related by design, only by adoption. When e.g. Salesforce makes software for tracking workflows and ICE adopts it for managing detention centers, they are forced into making a political choice when they might not have intended to.
- notatoad 6y ago
  the hypothetical posed in the parent comment isn't really a hypothetical. it's the actual situation github found themselves in a while back. i don't think "directly related to politics" is really a description anybody would naturally apply to github's product, but they still ended up in the middle of politics. if your definition of directly connected to politics extends to having customers who are political entities, then there's not really such thing as a business that isn't directly connected to politics.
- Nimitz14 6y ago
  Can't seem to edit, I agree with the repliers this was a bad reply.
umvi 6y ago
It is simple. Toolmakers are not responsible for moral arbitration. A convicted felon can legally buy a Craftsman wrench, even if he plans to bludgeon someone with it. Craftsman is not responsible for preventing the convicted felon from buying one of their products. And that's fine.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Selling to a general public is not the same as selling to targeted clients. If you sell computers in a store, and an evil foreign dictator buys it from there, you are not as responsible as if that same foreign dictator approaches you and asks for a delivery. Even selling to a general public is nuanced, as selling toothbrushes is not the same as selling automatic rifles. even though both can be used to kill people, one is optimized for keeping your teeth clean, while the other is optimized for causing injuries.
- singron 6y ago
  The difference in this case is that a retailer has no reason to believe that a random member of the public is going to use merchandise to bludgeon someone. However if a person comes in the store and says they are stocking up for the murder they are planning, you should not aid them. This may even be criminally aiding and abetting!
winston_smith 6y ago
This is a terrible argument. Replace politics with religion to see why. You can try to be clever by listing ways religion might relate to business, but that doesn't change the fact that businesses generally, and in many ways are legally required to, let people do their jobs regardless of their faith. It works just fine. Everyone knows it's possible to make things more political. Being apolitical means doing the opposite. It's a very simple concept from kindergarten, "more" and "less". Drawing some strained connection to politics doesn't magically make it impossible for us to say "try to have less politics at work". If I followed you around all day complaining that you're not vegan enough, you'd suddenly regain the ability to notice that some things are more political and more related to your job than others.
- yawnr 6y ago
  So the issue that is becoming very apparent to me is that people are doing things like denying science, denying people of human rights, saying that everything that they don’t like is fake and calling it a political stance. That’s what “politics” means now unfortunately. And we can’t really afford not to be involved in politics if that’s what it has devolved into. This isn’t about whether fiscal conservatism works or some foreign policy. We literally just elected people to the House who believe Trump is a savior combatting a Democratic ring of pedophiles who eat children. These people are showing up with assault rifles at places of business (see: Pizza Gate). I think the most likely scenario here is that people who are pushing for their startups to take a stance are those who believe in science and human rights, and can’t stand to watch as the rest of the country buys into the madness. Because you can be sure that the people peddling this disinformation are absolutely fine with their businesses having a political stance. See Koch brothers, Hobby Lobby, Chik Fil A, the police with their thin blue line flags and blue lives matter slogan. If you want to ban talk about political discussion on economic policy from your business, fine, no one cares. But realistically thats not what this is about.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    What do you think Hobby Lobby was about?
m0zg 6y ago
> ICE approaches you to buy your service, you suspect it might be used in the family separation program I could buy that, but only if these same companies refuse to do business with ICE under the Biden administration. Which they most definitely won't, just like they didn't refuse to work with ICE when it did record numbers of deportations and created "family separation" under Obama. TL;DR: it's hyperpartisan horseshit and virtue signaling. It's the dependence of the stance on issues on who's the president that I find particularly repugnant and immoral. I can buy only two stances: "we do business with ICE as long as they are following the US law", "we don't do business with ICE because we believe the United States should have uncontrolled mass migration across its southern border". Both are well defined political (but not partisan) positions. Once you start adding "ifs" and "buts" to this, you lose the moral high ground. And no, @runarberg, I'm not the one "deralining the topic" here. You're derailing it by conflating political and partisan stances.
- runarberg 6y ago
  You are derailing the topic: - Doing business with ICE during Biden, but not Trump is a political decision. - Doing business with ICE during Biden and Trump is a political decision. - Not doing business with ICE during Biden, but doing business with ICE during Trump is a political decision. - Neither doing business with ICE during Biden nor Trump is a political decision. If you are a business there will be a point where you make a political decision. Bailing out with a simple “I am being apolitical” is a cheap excuse for doing bad politics.
- narism 6y ago
  > created "family separation" under Obama Source for this claim? Here’s mine: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administrati...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - m0zg 6y ago
    Obama ICE did separate families if parents were criminally charged with something. Evidence of this is so easy to find, even partisan hacks can do it. It's just that under Trump illegal border crossings became criminal, rather than civil, offences. You can't take your kids to jail with you even if you aren't Mexican, hence the "separations". This is super easy to avoid: don't cross the border illegally. The much publicized "cages", however, were built under Obama. Nobody gave a shit back then. About 1K people were deported daily. I predict that more people will be deported under Biden as well, because it's not "racist" or "xenophobic" for a democrat to deport 400K people a year. The whole issue of crossing the border being a "misdemeanor" is idiotic IMO. I grew up in a country where it's a felony, and you'd be lucky to not get shot if you cross the border illegally in either direction. If a country is to maintain its sovereignty, that's how it has to be.
