4 ms·

Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you? And no this is not an attempt to in anyway belittle what Nazi Ger

Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you? And no this is not an attempt to in anyway belittle what Nazi German did during WWII. Assuming the employee you are referring to has never been engaged in such acts, though, that feels like a very slippery slope.

mschild 1y ago
Part of being a Nazi means the sincere believe that the Aryan race is superior to all others and that eradicating them is a sensible goal. Thats not a political view. Its one of racism and finding genocide acceptable. I would sincerely hope that any sensible person would refuse to hire someone like this.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  The Azov brigade are not Aryan.
  - mschild 1y ago
    Not sure how they are involved in this discussion nor do I know their current ideology besides the media reports, but collaborators were/are not uncommon. Abraham Gancwajch, for example, seemed to have no issue with betraying his people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Gancwajch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Gancwajch
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      I was giving example of a non-Aryan Nazi body.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  I can't say that I have seen any party documents floating around, but I'll take your word for it here. A person having those views or beliefs still isn't a crime, acting on them is. A person in a workplace can have whatever views they want. Holding a view in no way prevents them from being able to do the work well. Its a different story if they cause a problem at work, but that is viewpoint agnostic - anyone starting political fights or worse at work is a problem.
  - hobs 1y ago
    Not hiring people who wish the majority of your employees death is a super low bar, you should try to make sure you can get over it. "How many people in the office do you view as vile subhumans who should be purged from the world because of how they were born?"
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      Not hiring people only for personal views they hold is just a weirs bar to set. Judge people by their fit for the role and their actions. Attempting to both uncover and judge a person's beliefs is a losing battle at best.
      - hobs 1y ago
        It is not a weird bar at all when the "personal view" here is being a Nazi. The action of believing in Nazism is actually a disbarring for any role of trust, integrity, or value in our society. Being a Nazi is not a protected status (yet) and you should expect to be fired immediately if you espoused those views anywhere, at all.
        wahnfrieden 1y ago
        (Just not when employed at Cloudflare.)
  - mschild 1y ago
    > I can't say that I have seen any party documents floating around There are quite literally millions of well recorded documents, pictures, movies, personal accounts of affected people available about what Nazism did and does. If you do need a place to start, feel free give the Wikipedia article a read and use the underlying sources to learn more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      The Nazi Party no longer exists and you're linking to ideology in Germany at the time. We could similarly link to pretty terrible political party views of Republicans or Democrats over our history. By no means am I defending Nazism here, I would take huge personal issue with any holding those views. That's entirely separate from the topic here though, and I don't agree with discriminating hiring processes based on political views regardless of what they are. If someone can go to work, get the job done, and be a net-positive member of the team I have no reason to act against them.
- godelski 1y ago
  Be careful with your reasoning. Remember that the current ruling party in America (as well as growing movement in Europe) is using the same rhetoric to go after liberals and trans people. The problem isn't that any sensible person supports genocide, it is that insensible people can get to power and trick normal people into thinking genocide is necessary or not happening at all. They do the former by saying "if we don't commit genocide then they will commit genocide against us". The problem is who gets to pick who is right and not? The problem is that if you limit the right to limit speech then good rulers won't abuse that power but evil ones will. It's because they are the ones who pick and choose. It's why you have to protect the rights of those you abhor. Because if you don't you build the powder keg of Turnkey Tyranny. Doesn't matter how many signs you put up, eventually someone will light a match. My accident or because they want to watch it burn. So yes, to protect those groups being persecuted (trans, minorities, and Jews alike) you need to protect the speech of abhorrent groups like Nazis. You don't have to like it. And you don't have to, and shouldn't, protect the actions of Nazis, but you do have to protect the speech. It's exactly why the ACLU has done this in the past because every authoritarian loves to use abhorrent characters to justify overreaching laws. We're on Hacker News for fuck's sake! How often have we seen the same play but replace "speech" with "encryption" and replace "Nazis" with "pedos and terrorists". It's the same stupid game!
  - kiitos 1y ago
