9 ms·

An open letter to Jason and David

138 points by forrestbrazeal 5y ago

DC1350 5y ago
From the post she linked: > Basecamp should be a place where employees can come to work with colleagues of all backgrounds and political convictions without having to deal with heavy political or societal debates unconnected to that work. I completely agree with this and it’s the kind of environment that I would prefer to work in.
TMWNN 5y ago
>Then the January 6, 2021 insurrection occurred and we began seeing more customer support cases asking about whether Basecamp “discriminated” against its customers. Whether it supported “free speech”. /r/suspiciousquotes
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  I don't think this is suspicious at all. Jan 6 was followed by a huge ban wave, even more people on the political fringe migrating to the so-called "alt-tech" (a term which is not just coincidentally similar to the "alt-right") and sites that do not really have clear stances or have been resistant to prioritize anti-harassment features and policies (for instance, Basecamp and Substack)
mushufasa 5y ago
I guess the unintended consequence of outlawing internal political discussions is that those discussions then become external...
- chroma 5y ago
  I am very much in favor of making political discussions external. It lets me see who the activists are so I can avoid hiring them.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - etxm 5y ago
    The only thing that makes you sound like more of an asshole than this comment is that you actually have an anonymous account to be an asshole because you’re afraid of being recognized as an asshole (see this accounts bio). Just be an asshole if you want to be an asshole.
    - chroma 5y ago
      I wish I didn't have to use a pseudonym but you've shown why it's necessary. If I used my real name, is there any doubt that people such as yourself would try to ruin my life? I don't want to get anyone fired from their job or harassed by a mob outside their home. I simply don't want to hire them. The real assholes are the ones who proselytize their dogmas in the workplace. I wouldn't hire a devout Catholic who'd tried to convert coworkers at a previous job. The same goes for a Trump supporter who'd pushed their employer to donate to the NRA. Nor would I hire an activist who wants to un-blind resumes so that hiring can discriminate based on race and sex. I don't hire these people for a simple reason: No matter how good they are at their job, they cause more problems than they're worth.
      - etxm 5y ago
        Yes, I’m here to ruin your life. Not a hyperbolic statement at all, much like your definition of “activists.”
AlexandrB 5y ago
Previous discussion of the post this is responding to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26944192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26944192
sascha_sl 5y ago
Thanks for posting. I saw this happen on twitter, but the comments immediately derailed into the predictable culture war and never really drilled down to the specifics of why Basecamp choose to put this policy into effect. This makes it very clear.
aphextron 5y ago
Oh boy
stephc_int13 5y ago
"A time comes when silence is betrayal." This is classical us vs them rhetoric, and I don't like to be dragged into this trap, especially at a company level.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  That's not the context of the article, "silencing" is used in the "actively silencing" sense. It's not about a bystander not getting involved.
  - stephc_int13 5y ago
    It is about talking politics at work. From what I understand. I strongly agree with Basecamp here.
    - sascha_sl 5y ago
      Discussing what the company's policy on hate speech, diversity and inclusion should be might be politics, but it's not the "spitting on MAGA hats" kind of politics people on twitter seem to think it is. I think it's work relevant. Gauging from votes, most people in this thread seem to see themselves more as mercenaries with no personal investment in their workplace (or they are not negatively affected by their lacking work culture, uh, privilege) than anything else, and that's fine, but don't assume someone wouldn't find personal fulfillment in making their workplace better.
      - stephc_int13 5y ago
        Would you refuse to work with a colleague because he voted for the other side? This is discrimination and this is obviously illegal, but this is a side effect of talking politics at work.
        RhysU 5y ago
        I don't think this is a good idea but I don't see how it is illegal: "Alice, pick up the ticket for Bob." "No, Bob voted for X!" Then, sometime later, Alice is fined and/or sent to jail.
benjaminwootton 5y ago
I understand why Basecamp have made the decisions they have on this. As an entrepreneur and small business owner, I would be frankly terrified of hiring a woke SJW who wanted our business and all of our employees to become wholly dedicated to solving their pet causes. Solving large scale societal injustice would be great, but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning. It’s even worse with the ever present threat they would then breach NDAs and bring the raging Twitter mob to the door when they don’t get their own way. There are a million injustices in the world, but engaging and supporting them should be a personal decision. Keep that stuff away from the office.
- scrollbar 5y ago
  If I were worried about a raging Twitter mob I wouldn't announce company policy to my staff by posting a missive on Twitter.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    They knew they had employees who would attack them for the change either way. Being proactive seems pragmatic. It's also on brand for them, unlike a lot of other companies where it would seem strange for the founders to suddenly post a controversial blog post. Not commenting on the merits of the change, just how they communicated it.
  - chroma 5y ago
    Had it been a purely internal communication, it would have quickly leaked to the press. The press would then distort and misconstrue the info to make Basecamp look as controversial as possible. Better to get in front of that by having a polished public communication. Also Basecamp is a rather open company. Their employee handbook is on Github: https://github.com/basecamp/handbook https://github.com/basecamp/handbook
- zxzax 5y ago