azangru 6y ago
> If you operate a SAAS company, and ICE approaches you to buy your service, you suspect it might be used in the family separation program. If you say: “I’m not doing politics!” and decide to sell them the service, you are being complacent in the policy that ICE enforces, and therefor just did some (highly questionable) politics. Is there a way to go back from your binary opposition: - "I support what you are doing and will help you" - "I oppose what you are doing and will fight you" to at least a ternary: - "I support what you are doing and will contribute to your cause" - "I don't care what you are doing and will sell you the same services as to anyone else (I am only interested in your money)" - "I oppose what you are doing and will do what I can to impede your cause" I find the binary exceedingly demanding and almost insane.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Yes, but that does not change anything. “I don't care what you are doing and will sell you the same services as to anyone else (I am only interested in your money)” is still a political decision with almost the same effect as “I support what you are doing and will contribute to your cause”.
  - azangru 6y ago
    > is still a political decision When you say "political decision", what do you mean? I suppose it is possible to regard every decision one makes (eating at McDonalds, buying a MacBook, driving a car, riding a bike, doing sports, watching news, going to college, etc.) as political. It's almost certainly not how people prefer to think.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      The personal is political.
      - winston_smith 6y ago
        If everything's political, then nothing is
chanakya 6y ago
The family separation program is implemented by a democratically elected government. If it's illegal, the courts are the place to challenge it.
- DanHulton 6y ago
  You are being disingenuous. The question is not "is it illegal?" The question is"is if moral?" All kinds of atrocities have been committed with the full force of the law behind them. It doesn't make them any less of an atrocity.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    What's actually being disingenuous, pointing out the formal route for settling these issues or using terms like "atrocity"? "Is it moral?" is a complex question in many cases and that's partly why the courts exist - to help transform those moral questions with subjective answers into actionable objective ones.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Right but the formal process isn’t the only way to affect change. It would be really weird if you were like “if you don’t like segregation you shouldn’t protest or have sit-ins, just contact your elected representatives.”
      - mellosouls 6y ago
        Yes, but the question is about whether or not companies should take stances on these things, and the inevitable moral complexity throws up obstacles given that companies are comprised of individuals with differing opinions. Discussion of that complexity and those obstacles is not helped by simplistic condemnation of those who don't share your (general "your") point of view either on the political topic itself or the more abstract argument of corporate stance generally.
        6y ago
EVdotIO 6y ago
This is kind of a motte and bailey fallacy, the motte "everything is political" and the bailey of "what politics should corporations have, and for that matter its employees". That leads to some ominous answers as a corporation is purely in the business of making money, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is simply internal policy for operating the organization, and can be done for any number of reasons. Ideology in work is for a privileged few, and the vast majority simply trade their labor for a paycheck. We would be better off recognizing this reality.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Your bailey makes no sense as it isn't a position.
  - EVdotIO 6y ago
    Okay, to clarify, the bailey is "corporations and people that make up the organization are explicitly political".
- Spivak 6y ago
  These aren’t mutually exclusive. A corporation acting purely out of motivation to make money is still inadvertently making political decisions whether the company considered them or not. This doesn’t mean that companies have to change their tune but it doesn’t mean that they are absolved of the consequences of their decisions.
  - EVdotIO 6y ago
    If exploitive or discriminatory practices exist, it's for our laws and courts to lay out the framework to address this and redress those impacted. If we have unaccountable agencies in government there should be mechanisms to dissolve them. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but the aim should be decentralizing power. If there are failings in government, it's best to address the problems there. I'm not saying corporations won't expand its power over government if given the ability to do so, it's absolutely in its best interest to do so. The issue is they shouldn't be able to in the first place. A corporation is in essence an absolute dictatorship, and really shouldn't be given the power to exert an ideology over anything other than the purview of running the organization.
axaxs 6y ago
Hard disagree. Not doing a thing is by no means a political statement (your BLM example). Now if they put up an All Lives Matter flag, then you have an argument. Further, I'd argue selling a service or product with no judgement of the buyer is also nonpolitical, even ICE. I'm not sure what the opposite side of ICE is, if it exists, but as long as you'd be willing to sell to that entity also, it can still be politically 'neutral.' Only when you decide to refuse or discontinue something have you made a stand, which is what many said about Cloudflare's semi recent takedown and why it was murky.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Not doing a thing is sometimes a political statement. Colin Kaepernick would certainly agree with that. Honestly if most businesses in the downtown building I worked at put up “all lives matter” flags and my business did not move from that building, I’d stop going to the office. For me the business deciding to stay in a building downtown with a bunch of bigots would be a political statement I could not accept.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But I don't think you'd be able to go to any office if you consistently applied such a totalizing view. What I inevitably see happen in practice is a laser focus on recent local political controversies. I have a decent number of friends who say that vocally supporting LGBT rights is very important to them - but are happy to vacation in Singapore, where it's illegal for men to be gay.
