4 ms·

I interviewed at a non-profit that was not looked upon favorably by various big tech orgs. Microsoft had revoked their non-profit discount, Salesforce would not

I interviewed at a non-profit that was not looked upon favorably by various big tech orgs. Microsoft had revoked their non-profit discount, Salesforce would not renew their contract. This org was operating completely legally, just supporting causes disliked by these groups. We’ve seen the same with banks refusing to do business with people because of their political or social affiliations. These seem ridiculous. Of course a business should have the ability to choose who they affiliate with, but if all businesses disassociate simultaneously, what recourse does an individual or organization have? At the same time, who would want to hold accounts for organizations universally considered “bad”? When the label of “bad” changes at social media speed, who is safe?

Spivak 2y ago
I completely agree with everything said here, this really is the heart of it. And I think folks feel so strongly about the right to what is essentially blacklisting certain people and organizations because it is one of the few ways you can "hurt" someone in polite society. As strange as it is I think we lost something when dueling and other violent extrajudicial justice stopped really being a thing. I don't want it back certainly but there is something to be said for the mediating effect that if you piss off enough people they might drag you out of your house and beat you half or fully to death. Or say literally burn down your house or business. There's a very real asymmetry where when someone materially hurts you or your community and you don't have one of the means that society has deemed acceptable to "hit back" with you're just stuck having to put up with it.
- cafard 2y ago
  Extrajudicial justice tends to be more extrajudicial than just. > literally burn down your house or business See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bom...

Spivak 2y ago

I completely agree with everything said here, this really is the heart of it. And I think folks feel so strongly about the right to what is essentially blacklisting certain people and organizations because it is one of the few ways you can "hurt" someone in polite society. As strange as it is I think we lost something when dueling and other violent extrajudicial justice stopped really being a thing. I don't want it back certainly but there is something to be said for the mediating effect that if you piss off enough people they might drag you out of your house and beat you half or fully to death. Or say literally burn down your house or business. There's a very real asymmetry where when someone materially hurts you or your community and you don't have one of the means that society has deemed acceptable to "hit back" with you're just stuck having to put up with it.

cafard 2y ago
Extrajudicial justice tends to be more extrajudicial than just. > literally burn down your house or business See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bom...