    > The problem is who gets to pick who is right and not? we all do, collectively, as a society > So yes, to protect those groups being persecuted (trans, minorities, and Jews alike) you need to protect the speech of abhorrent groups like Nazis. there is actually a categorical difference between advocating the persecution of minorities, and advocating the persecution of nazis. and furthermore it is actually possible and good for a society to say one of these things is bad and should not be allowed, while the other one is good and should be allowed.
    - godelski 1y ago
      > we all do, collectively, as a society I agree. But at the same time do you not recognize that collectively, as a society, Nazis decided to attack Jews, trans, disabled, and others? It's not an easy game to play and I think that's what most people here are trying to convey. In the end very few people think they themselves are evil. > there is actually a categorical difference between advocating the persecution of minorities, and advocating the persecution of nazis. This line is clear to you, but think harder. Abstract just a little and you can see. You program so I am confident you can handle abstraction. (if you can't program, well you're probably on the wrong forum) Have you ever listened to the right wing talking points these days? I'm not saying you need to believe them, but "know your enemy". They are justifying their hate of minorities by making claims that those people are attacking them. They frame it as self-defense, not offense. It is absolutely critical to understand this, because that's how they have brought people to their side. It is the same way the Nazis did. But again, think carefully, were no one to actually act on said beliefs then how do you know? If you make a "preemptive strike" then you only empower their claims of acting in self-defense. Even if you can justify your "preemptive strike" as a self-defense measure too! I think you are oversimplifying the problem because you are relying far too much on the obviousness of Nazis being evil. But if you make that mistake you'll have missed the important lesson of how the Nazis gained power and got support from so many people. If you truly believe that evil is trivial to identify then you'll have to conclude that the entire country of Germany one day decided that they wanted to be evil and then the next day they didn't. The ability to flip such a switch would be gravely concerning in of itself, and if unique to Germany then should you not conclude that they should not exist because they have such capacity for evil? OR you can believe that things are more complicated. That evil creeps and infests. It disguises itself as good, tells you half lies so you have truth to found yourself on (even if that truth is distorted). That the road to Hell is paved by good intentions and that evil can be created by good men trying to do good things. This is an underlying philosophy to those that acknowledge Turnkey Tyranny. And I say acknowledge, not believe, because look around you. Do you not see these leaders abusing their authoritarian powers? Look at the origins of many of those powers, especially with Trump. They don't all come from right wingers who were playing some long game. He's exploited powers brought in by Biden, Obama, and Clinton, just as he's exploiting powers brought in by Bush, Bush, and Regan. Evil loves to convince people that everything is simple and evil is clearly identifiable. Why would it not? Do you really believe the snake isn't going to be a snake?
sneak 1y ago
Yes. Discrimination in hiring with regard to personal viewpoints (ie adult decisions, not built-in traits) is one of the best ways we have to shape society for the better. As private entities, we have freedom of association - including freedom to shun certain groups. Use it!
- ivell 1y ago
  Once we start that, we cannot control if it is going to shape the society for the better or worse. Should feminists be prevented from joining a company? How about pro-choice rights activists? And one persons better society would be totally different from the other person's better society. We should aim to reduce discrimination not encourage it for select causes.
  - godelski 1y ago
    For anyone not understanding this comment and similar ones try this for me: replace "speech" with "encryption" and "Nazis" with "pedos and terrorists". Here's the thing, authoritarians use abhorrent groups to justify authoritarian laws. It creates a power creep. Even well meaning rulers will push for more autocratic power with the justification that they can do more good with it. But unless you can place strong guarantees that no malicious ruler can come to power, you should evaluate powers as if they are the ones wielding it. It's the entire concept of Turnkey Tyranny. A thing we are actively watching being exploited in America and across Europe. Because you can't prevent a malicious ruler from gaining power in a free society, but you can greatly limit their ability to do harm. But this can't be done with myopia.
  - sneak 1y ago