    - axaxs 6y ago
      Because it's virtue signaling all the way down. Not to be hateful, but if you look how the groups align it makes little sense. Those who most seek to protect those ignorant people call terrorists, or illegals who need to be sent back, are also those who support gay rights, despite the fact those two groups historically and currently trend strongly against it. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, I'm just an observer fascinated with how things are playing out. But recently it seems these virtues we all must follow or die only apply to Americans, and that doesn't sit well with me.
vonseel 6y ago
I don't think any business should be forced to put a BLM flag in their window just because all their neighbors are doing it. BLM is a cause. It's OK to care about other causes too. Is it racist of my company to buck the norm and put up a flag or fliers supporting an environmental cause like recycling or composting instead? You're right, though; politics cannot be completely avoided. I just hope my friends don't assume I'm racist because I'm not constantly publicly shepherding racial equality and civil rights. A person should be allowed to have other hobbies and interests. A person should not be required to be vocal and outspoken. Neither should businesses. As an employee, I'd prefer if my company did its part in hiring diverse candidates and fair pay, but I don't want to work at a place where I feel compelled to join in political discussions and movements that aren't really part of my job description.
- langitbiru 6y ago
  I kinda agree with your sentiment. If not, then you have to be outspoken and vocal in other political issues in other countries like China, Israel, Palestine, India, Iran, Russia, France, UK, etc. One can argue that we can limit our political activism inside US (btw, I'm not an American). Fair enough. But even if we do that, there are a lot of political issues in US. Let's say one employee cares about racism issue, then there is another employee who cares more about environment causes, and finally there is another employee who cares more about censorship. At one point, the resources of the company will be spread too thin to support all of these causes.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Don’t worry. In the example I took, it is a business not a person being blamed. And the situation is such that the when everyone around you is doing a thing, and you are not, what is your reason? In my example I purposely created a situation in which the business is forced into making a decision. And that decision will be made on a political basis.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
You make it sound simple, but it’s not. If you operate a delivery company, and a factory farmer approaches you to deliver to grocery stores nationwide, you suspect it might be used to transport their specialty, veal. If you say: “I’m not doing politics!” and decide to transport their goods, you are being complacent in the torture of sentient baby mammals, and therefor just did some (highly questionable) politics. If you deny them, you also did (morally correct) politics. ----- Note the above is only partially tongue-in-cheek, but I do it to make two points: 1. To you, your political viewpoints are obviously "morally correct". But the whole point is many people disagree with what you consider morally correct. I used my veal example because I feel it's something a lot of people on HN wouldn't have much of a problem with, but to me it clearly is torture to these animals, and the only reason society at large doesn't have more of a problem with it is because how the animals are treated is mostly hidden from view. 2. My broader point is that virtually every company could sell some product or service that could be used to further an end that equal number of people on both sides could think is morally horrid or morally righteous. It's dangerous to think that your view is the only right one.
matchbok 6y ago
Incorrect. If a company buys my services, they are free to do with that service what they please. We don't shut down hammer companies because some dude whacked another with one. You think you are on the moral high ground here, which is why you are taking such a strong stand. Also, I think you were looking for "complicit", not complacent. You are also wrong there as well. We are voters, that is how we approve or disapprove of government actions. Not everyone has a high paying job and can afford the luxury of ignoring new clients or stopping business because of some holier-than-thou nonsense. People have bills to pay.
- runarberg 6y ago
  1. Nobody is shutting down companies that are doing politics they don’t agree with. 2. Selling hammers to the general public is not the same as catering a service to a single client that engages in human rights abuse. 3. Working for a company is not the same as controlling a company that engages in bad politics.
cbozeman 6y ago
None of these examples you brought up are political in nature. Not one. Some idiot chooses to try to make it political in nature and a bunch of other equally uninformed idiots believes the original idiot or takes up the cause. Example 1: SaaS company is breaking no American laws and ICE isn't either. The fact you even think its morally correct to deny them service screams how ideologically possessed you are. Here's a hot fuckin' take for you... don't illegally come to America. Example 2: I don't know enough about intellectual property and open source contributions to have an opinion. Example 3: Maybe you're not doing politics, maybe you're just not a shitbag. Example 4: Maybe you don't give a shit and just want to be left alone. Example 5: You're just a controlling asshole, not politically against Palestine. I would say, "I hope you get the point", but you won't... because its clear just from these examples alone you're so politically motivated that you can't see the world from any other vantage point.
- makeworld 6y ago