  >but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning. You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities. That's why they're marginalized. Please don't use rude and emotionally loaded terms like "woke SJW" to label people and dismiss their concerns about the work environment. This is not the way to run an inclusive business, and using those words in that way suggests that you think it's somehow wrong of your employees to desire justice or to care about the experiences of marginalized individuals.
natchy 5y ago
So she admitted that political climate at work contributed to her emotional/medical leave? Sounds like she would be more fulfilled at a non-profit. Sounds like she was spinning her wheels doing things that don’t necessarily make the company money, was bound to have conflict with management.
noname123 5y ago
A tangential (but actually very relevant) question, "reading the room" here, I gather that many folks in tech responding to 'the open letter' referenced here are actually either libertarian, conservative, class-based progressive or just progressive but maybe critical of woke-ness/cancel culture. How do you guys deal with coworkers, friends and family who are (for a lack of a better word) very very woke or MAGA for that matter? I mean the obv. answer is just not engage or placate. But I've found doing so is intellectually dishonest and the implied feedback given to the activist (left or right) that their opinion is the prevailing opinion. I try to challenge their opinions logically and on their possible emotional biases; but as politics (along with sex and religion) is the third-rail of American polite conversations, I find it hit-or-miss. Would love to hear everybody else's $0.02! (And if you disagree with me if you a wokist or magaist, I'd love to hear your takes too!)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hpoe 5y ago
  So in my younger days I was way into politics talked about them all the time it was what I was focused on everything was about Fiscal or Monetary policy, the distribution of wealth, esoteric philosophies the whole 9 yards. Eventually I realized no one around me wanted to talk about it. Did some introspection and realized a lot of these issues are more complex than most people believe and most people didn't want to discuss them. So now whenever anyone tries to drag me into politics I respond with the most crazy and incoherent position I can think of and play it off for the laughs. Good ones include 1) Nuke the rainforest 2) Invade Canada 3) Elect the Pope as Hegemon of the world I find people usually laugh and stop talking about politics at that point. If those don't work start saying things like George Bush did 7/11 and Mark Zuckerberg is the Lizard illuminati but there is a secret society that controls the Illuminati as well call then Alluminati. So that's what I do.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
y3sh 5y ago
"Whether I will remain on medical leave after publishing this letter is entirely up to you". The statement is framed in sarcasm, but if this is really the case, don't leave it up to the employer -- when the workplace gets toxic to you, find the door.
howeyc 5y ago
So it seems the overriding tide right now is for workplaces to be more woke-aware? Increase tensions by discussing more politically hot topics at work. At least that's what I'm getting from the Silicon Valley type folks I follow on twitter. I think it's a mistake, they'll end up eating themselves in the long run. You may be a woke-leader now, but let's see what the next generation thinks of you in a decade. Why do you want to "out" your coworkers? Force compliant thought control of the people you have to see every-day. Seems like it's destined for huge amounts of resentment. Fearing for employment because of your opinions, yikes.
- hirundo 5y ago
  There's also a tide to make the workforce more geographical diverse, especially and famously (https://basecamp.com/books/remote https://basecamp.com/books/remote) at Basecamp. So companies are less likely to be restricted to Silicon Valley type folks unless hires are filtered by politics. Otherwise to be more geographically diverse implies becoming more ideologically diverse. Asking staff to largely separate politics from work is a rational reaction to that, a kind of social grease. A more diverse workforce needs more grease.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Seeking ideological heterogeneity is the truest and most desirable form of diversity. Kudos to Basecamp for recognizing that they can achieve this via geographical diversity. On the other hand, I've also seen this go the other way. Many larger tech companies like Google effectively enforce a one-size-fits-all set of company policies across all their locations. Effectively, the political culture of their headquarters is forced on all the satellite offices, squashing any potential for ideological diversity that may result from geographical diversity. In the end, I think it comes down to having the right leaders who genuinely value true diversity instead of just skin-deep diversity that is popular today.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Unfortunately the tech world somehow became hostile to rationality and everything is filled with emotion. I remember having political discussions in the past and I can still have conversations with dissenting people over a certain age; younger people seems to have lost the capacity to discuss. I think it's a generational issue, it's just that people who have been failed by the education system and by society (in the shape of psychologists' 10 parenting tips, divorces, working parents with 3 jobs, unstable families, being left out of the housing ladder), are reaching the age when they talk politics.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