    > Should feminists be prevented from joining a company? Depends on the views of those doing the hiring. Should you be allowed to not hire racists? You are literally arguing against freedom of association. We get to choose with whom we do business! That is our right, as well as the status quo today. I don’t hire smokers or ex cops, as I think they are unintelligent and assholes, respectively. If it were legal I would never hire a practicing theist or anyone ex-military, as they are signs to me of low intelligence and poor moral character. You have the right as a free person to discriminate against any non-protected group in service of your company and business. Someone’s opinions are fair game for evaluation. Think Windows is better than Linux on servers? Keep moving. Think being a culture warrior in the US is a prudent move? Same deal. All other things being equal, I prioritize people who have lived in multiple countries over people who haven’t. This necessarily means I am discriminating against those who have not. There are a million attributes we can use to make hiring decisions. It’s not only legal, it’s prudent.
DoctorOW 1y ago
> Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you? Would you put a Nazi and a Jewish person in a room every day (or on a Zoom call or whatever) and expect something productive to happen? Well, no. It's a ticking timebomb. If you have an organization with multiple employees, they'll have to be people who can work together. So as a workplace, you need to either rid your employees of their discriminating views or rid yourself of employees who cause problems.
- lan321 1y ago
  If they can be professional, yeah? I have diverse private interests that don't really get mixed with work. Don't see why my political interests should. I've worked with people I don't personally like. It's more tiring since there's less chit chat but the work gets done all the same.
  - 4ggr0 1y ago
    your private interests probably don't include the wish for your co-workers to be harmed, killed or at least treated like a lesser being.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      Is this fictitious Nazi working with a fictitious Jewish person acting on those views or discussing them at work? If not then why should their employer care, and why should we actually support the idea of workplace discrimination?
      - DoctorOW 1y ago
        > Is this fictitious Nazi working with a fictitious Jewish person acting on those views or discussing them at work? There's a reason I say "ticking time bomb" in my comment. Hypothetical Jewish person keeps kosher for instance. Is that "acting on" being Jewish at work? What about wearing a yarmulke? If that is, how do you rectify it? If you allow yarmulke, is a swastika armband okay? Both are clothing choices depicting "views".
array_key_first 1y ago
> Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you? Yes? Such a system already exists and is currently in place in virtually every country in the world. If I go online and trash talk anyone, that might prevent me from getting hired. Similarly, if I work someplace, and I call my boss a jackass, I might get fired! You're trying to invoke "political" as a sort of shield here. No, it's not just politics. Its called being an asshole. Assholes might be unemployable because that's how human socialization works. Have you met a Nazi that isn't an asshole? Because I haven't. So, there you go.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  > If I go online and trash talk anyone, that might prevent me from getting hired. > Similarly, if I work someplace, and I call my boss a jackass, I might get fired! Those examples have nothing to do with your specific political views. Both issues there are about how you engages with others and are a reasonable example of why you might cause problems on a team. The specific views you would have shared rudely have nothing to do with the actual problem at hand.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    > Those examples have nothing to do with your specific political views. Yes they do - as I've said, you can't invoke politics as a shield. You can be fired for your beliefs. Politics are a belief. So you can be fired for politics. If you're trying to say that you can just be an asshole in private - sure. If you share your political beliefs, it's no longer private. Most companies don't want to hire people they think are assholes. Ultimately, it's very simple human behavior. I don't want to work with people who suck. You don't either. Okay, so we must discriminate based on politics or other beliefs. Hiring, in it of itself, is just discriminating. We're discriminating based on skills, personality, beliefs, and fit. That's what hiring is. There's only a select couple of things we can't, or shouldn't, discriminate on. Politics isn't one of them. If you think black people need to be exterminated or whatever, there's no gun to my head making me hire you. No, I'm not gonna hire you.
wahnfrieden 1y ago
Yes. Naziism is terrorism. People lose their jobs for publicly supporting terrorism. The employee was self-proclaimed "Nazi" (including to quote, "I'm a nazi", posted publicly while working there) per views and advocacy. They also took over leadership of "GNAA" from Weev (a Nazi with Nazi tattoos etc.) while employed at Cloudflare (I won't type out what it stands for here)
- zahlman 1y ago
  Even Wikipedia does not describe that organization (I assume you don't mean the Greater Nashville Apartment Association...) as itself an extremist organization. (It is also described as defunct.) By its very nature, statements by its members (which you have not evidenced) cannot be taken at face value. Auernheimer's views are his own. The only identification I can find of a possibly other leader of the organization (who you have not named) leads to nothing that confirms any detail of your story - not the supposed Nazism of that person (assuming it's the right person), nor employment at Cloudflare, nor any knowledge on their part. In short, I can find no good reason to believe this.