  > SaaS company is breaking no American laws and ICE isn't either That doesn't make it apolitical. Politics is more than just what's legal and what's not. ICE is a political organization, and there are different political stances that support it or don't. A company doing business with ICE supports it in some way, and is therefore political. > The fact you even think its morally correct to deny them service screams how ideologically possessed you are. Here's a hot fuckin' take for you... don't illegally come to America. Sounds like you have your own political stance on ICE and the work they do, and whether it's okay for a company to provide services to them. This only proves the parent's point. > Maybe you're not doing politics, maybe you're just not a shitbag. These are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are often closely related. The example the parent gave about worker pay, unionization, etc, are political issues - they are associated with political stances, and have been since the beginning.
  - rsj_hn 6y ago
    You are suggesting private companies run their own immigration policy, which is insane. You may think something is immoral, but we live in a nation with agreed upon processes for setting laws. You can't opt out of that and create your own private immigration law based on your own opinion. You are free, however, to lobby and convince others to change the immigration laws. That is doing politics. You are free to even advocate for open borders if you want. It's a legitimate view. Reasonable people hold this view, although the same people understand you can't have a welfare state with porous borders. But it's not a view that most people agree with. Most prefer the generous welfare state and border control. Most people are perfectly fine with removing those who enter illegally back to their home countries. If you think this is the embodiment of evil, then lobby to have the law changed, but don't try to enforce your own private immigration law. That's not doing "politics", that's throwing a tantrum. Politics involves working with the political system to convince a majority coalition to back your views. Throwing a tantrum is saying "ICE bad!! No business with ICE". Decide whether you want businesses to act like adults or like emotional children.
mellosouls 6y ago
If you deny them, you also did (morally correct) politics It's morally correct in your opinion. This is the crux of the problem - corporate bodies taking a single stance while being comprised of multiple individuals with differing takes on the (often complicated) issues at hand.
- natchy 6y ago
  Exactly. It’s 2 sides where one romanticizes “the other” and one romanticizes “mine”. You can argue morality all you want but it’s a social construct in either direction.
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
No. Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a color of hair. Not collecting anything is not a hobby. Not putting the BLM flag out is not politics.
austincheney 6y ago
> Businesses simply don’t have the option of not doing politics. You are confusing a willful engagement of opinion for a contractual or procedural obligation.
kortilla 6y ago
If you shop at Trader Joe’s, and Trader Joe’s sells food to ICE employees that participate in the family separation program, you just took a supportive political stance. Did you pay any federal taxes this year to support ICE instead if refusing to pay them? You just took a supportive political stance.
yibg 6y ago
I don't know, we seem to have done ok about companies not being political a decade ago. It seems it's only recently companies, especially prominent ones, started getting dragged into political positions. Maybe this is an extension of cancel culture; you're either with us or against us. If you don't believe what we believe then you're evil and we must do everything we can to drown you out. The statement here even has it. If you work with ICE you're morally incorrect and highly questionable. Never mind that it's legal and supported by ~50% of the population.
- runarberg 6y ago
  idk. IBM selling computers to the Nazi regime in the 30s is often cited a poor political decision on their part. I’m not saying society hasn’t gotten more partisan, but businesses have been doing politics as long as they have been so powerful that their behavior can affect other people significantly. Perhaps there is another reason for this appearance of increased political activity by businesses. Possible explanation include: - Businesses are doing worse politics now then before. - News outlets are better at covering when a business is doing politics. - Public opinion has shifted in what constitutes as bad politics. - Public opinion is better reflected through better journalism. But regardless, I don’t buy it when you say that “people were OK about companies not being political a decade ago”. Ten years ago we were in the middle of the great recession, companies were getting unfounded government bailouts and rich CEOs were being payed massive bonuses despite this. The general public was not happy about this. Receiving government bailout in a middle of a recession is very much participating in politics, we would perceive as such today, and people did so a decade ago.
  - yibg 6y ago
    Things aren't black and white. Supporting an enemy of the state is quite a bit different from doing business with a legitimate arm of the government, or choosing to support or not the current social issue. You may disagree with policies, and many people will disagree with many policies. But there is a channel for that doesn't require said policies to permeate every aspect of life. What's the end state of companies being political? There is a huge number of issues at play at any given time. Do companies have to take a stance for every single one of them? Then can companies only appeal to the intersection of all those dimensions where there is a strict match between consumer and company stance? Do we have a list of pro BLM and not pro BLM companies? Then within each of those pro Palestine and not pro Palestine companies? Where does it end?
friendlybus 6y ago
Why is the work place the appropriate venue for non-industry politics? Lobby groups, human rights associations, charities and polticial groups would gladly take your ICE funded profits and work for your goals. The requirement for bosses and employees to be personally calling political shots in their personal and professional lives makes me think the corporations would prefer to be divided so they can make the call on their own terms. We know ICE can get SAAS services elsewhere so what consequence is really being prosecuted here?
scoutt 6y ago
That's a very polar way of reasoning. It's not all politics. I can imagine several reasons to justify those decisions outside "doing politics"-reason. Or please define "political decision".
nailer 6y ago
> you are being complacent in the policy that ICE enforces, and therefor just did some (highly questionable) politics. Disagree. Family separation for illegal border crossings was an Obama-era policy that only became considered an important issue by the left when when the government changed. This is a matter of optics, not ethics.