There are many vague accusations in this article, but the core issue seems to be this: > Keen followers will recall that when our Use Restrictions Policy was first officially rolled out, neither hate speech nor harassment were included. One of my colleagues (who comes from a marginalized background) and I (an Asian American woman child of immigrants who had grown up poor) had debated vigorously for their inclusion, with David in writing while Jason gazed from the sidelines, intellectually making our case before ultimately being told: no. We won’t include them yet. Let them stay in the grey area. Let us stay silent. TL;DR: Basecamp decided not to explicitly include hate speech nor harassment in their use restrictions policy. It's not clear if there were specific customers using Basecamp to (project manage?) hate speech or harassment, though I suspect any specific cases would be alluded to if they existed. The author does suggest that they received customer questions asking if Basecamp supported "free speech": > we began seeing more customer support cases asking about whether Basecamp “discriminated” against its customers. Whether it supported “free speech”. Another Moral Quandaries case came up, one that proved to be the most challenging professional experience of my life — and I’ve worked in refugee camps before! The author managed to get hate speech and harassment added to the use restrictions policy eventually by sharing their personal experience of harassment: > Over the course of that 10-day Moral Quandaries case investigation and discussion, it became clear to me that the only way to move you two was to prostrate myself. To violate my own sense of personal privacy and list out in excruciating detail example after example of how I have experienced hate and harassment. So I did, and at the end, hate speech and harassment were added to the list. I have to say, after reading this rebuttal, I'm inclined to side with Basecamp. The amount of loathing this employee has for their employer is staggering, though it's not clear if the issues being debated actually related to real-world issues or were simply matters of principle. I can now see why Basecamp would take the steps they did.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I am glad to see companies not include content restrictions or vague "hate speech" policies that go beyond removing illegal content. These types of content policies at Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok, YouTube, Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. all end up simply silencing moderate and conservative voices, and it has even come down to banning books now (https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-wont-sell-books-framing-lgbtq-identities-as-mental-illnesses-11615511380 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-wont-sell-books-framing-...). Anything that is less than full commitment to progressive viewpoints is labeled as "hate". And given speech mostly lives on digital platforms these days, these "hate speech" policies erode the right to free speech we are intended to have. For example - do you think children should not be allowed to consent to life-changing medical procedures without parental consent? Hate speech. Do you think borders should be secured to prevent illegal immigrants? Hate speech. What about requiring voter ID? Hate speech. On the other hand do you think "All Cops Are Bastards" (ACAB)? Allowed. Do you think we should "eat the rich"? Allowed. What about adopting Marxist philosophies, which caused more than 100 million deaths in the 20th Century? Allowed. These examples paint an absurd picture but it's the reality of how digital platforms have been policing speech and shaping our society's opinions artificially, under the guise of these misguided content policies. Just because a US company is doing it, instead of a foreign state, doesn't lessen its impact - these actions amount to propaganda. As for Basecamp - given their promising letter and stance, I will be taking a look at their products and figuring out how to start using them to show my support for their pragmatism and rational sanity in an otherwise hostile world.
virtuous_signal 5y ago
>...Basecamp already represents a diversity of experiences and we want the company’s software and policies to do the same ... I think this is precisely the issue that guarantees we will forever have these discussions, whether or not a company bans political conversations. The software industry is simply much more left than the general population [1]. But rank and file employees ignore this, and assumes everyone else should hold the standard opinions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. So they pressure their company leaders, but the company leaders are obviously running a business, rinse and repeat. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bias-of-each-profession-2014-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi...
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  These charts seem to represent age (and to some degree, income and personal ethics) more than anything. Young people tend to be more progressive.
  - virtuous_signal 5y ago
    That could be true (although the case of 'academics' would seem to disprove it), but still wouldn't change the conclusion that at any given point in time, the majority of employees in X industry are liberal.
SrslyJosh 5y ago
> Keen followers will recall that when our Use Restrictions Policy was first officially rolled out, neither hate speech nor harassment were included. That's a huge red flag.
- the_local_host 5y ago
  A red flag indicating what?
  - etxm 5y ago
    That the company is OK with that kind of speech being on their platform.
    - etxm 5y ago
      Sorry for giving you a real answer to an actual stupid question. Can I have my karma point back please?
kybernetyk 5y ago
a bloo bloo bloo
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ecf 5y ago
> As you know, I am writing this while on medical leave from Basecamp, a condition that was necessary in large part because of the extreme emotional duress I have experienced as an employee at the company. Author, you aren’t an indentured servant to Basecamp. If you don’t enjoy the environment then take a little personal responsibility and find a place that makes you happy.
- melff 5y ago
  The author doesn't care about that, she wants to bully others into embracing her political/social believes. Assuming she has skills and isn't a risk to companies, just walking away and offering her valuable skills to some other workplace that shares her believes and makes her happy, would not only reward workplaces that do what she wants, it would be better for herself and her cause. She isn't a rational activist she's a bully. She doesn't want to take responsibility for herself. This kind of reminds me of "victim blaming" issue of people advising woman to not walk unarmed and alone at night trough dark, dodgy paths: feminists tend to see this as an idealistic statement ("you, woman, are the bad one for not behaving correctly"). instead of an pragmatic one ("you, woman, should not do X because it is dangerous for you"). Understanding this as the 2nd interpretation and taking the advice would require taking personal responsibility. They don't do that, they think in terms of how the world should be (men should not rape women, therefor I should be able to walk this path without fearing for my safety, if I walk this path it's not my fault if something happens to me) instead of how the world is (men do rape women, therefor I am not able to walk this path safely, it is my responsibility to decide whether or not this is worth the risk to me). Ps. don't conflate that is people who say this is how to world should be and women should be raped if walk trough the wrong street at the wrong time. That's a different thing.
