6 ms·

> The tech industry is all politics all the time .. This is a comical generalization of an entire industry which spans beyond US.. I have worked in plenty on

> The tech industry is all politics all the time .. This is a comical generalization of an entire industry which spans beyond US.. I have worked in plenty on companies (big and small) where politics was simply left outside of business and everyone was fine with simply discussing the actual system design, infrastructure and data models. Employees were simply not permitted to attempt to convert others to Christianity or initiate flame wars regarding abortion laws. There is a time and a place for politics and a business setting is just not it. I think this is a great move by Basecamp and I hope more companies follow. At a minimum, their stance is now crystal clear and there will be high cohesion between employees and management.

vidarh 6y ago
System design is often inherently political as well. How do capture gender in the database? That's a political debate. Do you care that you can't correctly store 'foreign' names? Political. Do you offer Catalan too when you translate to Spanish? Political. Do you include disputed territories on your countries lists or allow people to enter 'other'? Political. Privacy protection? Political. Systems are shaped by political debate and in turn shapes it. Your decisions will have a political dimension whether or not you like it. And that is before considering all of the internal cultural and behavioural issues that are inherently political. As for Basecamp, I think they've set themselves up for further conflict and turmoil. If I was there and hadn't quit yet, I'd consider it now because such a huge departure will destabilize oth.the company and internal culture for a long time.
- kortilla 6y ago
  It sounds like you think all tech companies just make stuff for consumer websites. There are quite a few that don’t interact with global customers and literally never have to even discuss those things.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    I've worked across a wide range of companies in tech for 25 years, so no, I don't. But I've also yet to work for or with a single company where tech decisions were not inherently political. E.g. I had a contract to do a communications system to relay debug mapping data from an autonomous submersible. For a military research institute. It was inherently political because I had to consider if I was ok with working a project that might end up being used in armed conflict in the future my code certainly wouldn't). Or when I worked on code to maintain the quality documentation for a systems integrated that delivered backend systems for the police. I had no problems with that, but I might have if it'd been somewhere where the police had a worse reputation than in Norway where I did that job. I've worked on billing systems where we had to decide on anti-fraud measures. Sounds non-political, until you realise it often involves broad blocks that stereotypes behaviours based on factors that very easily ends up effectively profiling users. I could list many more. I've yet to work on a single software system where the higher level architecture did not involve consideration of political issues whether explicitly, or implicitly. I'm sure there are some, but I think there are far fewer than you imagine.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Do you consider a farmer’s decision to sell food to the public political since he could be feeding terrorists? Pencils can be used to write manifestos that result in countless deaths. Is the pencil manufacturer responsible for that? I worked for a company that had train control systems as a product. How do you suppose that was political? Do you think we should have spent more time considering that maybe we shouldn’t have been making trains safer because we could accidentally save the next Hitler?
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Parent offered since terrific examples. The least you could do is give an example of a company unaffected by politics. Frankly I'm skeptical of your line of reasoning but happy to entertain it.
    - katbyte 6y ago
      I don’t think they exist because even something as simple as “changing master to main” gets pushback because “political” It’s a name, it’s generally not hard to change, and if it makes someone happier why not main is shorter to type! But people still push back against it for.. reasons
      - goatinaboat 6y ago