ThomPete 6y ago

Unless you only want to work for ICE but not for an emigration lawyer thats not a political choice thats an agnostic choice. When Google employees decided who google should work for THATS political.

Nimitz14 6y ago

You seem to not have read the sentence you quoted? In that case the product is directly related to politics.

Jarwain 6y ago
They never made any statement about what the product Is, so how can we make a determination about how related the product is to politics? The example product could be like Trello, but using the boards to organize their family separation programs. It's not directly a political product, but it's a tool that can be used to further some political policy. What about a SaaS product that provides facial recognition services for any usecase? It's not Directly political, but could definitely be used that way.
evrydayhustling 6y ago
His point is that the product wasn't related by design, only by adoption. When e.g. Salesforce makes software for tracking workflows and ICE adopts it for managing detention centers, they are forced into making a political choice when they might not have intended to.
notatoad 6y ago
the hypothetical posed in the parent comment isn't really a hypothetical. it's the actual situation github found themselves in a while back. i don't think "directly related to politics" is really a description anybody would naturally apply to github's product, but they still ended up in the middle of politics. if your definition of directly connected to politics extends to having customers who are political entities, then there's not really such thing as a business that isn't directly connected to politics.
Nimitz14 6y ago
Can't seem to edit, I agree with the repliers this was a bad reply.

umvi 6y ago

It is simple. Toolmakers are not responsible for moral arbitration. A convicted felon can legally buy a Craftsman wrench, even if he plans to bludgeon someone with it. Craftsman is not responsible for preventing the convicted felon from buying one of their products. And that's fine.

runarberg 6y ago
Selling to a general public is not the same as selling to targeted clients. If you sell computers in a store, and an evil foreign dictator buys it from there, you are not as responsible as if that same foreign dictator approaches you and asks for a delivery. Even selling to a general public is nuanced, as selling toothbrushes is not the same as selling automatic rifles. even though both can be used to kill people, one is optimized for keeping your teeth clean, while the other is optimized for causing injuries.
singron 6y ago
The difference in this case is that a retailer has no reason to believe that a random member of the public is going to use merchandise to bludgeon someone. However if a person comes in the store and says they are stocking up for the murder they are planning, you should not aid them. This may even be criminally aiding and abetting!

winston_smith 6y ago

This is a terrible argument. Replace politics with religion to see why. You can try to be clever by listing ways religion might relate to business, but that doesn't change the fact that businesses generally, and in many ways are legally required to, let people do their jobs regardless of their faith. It works just fine. Everyone knows it's possible to make things more political. Being apolitical means doing the opposite. It's a very simple concept from kindergarten, "more" and "less". Drawing some strained connection to politics doesn't magically make it impossible for us to say "try to have less politics at work". If I followed you around all day complaining that you're not vegan enough, you'd suddenly regain the ability to notice that some things are more political and more related to your job than others.

yawnr 6y ago
So the issue that is becoming very apparent to me is that people are doing things like denying science, denying people of human rights, saying that everything that they don’t like is fake and calling it a political stance. That’s what “politics” means now unfortunately. And we can’t really afford not to be involved in politics if that’s what it has devolved into. This isn’t about whether fiscal conservatism works or some foreign policy. We literally just elected people to the House who believe Trump is a savior combatting a Democratic ring of pedophiles who eat children. These people are showing up with assault rifles at places of business (see: Pizza Gate). I think the most likely scenario here is that people who are pushing for their startups to take a stance are those who believe in science and human rights, and can’t stand to watch as the rest of the country buys into the madness. Because you can be sure that the people peddling this disinformation are absolutely fine with their businesses having a political stance. See Koch brothers, Hobby Lobby, Chik Fil A, the police with their thin blue line flags and blue lives matter slogan. If you want to ban talk about political discussion on economic policy from your business, fine, no one cares. But realistically thats not what this is about.
- rayiner 6y ago
  What do you think Hobby Lobby was about?

m0zg 6y ago

> ICE approaches you to buy your service, you suspect it might be used in the family separation program I could buy that, but only if these same companies refuse to do business with ICE under the Biden administration. Which they most definitely won't, just like they didn't refuse to work with ICE when it did record numbers of deportations and created "family separation" under Obama. TL;DR: it's hyperpartisan horseshit and virtue signaling. It's the dependence of the stance on issues on who's the president that I find particularly repugnant and immoral. I can buy only two stances: "we do business with ICE as long as they are following the US law", "we don't do business with ICE because we believe the United States should have uncontrolled mass migration across its southern border". Both are well defined political (but not partisan) positions. Once you start adding "ifs" and "buts" to this, you lose the moral high ground. And no, @runarberg, I'm not the one "deralining the topic" here. You're derailing it by conflating political and partisan stances.

runarberg 6y ago
You are derailing the topic: - Doing business with ICE during Biden, but not Trump is a political decision. - Doing business with ICE during Biden and Trump is a political decision. - Not doing business with ICE during Biden, but doing business with ICE during Trump is a political decision. - Neither doing business with ICE during Biden nor Trump is a political decision. If you are a business there will be a point where you make a political decision. Bailing out with a simple “I am being apolitical” is a cheap excuse for doing bad politics.
narism 6y ago
> created "family separation" under Obama Source for this claim? Here’s mine: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administrati...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- m0zg 6y ago
  Obama ICE did separate families if parents were criminally charged with something. Evidence of this is so easy to find, even partisan hacks can do it. It's just that under Trump illegal border crossings became criminal, rather than civil, offences. You can't take your kids to jail with you even if you aren't Mexican, hence the "separations". This is super easy to avoid: don't cross the border illegally. The much publicized "cages", however, were built under Obama. Nobody gave a shit back then. About 1K people were deported daily. I predict that more people will be deported under Biden as well, because it's not "racist" or "xenophobic" for a democrat to deport 400K people a year. The whole issue of crossing the border being a "misdemeanor" is idiotic IMO. I grew up in a country where it's a felony, and you'd be lucky to not get shot if you cross the border illegally in either direction. If a country is to maintain its sovereignty, that's how it has to be.