gherkinnn 5y ago
What a confused rant. There might or might not be valid points buried in there, but it’s all too murky.
wskinner 5y ago
Regardless of one's personal opinion in this instance, the trend (if it is that) of companies explicitly stating their internal policies on politics in the workplace strikes me as a positive one. Clearly, some people want their work to be more than "just work". In a world where companies are explicit about their policies, those folks can find workplaces which better align with their values. And people who want work just to be work can do the same. After an initial period of adjustment, this seems like it could result in better outcomes for everyone involved.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  I disagree. This ideological segregations sounds absolutely terrible and it reminds me of the racial segregation narrative which is being pushed on under the guise of providing "safe spaces". I would prefer people in society to be able to handle a political discussion without freaking out, calling each other names, involving HR or burning buildings down.
  - drewbug01 5y ago
    > I would prefer people in society to be able to handle a political discussion without freaking out, calling each other names, involving HR or burning buildings down. Most people can. What we're starting to hear out of Basecamp is that the people who couldn't handle it were DHH and Jason, not the employees: https://twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/1386890595902267394 https://twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/1386890595902267394
    - wskinner 5y ago
      It may be the case that 1) the majority of Basecamp employees don’t want this level of political discussion at work and 2) the majority of Basecamp employees on Twitter do want it. Twitter skews young, Democratic, and more interested in politics compared to the broader population: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...
deadite 5y ago
If there was any doubt Basecamp made the right call on this, it is long gone.
chroma 5y ago
The political leanings of the author should not surprise anyone. From https://janeyang.org/resisting/ https://janeyang.org/resisting/ > Racist capitalism is poison that has weakened every facet of society and been used to “justify” horrific crimes against humanity while destroying our planet. We need massive power and wealth distribution enshrined in national and international policies. From https://janeyang.org/2021/04/13/im-getting-some-feedback/ https://janeyang.org/2021/04/13/im-getting-some-feedback/ > Guess who tends to beta spray? Men. White men, in particular. From https://janeyang.org/2021/03/18/live-forward/ https://janeyang.org/2021/03/18/live-forward/ > If you are white or a man, especially a cis-gendered heterosexual able-bodied white man, do the fucking work. Learn about the characteristics of white supremacy, push through your discomfort, and reflect on how you show up in the spaces you have power. Be ready to apologize when you screw up (we all do!) and then do better. And whatever you do: do not demand that your friends or colleagues or employees or neighbors or acquaintances who belong to historically marginalized groups explain to you all the ways you perpetuate harm and how society got here. Pay an anti-oppression professional for training and coaching; don’t expect us to get you up to speed for free. I understand why she's unhappy, but I bet most of her coworkers are thankful that Basecamp now discourages such discussions at work. I speak from experience when I say that dogmas (such as politics and religion) are poison for workplace productivity and happiness.
baggy_trough 5y ago
Anybody who writes this kind of letter is beyond salvaging as an employee. It's sad, but firing them is best for everyone.
tzs 5y ago
> The whispers of how you had handled a prior company discussion when someone raised the able-ist language in the title of a recently published company book Anyone happen to know what book?
- chroma 5y ago
  The title of the book is It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work.[1] At least one person criticized the title because "crazy" is apparently ableist.[2] 1. https://basecamp.com/books/calm https://basecamp.com/books/calm 2. https://twitter.com/brianarn/status/976869383225081857 https://twitter.com/brianarn/status/976869383225081857
  - analognoise 5y ago
    Just imagine how small your life has to be to object to the word "crazy" because it's "ableist". That kind of person is probably annoying when they're sitting alone and eating a muffin, let alone putting their thoughts on Twitter for the rest of us to be made dumber by.
  - ngc248 5y ago
    Dang, this is how crazy it has become. Looks like you can't say any word at all without it being some -ist
0101100101 5y ago
Author sounds like a complete nightmare to work with. I think all parties would be happier to part ways; no need to stay in a toxic relationship like that.
ydnaclementine 5y ago
>What would you say...you do here?
jokethrowaway 5y ago
This post proves exactly why you don't bring politics into your workplace. Even just mentioning banning politics in that letter brought tons of negative PR.
etxm 5y ago
I wonder why this post would be flagged on HN, but the post from David and Jason is not.
sneak 5y ago
It's not anti-woke to say that, as a hosting/SaaS company, you don't censor/ban any legal content that your customers put through the service. If you personally have a problem with the boundary between legal and illegal content, it seems that that should be taken up in your individual capacity with the existing democratic political process, not via pressure to your boss/manager/CEO.