        But people still push back against it for.. reasons It's pretty simple, actually Person A: We need to do thing X Person B: Why? Person A: Because I am morally superior to you, and I say so You really don't understand why person B would push back against tacitly accepting that they were the moral deficient? It's the same reason people dislike vegans who say "for moral reasons", they're asserting that everyone around them is immoral, and people find it obnoxious.
        katbyte 6y ago
        Im sorry but I really don’t follow. How is asking making any moral judgements? Your either reading into what people say and not handling your own discomfort very well or making assumptions on what person a would say? When this first came up I too asked why: “Because it reminds people of slavery which is still fresh in the minds of many and makes some uncomfortable” “Oh, Ok” changes it and moves on with her life Another way of looking at it is “why not?”
        goatinaboat 6y ago
        Because it reminds people of slavery which is still fresh in the minds of many and makes some uncomfortable Well, "main" is like "mainmast" of the sailing ships that brought the slaves over. See, once you start this game, it never ends. The master in "master branch" was never anything to do with slavery - and everyone knows it. No one in the world equated committing to master with endorsing slavery, but that is what you are accusing them of. Same as master bedroom and master's degree and mastering a skill and countless other examples. And why is "master" problematic but not "owner"? After all the common term was not "slavemaster" but "slaveowner" remember. Shall we do branch owners or code owners or file owners next? Another way of looking at it is “why not?” Why not leave it as it is then? Why step onto a never ending treadmill of arbitrary changes for change's sake? Anyway I'm not trying to convince you here (I get the feeling that that would be pointless) I am merely explaining to you the behaviour you have observed but don't understand the motivation for.
- bendbro 6y ago
  For all of those issues you can dryly resolve them by selecting whichever choice maximizes profit. By eliminating moralizers from its ranks, Basecamp can now make decisions that only consider profit.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    That would also be a political choice. And in many cases there isn't going to be a choice that maximises profit without taking into account the PR effect of choices, which again devolves into politics. The idea that any organisation can be apolitical is fundamentally flawed. At most you can enforce the (political) choice of pretending you're not political by shutting down discussion of it and leaving it exclusively in the hands of the executives and board. This appears to be the avenue Basecamp has taken. They are free to pretend that's an apolitical choice, and we're free to point out that it's bullshit.
    - bendbro 5y ago
      > That would also be a political choice Obviously, but that isn't my argument. My argument is that when you create a culture that approaches political decisions from a profit perspective, it is easier to make a profit. > And in many cases there isn't going to be a choice that maximises profit without taking into account the PR effect of choices, which again devolves into politics. This is wrong. You are conflating understanding a political position with believing in a political position. Understanding a political position doesn't require you to believe in it.
- Nimitz14 6y ago
  Common sense seems to be a rare quality these days. Obviously if it's necessary to do the job then you talk about politics.
- nthj 6y ago
  My team could professionally and empathetically discuss each of the issues you outlined, but that doesn't mean I raise discussions about whether voting for certain candidates is a case for the-end-justifies-the-means. I don't understand how a good-faith reading of an "activism on your own platforms" policy leads to "we can't discuss the data modeling for people's names anymore." This strikes me as a case of false equivalence.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    > I don't understand how a good-faith reading of an "activism on your own platforms" policy leads to "we can't discuss the data modeling for people's names anymore." This strikes me as a case of false equivalence. I suggest you read up on the politics of the use of names in the context of slavery in America as a starting point for understanding why names has a long history of being inherently political.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- throw123123123 6y ago
  I get the sense that people that want to make everything political would not enjoy the adversaries they would bring without company protection.