azangru 6y ago

> If you operate a SAAS company, and ICE approaches you to buy your service, you suspect it might be used in the family separation program. If you say: “I’m not doing politics!” and decide to sell them the service, you are being complacent in the policy that ICE enforces, and therefor just did some (highly questionable) politics. Is there a way to go back from your binary opposition: - "I support what you are doing and will help you" - "I oppose what you are doing and will fight you" to at least a ternary: - "I support what you are doing and will contribute to your cause" - "I don't care what you are doing and will sell you the same services as to anyone else (I am only interested in your money)" - "I oppose what you are doing and will do what I can to impede your cause" I find the binary exceedingly demanding and almost insane.

runarberg 6y ago
Yes, but that does not change anything. “I don't care what you are doing and will sell you the same services as to anyone else (I am only interested in your money)” is still a political decision with almost the same effect as “I support what you are doing and will contribute to your cause”.
- azangru 6y ago
  > is still a political decision When you say "political decision", what do you mean? I suppose it is possible to regard every decision one makes (eating at McDonalds, buying a MacBook, driving a car, riding a bike, doing sports, watching news, going to college, etc.) as political. It's almost certainly not how people prefer to think.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    The personal is political.
    - winston_smith 6y ago
      If everything's political, then nothing is

chanakya 6y ago

The family separation program is implemented by a democratically elected government. If it's illegal, the courts are the place to challenge it.

DanHulton 6y ago
You are being disingenuous. The question is not "is it illegal?" The question is"is if moral?" All kinds of atrocities have been committed with the full force of the law behind them. It doesn't make them any less of an atrocity.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  What's actually being disingenuous, pointing out the formal route for settling these issues or using terms like "atrocity"? "Is it moral?" is a complex question in many cases and that's partly why the courts exist - to help transform those moral questions with subjective answers into actionable objective ones.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Right but the formal process isn’t the only way to affect change. It would be really weird if you were like “if you don’t like segregation you shouldn’t protest or have sit-ins, just contact your elected representatives.”
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      Yes, but the question is about whether or not companies should take stances on these things, and the inevitable moral complexity throws up obstacles given that companies are comprised of individuals with differing opinions. Discussion of that complexity and those obstacles is not helped by simplistic condemnation of those who don't share your (general "your") point of view either on the political topic itself or the more abstract argument of corporate stance generally.
      - 6y ago

EVdotIO 6y ago

This is kind of a motte and bailey fallacy, the motte "everything is political" and the bailey of "what politics should corporations have, and for that matter its employees". That leads to some ominous answers as a corporation is purely in the business of making money, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is simply internal policy for operating the organization, and can be done for any number of reasons. Ideology in work is for a privileged few, and the vast majority simply trade their labor for a paycheck. We would be better off recognizing this reality.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Your bailey makes no sense as it isn't a position.
- EVdotIO 6y ago
  Okay, to clarify, the bailey is "corporations and people that make up the organization are explicitly political".
Spivak 6y ago
These aren’t mutually exclusive. A corporation acting purely out of motivation to make money is still inadvertently making political decisions whether the company considered them or not. This doesn’t mean that companies have to change their tune but it doesn’t mean that they are absolved of the consequences of their decisions.
- EVdotIO 6y ago
  If exploitive or discriminatory practices exist, it's for our laws and courts to lay out the framework to address this and redress those impacted. If we have unaccountable agencies in government there should be mechanisms to dissolve them. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but the aim should be decentralizing power. If there are failings in government, it's best to address the problems there. I'm not saying corporations won't expand its power over government if given the ability to do so, it's absolutely in its best interest to do so. The issue is they shouldn't be able to in the first place. A corporation is in essence an absolute dictatorship, and really shouldn't be given the power to exert an ideology over anything other than the purview of running the organization.

axaxs 6y ago

Hard disagree. Not doing a thing is by no means a political statement (your BLM example). Now if they put up an All Lives Matter flag, then you have an argument. Further, I'd argue selling a service or product with no judgement of the buyer is also nonpolitical, even ICE. I'm not sure what the opposite side of ICE is, if it exists, but as long as you'd be willing to sell to that entity also, it can still be politically 'neutral.' Only when you decide to refuse or discontinue something have you made a stand, which is what many said about Cloudflare's semi recent takedown and why it was murky.