From the post she linked: > Basecamp should be a place where employees can come to work with colleagues of all backgrounds and political convictions without having to deal with heavy political or societal debates unconnected to that work. I completely agree with this and it’s the kind of environment that I would prefer to work in.

TMWNN 5y ago

>Then the January 6, 2021 insurrection occurred and we began seeing more customer support cases asking about whether Basecamp “discriminated” against its customers. Whether it supported “free speech”. /r/suspiciousquotes

sascha_sl 5y ago
I don't think this is suspicious at all. Jan 6 was followed by a huge ban wave, even more people on the political fringe migrating to the so-called "alt-tech" (a term which is not just coincidentally similar to the "alt-right") and sites that do not really have clear stances or have been resistant to prioritize anti-harassment features and policies (for instance, Basecamp and Substack)

mushufasa 5y ago

I guess the unintended consequence of outlawing internal political discussions is that those discussions then become external...

chroma 5y ago
I am very much in favor of making political discussions external. It lets me see who the activists are so I can avoid hiring them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- etxm 5y ago
  The only thing that makes you sound like more of an asshole than this comment is that you actually have an anonymous account to be an asshole because you’re afraid of being recognized as an asshole (see this accounts bio). Just be an asshole if you want to be an asshole.
  - chroma 5y ago
    I wish I didn't have to use a pseudonym but you've shown why it's necessary. If I used my real name, is there any doubt that people such as yourself would try to ruin my life? I don't want to get anyone fired from their job or harassed by a mob outside their home. I simply don't want to hire them. The real assholes are the ones who proselytize their dogmas in the workplace. I wouldn't hire a devout Catholic who'd tried to convert coworkers at a previous job. The same goes for a Trump supporter who'd pushed their employer to donate to the NRA. Nor would I hire an activist who wants to un-blind resumes so that hiring can discriminate based on race and sex. I don't hire these people for a simple reason: No matter how good they are at their job, they cause more problems than they're worth.
    - etxm 5y ago
      Yes, I’m here to ruin your life. Not a hyperbolic statement at all, much like your definition of “activists.”

AlexandrB 5y ago

Previous discussion of the post this is responding to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26944192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26944192

sascha_sl 5y ago

Thanks for posting. I saw this happen on twitter, but the comments immediately derailed into the predictable culture war and never really drilled down to the specifics of why Basecamp choose to put this policy into effect. This makes it very clear.

aphextron 5y ago

Oh boy

stephc_int13 5y ago

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." This is classical us vs them rhetoric, and I don't like to be dragged into this trap, especially at a company level.

sascha_sl 5y ago
That's not the context of the article, "silencing" is used in the "actively silencing" sense. It's not about a bystander not getting involved.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  It is about talking politics at work. From what I understand. I strongly agree with Basecamp here.
  - sascha_sl 5y ago
    Discussing what the company's policy on hate speech, diversity and inclusion should be might be politics, but it's not the "spitting on MAGA hats" kind of politics people on twitter seem to think it is. I think it's work relevant. Gauging from votes, most people in this thread seem to see themselves more as mercenaries with no personal investment in their workplace (or they are not negatively affected by their lacking work culture, uh, privilege) than anything else, and that's fine, but don't assume someone wouldn't find personal fulfillment in making their workplace better.
    - stephc_int13 5y ago
      Would you refuse to work with a colleague because he voted for the other side? This is discrimination and this is obviously illegal, but this is a side effect of talking politics at work.
      - RhysU 5y ago
        I don't think this is a good idea but I don't see how it is illegal: "Alice, pick up the ticket for Bob." "No, Bob voted for X!" Then, sometime later, Alice is fined and/or sent to jail.

benjaminwootton 5y ago

I understand why Basecamp have made the decisions they have on this. As an entrepreneur and small business owner, I would be frankly terrified of hiring a woke SJW who wanted our business and all of our employees to become wholly dedicated to solving their pet causes. Solving large scale societal injustice would be great, but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning. It’s even worse with the ever present threat they would then breach NDAs and bring the raging Twitter mob to the door when they don’t get their own way. There are a million injustices in the world, but engaging and supporting them should be a personal decision. Keep that stuff away from the office.

scrollbar 5y ago
If I were worried about a raging Twitter mob I wouldn't announce company policy to my staff by posting a missive on Twitter.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  They knew they had employees who would attack them for the change either way. Being proactive seems pragmatic. It's also on brand for them, unlike a lot of other companies where it would seem strange for the founders to suddenly post a controversial blog post. Not commenting on the merits of the change, just how they communicated it.
- chroma 5y ago
  Had it been a purely internal communication, it would have quickly leaked to the press. The press would then distort and misconstrue the info to make Basecamp look as controversial as possible. Better to get in front of that by having a polished public communication. Also Basecamp is a rather open company. Their employee handbook is on Github: https://github.com/basecamp/handbook https://github.com/basecamp/handbook
zxzax 5y ago
>but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning. You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities. That's why they're marginalized. Please don't use rude and emotionally loaded terms like "woke SJW" to label people and dismiss their concerns about the work environment. This is not the way to run an inclusive business, and using those words in that way suggests that you think it's somehow wrong of your employees to desire justice or to care about the experiences of marginalized individuals.