mschild 1y ago

Part of being a Nazi means the sincere believe that the Aryan race is superior to all others and that eradicating them is a sensible goal. Thats not a political view. Its one of racism and finding genocide acceptable. I would sincerely hope that any sensible person would refuse to hire someone like this.

dotancohen 1y ago
The Azov brigade are not Aryan.
- mschild 1y ago
  Not sure how they are involved in this discussion nor do I know their current ideology besides the media reports, but collaborators were/are not uncommon. Abraham Gancwajch, for example, seemed to have no issue with betraying his people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Gancwajch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Gancwajch
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    I was giving example of a non-Aryan Nazi body.
_heimdall 1y ago
I can't say that I have seen any party documents floating around, but I'll take your word for it here. A person having those views or beliefs still isn't a crime, acting on them is. A person in a workplace can have whatever views they want. Holding a view in no way prevents them from being able to do the work well. Its a different story if they cause a problem at work, but that is viewpoint agnostic - anyone starting political fights or worse at work is a problem.
- hobs 1y ago
  Not hiring people who wish the majority of your employees death is a super low bar, you should try to make sure you can get over it. "How many people in the office do you view as vile subhumans who should be purged from the world because of how they were born?"
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    Not hiring people only for personal views they hold is just a weirs bar to set. Judge people by their fit for the role and their actions. Attempting to both uncover and judge a person's beliefs is a losing battle at best.
    - hobs 1y ago
      It is not a weird bar at all when the "personal view" here is being a Nazi. The action of believing in Nazism is actually a disbarring for any role of trust, integrity, or value in our society. Being a Nazi is not a protected status (yet) and you should expect to be fired immediately if you espoused those views anywhere, at all.
      - wahnfrieden 1y ago
        (Just not when employed at Cloudflare.)
- mschild 1y ago
  > I can't say that I have seen any party documents floating around There are quite literally millions of well recorded documents, pictures, movies, personal accounts of affected people available about what Nazism did and does. If you do need a place to start, feel free give the Wikipedia article a read and use the underlying sources to learn more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    The Nazi Party no longer exists and you're linking to ideology in Germany at the time. We could similarly link to pretty terrible political party views of Republicans or Democrats over our history. By no means am I defending Nazism here, I would take huge personal issue with any holding those views. That's entirely separate from the topic here though, and I don't agree with discriminating hiring processes based on political views regardless of what they are. If someone can go to work, get the job done, and be a net-positive member of the team I have no reason to act against them.
godelski 1y ago
Be careful with your reasoning. Remember that the current ruling party in America (as well as growing movement in Europe) is using the same rhetoric to go after liberals and trans people. The problem isn't that any sensible person supports genocide, it is that insensible people can get to power and trick normal people into thinking genocide is necessary or not happening at all. They do the former by saying "if we don't commit genocide then they will commit genocide against us". The problem is who gets to pick who is right and not? The problem is that if you limit the right to limit speech then good rulers won't abuse that power but evil ones will. It's because they are the ones who pick and choose. It's why you have to protect the rights of those you abhor. Because if you don't you build the powder keg of Turnkey Tyranny. Doesn't matter how many signs you put up, eventually someone will light a match. My accident or because they want to watch it burn. So yes, to protect those groups being persecuted (trans, minorities, and Jews alike) you need to protect the speech of abhorrent groups like Nazis. You don't have to like it. And you don't have to, and shouldn't, protect the actions of Nazis, but you do have to protect the speech. It's exactly why the ACLU has done this in the past because every authoritarian loves to use abhorrent characters to justify overreaching laws. We're on Hacker News for fuck's sake! How often have we seen the same play but replace "speech" with "encryption" and replace "Nazis" with "pedos and terrorists". It's the same stupid game!
- kiitos 1y ago
  > The problem is who gets to pick who is right and not? we all do, collectively, as a society > So yes, to protect those groups being persecuted (trans, minorities, and Jews alike) you need to protect the speech of abhorrent groups like Nazis. there is actually a categorical difference between advocating the persecution of minorities, and advocating the persecution of nazis. and furthermore it is actually possible and good for a society to say one of these things is bad and should not be allowed, while the other one is good and should be allowed.
  - godelski 1y ago
    > we all do, collectively, as a society I agree. But at the same time do you not recognize that collectively, as a society, Nazis decided to attack Jews, trans, disabled, and others? It's not an easy game to play and I think that's what most people here are trying to convey. In the end very few people think they themselves are evil. > there is actually a categorical difference between advocating the persecution of minorities, and advocating the persecution of nazis. This line is clear to you, but think harder. Abstract just a little and you can see. You program so I am confident you can handle abstraction. (if you can't program, well you're probably on the wrong forum) Have you ever listened to the right wing talking points these days? I'm not saying you need to believe them, but "know your enemy". They are justifying their hate of minorities by making claims that those people are attacking them. They frame it as self-defense, not offense. It is absolutely critical to understand this, because that's how they have brought people to their side. It is the same way the Nazis did. But again, think carefully, were no one to actually act on said beliefs then how do you know? If you make a "preemptive strike" then you only empower their claims of acting in self-defense. Even if you can justify your "preemptive strike" as a self-defense measure too! I think you are oversimplifying the problem because you are relying far too much on the obviousness of Nazis being evil. But if you make that mistake you'll have missed the important lesson of how the Nazis gained power and got support from so many people. If you truly believe that evil is trivial to identify then you'll have to conclude that the entire country of Germany one day decided that they wanted to be evil and then the next day they didn't. The ability to flip such a switch would be gravely concerning in of itself, and if unique to Germany then should you not conclude that they should not exist because they have such capacity for evil? OR you can believe that things are more complicated. That evil creeps and infests. It disguises itself as good, tells you half lies so you have truth to found yourself on (even if that truth is distorted). That the road to Hell is paved by good intentions and that evil can be created by good men trying to do good things. This is an underlying philosophy to those that acknowledge Turnkey Tyranny. And I say acknowledge, not believe, because look around you. Do you not see these leaders abusing their authoritarian powers? Look at the origins of many of those powers, especially with Trump. They don't all come from right wingers who were playing some long game. He's exploited powers brought in by Biden, Obama, and Clinton, just as he's exploiting powers brought in by Bush, Bush, and Regan. Evil loves to convince people that everything is simple and evil is clearly identifiable. Why would it not? Do you really believe the snake isn't going to be a snake?