runarberg 6y ago
Not doing a thing is sometimes a political statement. Colin Kaepernick would certainly agree with that. Honestly if most businesses in the downtown building I worked at put up “all lives matter” flags and my business did not move from that building, I’d stop going to the office. For me the business deciding to stay in a building downtown with a bunch of bigots would be a political statement I could not accept.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But I don't think you'd be able to go to any office if you consistently applied such a totalizing view. What I inevitably see happen in practice is a laser focus on recent local political controversies. I have a decent number of friends who say that vocally supporting LGBT rights is very important to them - but are happy to vacation in Singapore, where it's illegal for men to be gay.
  - axaxs 6y ago
    Because it's virtue signaling all the way down. Not to be hateful, but if you look how the groups align it makes little sense. Those who most seek to protect those ignorant people call terrorists, or illegals who need to be sent back, are also those who support gay rights, despite the fact those two groups historically and currently trend strongly against it. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, I'm just an observer fascinated with how things are playing out. But recently it seems these virtues we all must follow or die only apply to Americans, and that doesn't sit well with me.

vonseel 6y ago

I don't think any business should be forced to put a BLM flag in their window just because all their neighbors are doing it. BLM is a cause. It's OK to care about other causes too. Is it racist of my company to buck the norm and put up a flag or fliers supporting an environmental cause like recycling or composting instead? You're right, though; politics cannot be completely avoided. I just hope my friends don't assume I'm racist because I'm not constantly publicly shepherding racial equality and civil rights. A person should be allowed to have other hobbies and interests. A person should not be required to be vocal and outspoken. Neither should businesses. As an employee, I'd prefer if my company did its part in hiring diverse candidates and fair pay, but I don't want to work at a place where I feel compelled to join in political discussions and movements that aren't really part of my job description.

langitbiru 6y ago
I kinda agree with your sentiment. If not, then you have to be outspoken and vocal in other political issues in other countries like China, Israel, Palestine, India, Iran, Russia, France, UK, etc. One can argue that we can limit our political activism inside US (btw, I'm not an American). Fair enough. But even if we do that, there are a lot of political issues in US. Let's say one employee cares about racism issue, then there is another employee who cares more about environment causes, and finally there is another employee who cares more about censorship. At one point, the resources of the company will be spread too thin to support all of these causes.
runarberg 6y ago
Don’t worry. In the example I took, it is a business not a person being blamed. And the situation is such that the when everyone around you is doing a thing, and you are not, what is your reason? In my example I purposely created a situation in which the business is forced into making a decision. And that decision will be made on a political basis.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

You make it sound simple, but it’s not. If you operate a delivery company, and a factory farmer approaches you to deliver to grocery stores nationwide, you suspect it might be used to transport their specialty, veal. If you say: “I’m not doing politics!” and decide to transport their goods, you are being complacent in the torture of sentient baby mammals, and therefor just did some (highly questionable) politics. If you deny them, you also did (morally correct) politics. ----- Note the above is only partially tongue-in-cheek, but I do it to make two points: 1. To you, your political viewpoints are obviously "morally correct". But the whole point is many people disagree with what you consider morally correct. I used my veal example because I feel it's something a lot of people on HN wouldn't have much of a problem with, but to me it clearly is torture to these animals, and the only reason society at large doesn't have more of a problem with it is because how the animals are treated is mostly hidden from view. 2. My broader point is that virtually every company could sell some product or service that could be used to further an end that equal number of people on both sides could think is morally horrid or morally righteous. It's dangerous to think that your view is the only right one.

matchbok 6y ago

Incorrect. If a company buys my services, they are free to do with that service what they please. We don't shut down hammer companies because some dude whacked another with one. You think you are on the moral high ground here, which is why you are taking such a strong stand. Also, I think you were looking for "complicit", not complacent. You are also wrong there as well. We are voters, that is how we approve or disapprove of government actions. Not everyone has a high paying job and can afford the luxury of ignoring new clients or stopping business because of some holier-than-thou nonsense. People have bills to pay.

runarberg 6y ago
1. Nobody is shutting down companies that are doing politics they don’t agree with. 2. Selling hammers to the general public is not the same as catering a service to a single client that engages in human rights abuse. 3. Working for a company is not the same as controlling a company that engages in bad politics.

cbozeman 6y ago

None of these examples you brought up are political in nature. Not one. Some idiot chooses to try to make it political in nature and a bunch of other equally uninformed idiots believes the original idiot or takes up the cause. Example 1: SaaS company is breaking no American laws and ICE isn't either. The fact you even think its morally correct to deny them service screams how ideologically possessed you are. Here's a hot fuckin' take for you... don't illegally come to America. Example 2: I don't know enough about intellectual property and open source contributions to have an opinion. Example 3: Maybe you're not doing politics, maybe you're just not a shitbag. Example 4: Maybe you don't give a shit and just want to be left alone. Example 5: You're just a controlling asshole, not politically against Palestine. I would say, "I hope you get the point", but you won't... because its clear just from these examples alone you're so politically motivated that you can't see the world from any other vantage point.