natchy 5y ago

So she admitted that political climate at work contributed to her emotional/medical leave? Sounds like she would be more fulfilled at a non-profit. Sounds like she was spinning her wheels doing things that don’t necessarily make the company money, was bound to have conflict with management.

noname123 5y ago

A tangential (but actually very relevant) question, "reading the room" here, I gather that many folks in tech responding to 'the open letter' referenced here are actually either libertarian, conservative, class-based progressive or just progressive but maybe critical of woke-ness/cancel culture. How do you guys deal with coworkers, friends and family who are (for a lack of a better word) very very woke or MAGA for that matter? I mean the obv. answer is just not engage or placate. But I've found doing so is intellectually dishonest and the implied feedback given to the activist (left or right) that their opinion is the prevailing opinion. I try to challenge their opinions logically and on their possible emotional biases; but as politics (along with sex and religion) is the third-rail of American polite conversations, I find it hit-or-miss. Would love to hear everybody else's $0.02! (And if you disagree with me if you a wokist or magaist, I'd love to hear your takes too!)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hpoe 5y ago
So in my younger days I was way into politics talked about them all the time it was what I was focused on everything was about Fiscal or Monetary policy, the distribution of wealth, esoteric philosophies the whole 9 yards. Eventually I realized no one around me wanted to talk about it. Did some introspection and realized a lot of these issues are more complex than most people believe and most people didn't want to discuss them. So now whenever anyone tries to drag me into politics I respond with the most crazy and incoherent position I can think of and play it off for the laughs. Good ones include 1) Nuke the rainforest 2) Invade Canada 3) Elect the Pope as Hegemon of the world I find people usually laugh and stop talking about politics at that point. If those don't work start saying things like George Bush did 7/11 and Mark Zuckerberg is the Lizard illuminati but there is a secret society that controls the Illuminati as well call then Alluminati. So that's what I do.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago

y3sh 5y ago

"Whether I will remain on medical leave after publishing this letter is entirely up to you". The statement is framed in sarcasm, but if this is really the case, don't leave it up to the employer -- when the workplace gets toxic to you, find the door.

howeyc 5y ago

So it seems the overriding tide right now is for workplaces to be more woke-aware? Increase tensions by discussing more politically hot topics at work. At least that's what I'm getting from the Silicon Valley type folks I follow on twitter. I think it's a mistake, they'll end up eating themselves in the long run. You may be a woke-leader now, but let's see what the next generation thinks of you in a decade. Why do you want to "out" your coworkers? Force compliant thought control of the people you have to see every-day. Seems like it's destined for huge amounts of resentment. Fearing for employment because of your opinions, yikes.

hirundo 5y ago
There's also a tide to make the workforce more geographical diverse, especially and famously (https://basecamp.com/books/remote https://basecamp.com/books/remote) at Basecamp. So companies are less likely to be restricted to Silicon Valley type folks unless hires are filtered by politics. Otherwise to be more geographically diverse implies becoming more ideologically diverse. Asking staff to largely separate politics from work is a rational reaction to that, a kind of social grease. A more diverse workforce needs more grease.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Seeking ideological heterogeneity is the truest and most desirable form of diversity. Kudos to Basecamp for recognizing that they can achieve this via geographical diversity. On the other hand, I've also seen this go the other way. Many larger tech companies like Google effectively enforce a one-size-fits-all set of company policies across all their locations. Effectively, the political culture of their headquarters is forced on all the satellite offices, squashing any potential for ideological diversity that may result from geographical diversity. In the end, I think it comes down to having the right leaders who genuinely value true diversity instead of just skin-deep diversity that is popular today.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
Unfortunately the tech world somehow became hostile to rationality and everything is filled with emotion. I remember having political discussions in the past and I can still have conversations with dissenting people over a certain age; younger people seems to have lost the capacity to discuss. I think it's a generational issue, it's just that people who have been failed by the education system and by society (in the shape of psychologists' 10 parenting tips, divorces, working parents with 3 jobs, unstable families, being left out of the housing ladder), are reaching the age when they talk politics.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

