9 ms·

When will technology leaders step back and be just technology leaders instead of blabbering unrequested political opinions?

darthrupert 1y ago
When people stop reacting to them.
- lordkrandel 1y ago
  I doubt being silence makes bullies shut up. Generally, they show up in favorable environments, where the voice of reason is absent, and no adult is caring about what's going on in the room. But being just silence? Just makes them worse.
  - darthrupert 1y ago
    I'm not talking about the people who you think are "adults" (I assume you mean people whose opinions mostly matches yours), I mean everyone. They wouldn't talk about this if nobody was listening. And people wouldn't listen to them if they talked about things that are not problems.
    - lordkrandel 1y ago
      No, I don't really think so, people with power are listened to because they have power. Not because they say anything good or meaningful. Sometimes they speak hate. And even if you just don't listen, others may be listening, and will take you over. So, you really have to be aware of what people say. Pushing your hands against your ears won't save you.
      - darthrupert 1y ago
        One kind of pushing your hands against your ears is ignoring problems that other people are talking about when you're not comfortable with hearing about them.
        lordkrandel 1y ago
        Making immigration illegal, makes immigration a problem. Making immigration legal and pursuing integration makes immigration not a problem. That's why so many countries have problems with immigration: they don't integrate.
        bigyabai 1y ago
        Another form is being so insecure about your identity and politics that you can't talk about real-world problems anymore. DHH will never see the forest through the trees if he lives in fear of being called a Nazi by someone who can substantiate the claim.
srid 1y ago
> blabbering unrequested political opinions There is a politically-motivated open letter seeking to cancel him: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366312 | https://x.com/tobi/status/1970944464303923687 https://x.com/tobi/status/1970944464303923687 Instead of suggesting that DHH stay silent, your online verbal energy would be best directed towards the politicaly supporters of that open letter, wouldn't you say? Who do you think are the actual political agitaters in tech?
- lordkrandel 1y ago
  I think they are perfectly right. People have the right to disagree to the bad political opinions of the owner of a free software, and they're free to fork it. Racism is violence, and peaceful reaction to violence is disagreement, "agitation" as you call it.
  - ilikehurdles 1y ago
    “Racism” is not violence. Words are not violence. This kind of discourse is disgusting and only encourages people to physically attack others over words.
    - lordkrandel 1y ago
      Racism is violence. Words ARE violence. Sorry if you live in a country where this is not a legal truth, but here in Europe it is. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/... https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy
      - ilikehurdles 1y ago
        Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence, your first argument is that words are violence if the law says that words are violence! That’s not demonstrating an ability to reason. If the law says Allah (or any other figure) is the one true god, is that then true? Laws can be wrong. They can be passed by motivated actors seeking to protect their own power and policy. Free speech means protecting speech which is offense. You don’t need free speech protection for inoffensive speech. Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence to defend themselves against views they don’t like. This is catastrophic for liberal society.
rkomorn 1y ago
I think technology leaders are perfectly entitled to blabbering unrequested political opinions. They're just not entitled to their opinions being accepted without consequence just because they're technology leaders.

darthrupert 1y ago

When people stop reacting to them.

lordkrandel 1y ago
I doubt being silence makes bullies shut up. Generally, they show up in favorable environments, where the voice of reason is absent, and no adult is caring about what's going on in the room. But being just silence? Just makes them worse.
- darthrupert 1y ago
  I'm not talking about the people who you think are "adults" (I assume you mean people whose opinions mostly matches yours), I mean everyone. They wouldn't talk about this if nobody was listening. And people wouldn't listen to them if they talked about things that are not problems.
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    No, I don't really think so, people with power are listened to because they have power. Not because they say anything good or meaningful. Sometimes they speak hate. And even if you just don't listen, others may be listening, and will take you over. So, you really have to be aware of what people say. Pushing your hands against your ears won't save you.
    - darthrupert 1y ago
      One kind of pushing your hands against your ears is ignoring problems that other people are talking about when you're not comfortable with hearing about them.
      - lordkrandel 1y ago
        Making immigration illegal, makes immigration a problem. Making immigration legal and pursuing integration makes immigration not a problem. That's why so many countries have problems with immigration: they don't integrate.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        Another form is being so insecure about your identity and politics that you can't talk about real-world problems anymore. DHH will never see the forest through the trees if he lives in fear of being called a Nazi by someone who can substantiate the claim.

srid 1y ago

> blabbering unrequested political opinions There is a politically-motivated open letter seeking to cancel him: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366312 | https://x.com/tobi/status/1970944464303923687 https://x.com/tobi/status/1970944464303923687 Instead of suggesting that DHH stay silent, your online verbal energy would be best directed towards the politicaly supporters of that open letter, wouldn't you say? Who do you think are the actual political agitaters in tech?

lordkrandel 1y ago
I think they are perfectly right. People have the right to disagree to the bad political opinions of the owner of a free software, and they're free to fork it. Racism is violence, and peaceful reaction to violence is disagreement, "agitation" as you call it.
- ilikehurdles 1y ago
  “Racism” is not violence. Words are not violence. This kind of discourse is disgusting and only encourages people to physically attack others over words.
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    Racism is violence. Words ARE violence. Sorry if you live in a country where this is not a legal truth, but here in Europe it is. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/... https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy
    - ilikehurdles 1y ago
      Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence, your first argument is that words are violence if the law says that words are violence! That’s not demonstrating an ability to reason. If the law says Allah (or any other figure) is the one true god, is that then true? Laws can be wrong. They can be passed by motivated actors seeking to protect their own power and policy. Free speech means protecting speech which is offense. You don’t need free speech protection for inoffensive speech. Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence to defend themselves against views they don’t like. This is catastrophic for liberal society.

rkomorn 1y ago

I think technology leaders are perfectly entitled to blabbering unrequested political opinions. They're just not entitled to their opinions being accepted without consequence just because they're technology leaders.