makeworld 6y ago
> SaaS company is breaking no American laws and ICE isn't either That doesn't make it apolitical. Politics is more than just what's legal and what's not. ICE is a political organization, and there are different political stances that support it or don't. A company doing business with ICE supports it in some way, and is therefore political. > The fact you even think its morally correct to deny them service screams how ideologically possessed you are. Here's a hot fuckin' take for you... don't illegally come to America. Sounds like you have your own political stance on ICE and the work they do, and whether it's okay for a company to provide services to them. This only proves the parent's point. > Maybe you're not doing politics, maybe you're just not a shitbag. These are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are often closely related. The example the parent gave about worker pay, unionization, etc, are political issues - they are associated with political stances, and have been since the beginning.
- rsj_hn 6y ago
  You are suggesting private companies run their own immigration policy, which is insane. You may think something is immoral, but we live in a nation with agreed upon processes for setting laws. You can't opt out of that and create your own private immigration law based on your own opinion. You are free, however, to lobby and convince others to change the immigration laws. That is doing politics. You are free to even advocate for open borders if you want. It's a legitimate view. Reasonable people hold this view, although the same people understand you can't have a welfare state with porous borders. But it's not a view that most people agree with. Most prefer the generous welfare state and border control. Most people are perfectly fine with removing those who enter illegally back to their home countries. If you think this is the embodiment of evil, then lobby to have the law changed, but don't try to enforce your own private immigration law. That's not doing "politics", that's throwing a tantrum. Politics involves working with the political system to convince a majority coalition to back your views. Throwing a tantrum is saying "ICE bad!! No business with ICE". Decide whether you want businesses to act like adults or like emotional children.

mellosouls 6y ago

If you deny them, you also did (morally correct) politics It's morally correct in your opinion. This is the crux of the problem - corporate bodies taking a single stance while being comprised of multiple individuals with differing takes on the (often complicated) issues at hand.

natchy 6y ago
Exactly. It’s 2 sides where one romanticizes “the other” and one romanticizes “mine”. You can argue morality all you want but it’s a social construct in either direction.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

No. Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a color of hair. Not collecting anything is not a hobby. Not putting the BLM flag out is not politics.

austincheney 6y ago

> Businesses simply don’t have the option of not doing politics. You are confusing a willful engagement of opinion for a contractual or procedural obligation.

kortilla 6y ago

If you shop at Trader Joe’s, and Trader Joe’s sells food to ICE employees that participate in the family separation program, you just took a supportive political stance. Did you pay any federal taxes this year to support ICE instead if refusing to pay them? You just took a supportive political stance.

yibg 6y ago

I don't know, we seem to have done ok about companies not being political a decade ago. It seems it's only recently companies, especially prominent ones, started getting dragged into political positions. Maybe this is an extension of cancel culture; you're either with us or against us. If you don't believe what we believe then you're evil and we must do everything we can to drown you out. The statement here even has it. If you work with ICE you're morally incorrect and highly questionable. Never mind that it's legal and supported by ~50% of the population.

runarberg 6y ago
idk. IBM selling computers to the Nazi regime in the 30s is often cited a poor political decision on their part. I’m not saying society hasn’t gotten more partisan, but businesses have been doing politics as long as they have been so powerful that their behavior can affect other people significantly. Perhaps there is another reason for this appearance of increased political activity by businesses. Possible explanation include: - Businesses are doing worse politics now then before. - News outlets are better at covering when a business is doing politics. - Public opinion has shifted in what constitutes as bad politics. - Public opinion is better reflected through better journalism. But regardless, I don’t buy it when you say that “people were OK about companies not being political a decade ago”. Ten years ago we were in the middle of the great recession, companies were getting unfounded government bailouts and rich CEOs were being payed massive bonuses despite this. The general public was not happy about this. Receiving government bailout in a middle of a recession is very much participating in politics, we would perceive as such today, and people did so a decade ago.
- yibg 6y ago
  Things aren't black and white. Supporting an enemy of the state is quite a bit different from doing business with a legitimate arm of the government, or choosing to support or not the current social issue. You may disagree with policies, and many people will disagree with many policies. But there is a channel for that doesn't require said policies to permeate every aspect of life. What's the end state of companies being political? There is a huge number of issues at play at any given time. Do companies have to take a stance for every single one of them? Then can companies only appeal to the intersection of all those dimensions where there is a strict match between consumer and company stance? Do we have a list of pro BLM and not pro BLM companies? Then within each of those pro Palestine and not pro Palestine companies? Where does it end?

friendlybus 6y ago

Why is the work place the appropriate venue for non-industry politics? Lobby groups, human rights associations, charities and polticial groups would gladly take your ICE funded profits and work for your goals. The requirement for bosses and employees to be personally calling political shots in their personal and professional lives makes me think the corporations would prefer to be divided so they can make the call on their own terms. We know ICE can get SAAS services elsewhere so what consequence is really being prosecuted here?

scoutt 6y ago

That's a very polar way of reasoning. It's not all politics. I can imagine several reasons to justify those decisions outside "doing politics"-reason. Or please define "political decision".

nailer 6y ago

> you are being complacent in the policy that ICE enforces, and therefor just did some (highly questionable) politics. Disagree. Family separation for illegal border crossings was an Obama-era policy that only became considered an important issue by the left when when the government changed. This is a matter of optics, not ethics.