There are many vague accusations in this article, but the core issue seems to be this: > Keen followers will recall that when our Use Restrictions Policy was first officially rolled out, neither hate speech nor harassment were included. One of my colleagues (who comes from a marginalized background) and I (an Asian American woman child of immigrants who had grown up poor) had debated vigorously for their inclusion, with David in writing while Jason gazed from the sidelines, intellectually making our case before ultimately being told: no. We won’t include them yet. Let them stay in the grey area. Let us stay silent. TL;DR: Basecamp decided not to explicitly include hate speech nor harassment in their use restrictions policy. It's not clear if there were specific customers using Basecamp to (project manage?) hate speech or harassment, though I suspect any specific cases would be alluded to if they existed. The author does suggest that they received customer questions asking if Basecamp supported "free speech": > we began seeing more customer support cases asking about whether Basecamp “discriminated” against its customers. Whether it supported “free speech”. Another Moral Quandaries case came up, one that proved to be the most challenging professional experience of my life — and I’ve worked in refugee camps before! The author managed to get hate speech and harassment added to the use restrictions policy eventually by sharing their personal experience of harassment: > Over the course of that 10-day Moral Quandaries case investigation and discussion, it became clear to me that the only way to move you two was to prostrate myself. To violate my own sense of personal privacy and list out in excruciating detail example after example of how I have experienced hate and harassment. So I did, and at the end, hate speech and harassment were added to the list. I have to say, after reading this rebuttal, I'm inclined to side with Basecamp. The amount of loathing this employee has for their employer is staggering, though it's not clear if the issues being debated actually related to real-world issues or were simply matters of principle. I can now see why Basecamp would take the steps they did.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I am glad to see companies not include content restrictions or vague "hate speech" policies that go beyond removing illegal content. These types of content policies at Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok, YouTube, Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. all end up simply silencing moderate and conservative voices, and it has even come down to banning books now (https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-wont-sell-books-framing-lgbtq-identities-as-mental-illnesses-11615511380 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-wont-sell-books-framing-...). Anything that is less than full commitment to progressive viewpoints is labeled as "hate". And given speech mostly lives on digital platforms these days, these "hate speech" policies erode the right to free speech we are intended to have. For example - do you think children should not be allowed to consent to life-changing medical procedures without parental consent? Hate speech. Do you think borders should be secured to prevent illegal immigrants? Hate speech. What about requiring voter ID? Hate speech. On the other hand do you think "All Cops Are Bastards" (ACAB)? Allowed. Do you think we should "eat the rich"? Allowed. What about adopting Marxist philosophies, which caused more than 100 million deaths in the 20th Century? Allowed. These examples paint an absurd picture but it's the reality of how digital platforms have been policing speech and shaping our society's opinions artificially, under the guise of these misguided content policies. Just because a US company is doing it, instead of a foreign state, doesn't lessen its impact - these actions amount to propaganda. As for Basecamp - given their promising letter and stance, I will be taking a look at their products and figuring out how to start using them to show my support for their pragmatism and rational sanity in an otherwise hostile world.

virtuous_signal 5y ago

>...Basecamp already represents a diversity of experiences and we want the company’s software and policies to do the same ... I think this is precisely the issue that guarantees we will forever have these discussions, whether or not a company bans political conversations. The software industry is simply much more left than the general population [1]. But rank and file employees ignore this, and assumes everyone else should hold the standard opinions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. So they pressure their company leaders, but the company leaders are obviously running a business, rinse and repeat. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bias-of-each-profession-2014-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi...

sascha_sl 5y ago
These charts seem to represent age (and to some degree, income and personal ethics) more than anything. Young people tend to be more progressive.
- virtuous_signal 5y ago
  That could be true (although the case of 'academics' would seem to disprove it), but still wouldn't change the conclusion that at any given point in time, the majority of employees in X industry are liberal.

SrslyJosh 5y ago

> Keen followers will recall that when our Use Restrictions Policy was first officially rolled out, neither hate speech nor harassment were included. That's a huge red flag.

the_local_host 5y ago
A red flag indicating what?
- etxm 5y ago
  That the company is OK with that kind of speech being on their platform.
  - etxm 5y ago
    Sorry for giving you a real answer to an actual stupid question. Can I have my karma point back please?

kybernetyk 5y ago

a bloo bloo bloo

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ecf 5y ago

> As you know, I am writing this while on medical leave from Basecamp, a condition that was necessary in large part because of the extreme emotional duress I have experienced as an employee at the company. Author, you aren’t an indentured servant to Basecamp. If you don’t enjoy the environment then take a little personal responsibility and find a place that makes you happy.

melff 5y ago
The author doesn't care about that, she wants to bully others into embracing her political/social believes. Assuming she has skills and isn't a risk to companies, just walking away and offering her valuable skills to some other workplace that shares her believes and makes her happy, would not only reward workplaces that do what she wants, it would be better for herself and her cause. She isn't a rational activist she's a bully. She doesn't want to take responsibility for herself. This kind of reminds me of "victim blaming" issue of people advising woman to not walk unarmed and alone at night trough dark, dodgy paths: feminists tend to see this as an idealistic statement ("you, woman, are the bad one for not behaving correctly"). instead of an pragmatic one ("you, woman, should not do X because it is dangerous for you"). Understanding this as the 2nd interpretation and taking the advice would require taking personal responsibility. They don't do that, they think in terms of how the world should be (men should not rape women, therefor I should be able to walk this path without fearing for my safety, if I walk this path it's not my fault if something happens to me) instead of how the world is (men do rape women, therefor I am not able to walk this path safely, it is my responsibility to decide whether or not this is worth the risk to me). Ps. don't conflate that is people who say this is how to world should be and women should be raped if walk trough the wrong street at the wrong time. That's a different thing.