sneak 1y ago

Yes. Discrimination in hiring with regard to personal viewpoints (ie adult decisions, not built-in traits) is one of the best ways we have to shape society for the better. As private entities, we have freedom of association - including freedom to shun certain groups. Use it!

ivell 1y ago
Once we start that, we cannot control if it is going to shape the society for the better or worse. Should feminists be prevented from joining a company? How about pro-choice rights activists? And one persons better society would be totally different from the other person's better society. We should aim to reduce discrimination not encourage it for select causes.
- godelski 1y ago
  For anyone not understanding this comment and similar ones try this for me: replace "speech" with "encryption" and "Nazis" with "pedos and terrorists". Here's the thing, authoritarians use abhorrent groups to justify authoritarian laws. It creates a power creep. Even well meaning rulers will push for more autocratic power with the justification that they can do more good with it. But unless you can place strong guarantees that no malicious ruler can come to power, you should evaluate powers as if they are the ones wielding it. It's the entire concept of Turnkey Tyranny. A thing we are actively watching being exploited in America and across Europe. Because you can't prevent a malicious ruler from gaining power in a free society, but you can greatly limit their ability to do harm. But this can't be done with myopia.
- sneak 1y ago
  > Should feminists be prevented from joining a company? Depends on the views of those doing the hiring. Should you be allowed to not hire racists? You are literally arguing against freedom of association. We get to choose with whom we do business! That is our right, as well as the status quo today. I don’t hire smokers or ex cops, as I think they are unintelligent and assholes, respectively. If it were legal I would never hire a practicing theist or anyone ex-military, as they are signs to me of low intelligence and poor moral character. You have the right as a free person to discriminate against any non-protected group in service of your company and business. Someone’s opinions are fair game for evaluation. Think Windows is better than Linux on servers? Keep moving. Think being a culture warrior in the US is a prudent move? Same deal. All other things being equal, I prioritize people who have lived in multiple countries over people who haven’t. This necessarily means I am discriminating against those who have not. There are a million attributes we can use to make hiring decisions. It’s not only legal, it’s prudent.