vidarh 6y ago

System design is often inherently political as well. How do capture gender in the database? That's a political debate. Do you care that you can't correctly store 'foreign' names? Political. Do you offer Catalan too when you translate to Spanish? Political. Do you include disputed territories on your countries lists or allow people to enter 'other'? Political. Privacy protection? Political. Systems are shaped by political debate and in turn shapes it. Your decisions will have a political dimension whether or not you like it. And that is before considering all of the internal cultural and behavioural issues that are inherently political. As for Basecamp, I think they've set themselves up for further conflict and turmoil. If I was there and hadn't quit yet, I'd consider it now because such a huge departure will destabilize oth.the company and internal culture for a long time.

kortilla 6y ago
It sounds like you think all tech companies just make stuff for consumer websites. There are quite a few that don’t interact with global customers and literally never have to even discuss those things.
- vidarh 6y ago
  I've worked across a wide range of companies in tech for 25 years, so no, I don't. But I've also yet to work for or with a single company where tech decisions were not inherently political. E.g. I had a contract to do a communications system to relay debug mapping data from an autonomous submersible. For a military research institute. It was inherently political because I had to consider if I was ok with working a project that might end up being used in armed conflict in the future my code certainly wouldn't). Or when I worked on code to maintain the quality documentation for a systems integrated that delivered backend systems for the police. I had no problems with that, but I might have if it'd been somewhere where the police had a worse reputation than in Norway where I did that job. I've worked on billing systems where we had to decide on anti-fraud measures. Sounds non-political, until you realise it often involves broad blocks that stereotypes behaviours based on factors that very easily ends up effectively profiling users. I could list many more. I've yet to work on a single software system where the higher level architecture did not involve consideration of political issues whether explicitly, or implicitly. I'm sure there are some, but I think there are far fewer than you imagine.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Do you consider a farmer’s decision to sell food to the public political since he could be feeding terrorists? Pencils can be used to write manifestos that result in countless deaths. Is the pencil manufacturer responsible for that? I worked for a company that had train control systems as a product. How do you suppose that was political? Do you think we should have spent more time considering that maybe we shouldn’t have been making trains safer because we could accidentally save the next Hitler?
- darkerside 6y ago
  Parent offered since terrific examples. The least you could do is give an example of a company unaffected by politics. Frankly I'm skeptical of your line of reasoning but happy to entertain it.
  - katbyte 6y ago
    I don’t think they exist because even something as simple as “changing master to main” gets pushback because “political” It’s a name, it’s generally not hard to change, and if it makes someone happier why not main is shorter to type! But people still push back against it for.. reasons
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      But people still push back against it for.. reasons It's pretty simple, actually Person A: We need to do thing X Person B: Why? Person A: Because I am morally superior to you, and I say so You really don't understand why person B would push back against tacitly accepting that they were the moral deficient? It's the same reason people dislike vegans who say "for moral reasons", they're asserting that everyone around them is immoral, and people find it obnoxious.
      - katbyte 6y ago
        Im sorry but I really don’t follow. How is asking making any moral judgements? Your either reading into what people say and not handling your own discomfort very well or making assumptions on what person a would say? When this first came up I too asked why: “Because it reminds people of slavery which is still fresh in the minds of many and makes some uncomfortable” “Oh, Ok” changes it and moves on with her life Another way of looking at it is “why not?”
        goatinaboat 6y ago
        Because it reminds people of slavery which is still fresh in the minds of many and makes some uncomfortable Well, "main" is like "mainmast" of the sailing ships that brought the slaves over. See, once you start this game, it never ends. The master in "master branch" was never anything to do with slavery - and everyone knows it. No one in the world equated committing to master with endorsing slavery, but that is what you are accusing them of. Same as master bedroom and master's degree and mastering a skill and countless other examples. And why is "master" problematic but not "owner"? After all the common term was not "slavemaster" but "slaveowner" remember. Shall we do branch owners or code owners or file owners next? Another way of looking at it is “why not?” Why not leave it as it is then? Why step onto a never ending treadmill of arbitrary changes for change's sake? Anyway I'm not trying to convince you here (I get the feeling that that would be pointless) I am merely explaining to you the behaviour you have observed but don't understand the motivation for.
bendbro 6y ago
For all of those issues you can dryly resolve them by selecting whichever choice maximizes profit. By eliminating moralizers from its ranks, Basecamp can now make decisions that only consider profit.
- vidarh 6y ago
  That would also be a political choice. And in many cases there isn't going to be a choice that maximises profit without taking into account the PR effect of choices, which again devolves into politics. The idea that any organisation can be apolitical is fundamentally flawed. At most you can enforce the (political) choice of pretending you're not political by shutting down discussion of it and leaving it exclusively in the hands of the executives and board. This appears to be the avenue Basecamp has taken. They are free to pretend that's an apolitical choice, and we're free to point out that it's bullshit.
  - bendbro 5y ago
    > That would also be a political choice Obviously, but that isn't my argument. My argument is that when you create a culture that approaches political decisions from a profit perspective, it is easier to make a profit. > And in many cases there isn't going to be a choice that maximises profit without taking into account the PR effect of choices, which again devolves into politics. This is wrong. You are conflating understanding a political position with believing in a political position. Understanding a political position doesn't require you to believe in it.
Nimitz14 6y ago
Common sense seems to be a rare quality these days. Obviously if it's necessary to do the job then you talk about politics.
nthj 6y ago
My team could professionally and empathetically discuss each of the issues you outlined, but that doesn't mean I raise discussions about whether voting for certain candidates is a case for the-end-justifies-the-means. I don't understand how a good-faith reading of an "activism on your own platforms" policy leads to "we can't discuss the data modeling for people's names anymore." This strikes me as a case of false equivalence.
- vidarh 6y ago
  > I don't understand how a good-faith reading of an "activism on your own platforms" policy leads to "we can't discuss the data modeling for people's names anymore." This strikes me as a case of false equivalence. I suggest you read up on the politics of the use of names in the context of slavery in America as a starting point for understanding why names has a long history of being inherently political.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
throw123123123 6y ago
I get the sense that people that want to make everything political would not enjoy the adversaries they would bring without company protection.