gherkinnn 5y ago

What a confused rant. There might or might not be valid points buried in there, but it’s all too murky.

wskinner 5y ago

Regardless of one's personal opinion in this instance, the trend (if it is that) of companies explicitly stating their internal policies on politics in the workplace strikes me as a positive one. Clearly, some people want their work to be more than "just work". In a world where companies are explicit about their policies, those folks can find workplaces which better align with their values. And people who want work just to be work can do the same. After an initial period of adjustment, this seems like it could result in better outcomes for everyone involved.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
I disagree. This ideological segregations sounds absolutely terrible and it reminds me of the racial segregation narrative which is being pushed on under the guise of providing "safe spaces". I would prefer people in society to be able to handle a political discussion without freaking out, calling each other names, involving HR or burning buildings down.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  > I would prefer people in society to be able to handle a political discussion without freaking out, calling each other names, involving HR or burning buildings down. Most people can. What we're starting to hear out of Basecamp is that the people who couldn't handle it were DHH and Jason, not the employees: https://twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/1386890595902267394 https://twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/1386890595902267394
  - wskinner 5y ago
    It may be the case that 1) the majority of Basecamp employees don’t want this level of political discussion at work and 2) the majority of Basecamp employees on Twitter do want it. Twitter skews young, Democratic, and more interested in politics compared to the broader population: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...

deadite 5y ago

If there was any doubt Basecamp made the right call on this, it is long gone.

chroma 5y ago

The political leanings of the author should not surprise anyone. From https://janeyang.org/resisting/ https://janeyang.org/resisting/ > Racist capitalism is poison that has weakened every facet of society and been used to “justify” horrific crimes against humanity while destroying our planet. We need massive power and wealth distribution enshrined in national and international policies. From https://janeyang.org/2021/04/13/im-getting-some-feedback/ https://janeyang.org/2021/04/13/im-getting-some-feedback/ > Guess who tends to beta spray? Men. White men, in particular. From https://janeyang.org/2021/03/18/live-forward/ https://janeyang.org/2021/03/18/live-forward/ > If you are white or a man, especially a cis-gendered heterosexual able-bodied white man, do the fucking work. Learn about the characteristics of white supremacy, push through your discomfort, and reflect on how you show up in the spaces you have power. Be ready to apologize when you screw up (we all do!) and then do better. And whatever you do: do not demand that your friends or colleagues or employees or neighbors or acquaintances who belong to historically marginalized groups explain to you all the ways you perpetuate harm and how society got here. Pay an anti-oppression professional for training and coaching; don’t expect us to get you up to speed for free. I understand why she's unhappy, but I bet most of her coworkers are thankful that Basecamp now discourages such discussions at work. I speak from experience when I say that dogmas (such as politics and religion) are poison for workplace productivity and happiness.

baggy_trough 5y ago

Anybody who writes this kind of letter is beyond salvaging as an employee. It's sad, but firing them is best for everyone.

tzs 5y ago

> The whispers of how you had handled a prior company discussion when someone raised the able-ist language in the title of a recently published company book Anyone happen to know what book?

chroma 5y ago
The title of the book is It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work.[1] At least one person criticized the title because "crazy" is apparently ableist.[2] 1. https://basecamp.com/books/calm https://basecamp.com/books/calm 2. https://twitter.com/brianarn/status/976869383225081857 https://twitter.com/brianarn/status/976869383225081857
- analognoise 5y ago
  Just imagine how small your life has to be to object to the word "crazy" because it's "ableist". That kind of person is probably annoying when they're sitting alone and eating a muffin, let alone putting their thoughts on Twitter for the rest of us to be made dumber by.
- ngc248 5y ago
  Dang, this is how crazy it has become. Looks like you can't say any word at all without it being some -ist

0101100101 5y ago

Author sounds like a complete nightmare to work with. I think all parties would be happier to part ways; no need to stay in a toxic relationship like that.

ydnaclementine 5y ago

>What would you say...you do here?

jokethrowaway 5y ago

This post proves exactly why you don't bring politics into your workplace. Even just mentioning banning politics in that letter brought tons of negative PR.

etxm 5y ago

I wonder why this post would be flagged on HN, but the post from David and Jason is not.

sneak 5y ago

It's not anti-woke to say that, as a hosting/SaaS company, you don't censor/ban any legal content that your customers put through the service. If you personally have a problem with the boundary between legal and illegal content, it seems that that should be taken up in your individual capacity with the existing democratic political process, not via pressure to your boss/manager/CEO.