DoctorOW 1y ago

> Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you? Would you put a Nazi and a Jewish person in a room every day (or on a Zoom call or whatever) and expect something productive to happen? Well, no. It's a ticking timebomb. If you have an organization with multiple employees, they'll have to be people who can work together. So as a workplace, you need to either rid your employees of their discriminating views or rid yourself of employees who cause problems.

lan321 1y ago
If they can be professional, yeah? I have diverse private interests that don't really get mixed with work. Don't see why my political interests should. I've worked with people I don't personally like. It's more tiring since there's less chit chat but the work gets done all the same.
- 4ggr0 1y ago
  your private interests probably don't include the wish for your co-workers to be harmed, killed or at least treated like a lesser being.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    Is this fictitious Nazi working with a fictitious Jewish person acting on those views or discussing them at work? If not then why should their employer care, and why should we actually support the idea of workplace discrimination?
    - DoctorOW 1y ago
      > Is this fictitious Nazi working with a fictitious Jewish person acting on those views or discussing them at work? There's a reason I say "ticking time bomb" in my comment. Hypothetical Jewish person keeps kosher for instance. Is that "acting on" being Jewish at work? What about wearing a yarmulke? If that is, how do you rectify it? If you allow yarmulke, is a swastika armband okay? Both are clothing choices depicting "views".

array_key_first 1y ago

> Are you arguing for a system where employers consider your political views before hiring you? Yes? Such a system already exists and is currently in place in virtually every country in the world. If I go online and trash talk anyone, that might prevent me from getting hired. Similarly, if I work someplace, and I call my boss a jackass, I might get fired! You're trying to invoke "political" as a sort of shield here. No, it's not just politics. Its called being an asshole. Assholes might be unemployable because that's how human socialization works. Have you met a Nazi that isn't an asshole? Because I haven't. So, there you go.

_heimdall 1y ago
> If I go online and trash talk anyone, that might prevent me from getting hired. > Similarly, if I work someplace, and I call my boss a jackass, I might get fired! Those examples have nothing to do with your specific political views. Both issues there are about how you engages with others and are a reasonable example of why you might cause problems on a team. The specific views you would have shared rudely have nothing to do with the actual problem at hand.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  > Those examples have nothing to do with your specific political views. Yes they do - as I've said, you can't invoke politics as a shield. You can be fired for your beliefs. Politics are a belief. So you can be fired for politics. If you're trying to say that you can just be an asshole in private - sure. If you share your political beliefs, it's no longer private. Most companies don't want to hire people they think are assholes. Ultimately, it's very simple human behavior. I don't want to work with people who suck. You don't either. Okay, so we must discriminate based on politics or other beliefs. Hiring, in it of itself, is just discriminating. We're discriminating based on skills, personality, beliefs, and fit. That's what hiring is. There's only a select couple of things we can't, or shouldn't, discriminate on. Politics isn't one of them. If you think black people need to be exterminated or whatever, there's no gun to my head making me hire you. No, I'm not gonna hire you.

wahnfrieden 1y ago

Yes. Naziism is terrorism. People lose their jobs for publicly supporting terrorism. The employee was self-proclaimed "Nazi" (including to quote, "I'm a nazi", posted publicly while working there) per views and advocacy. They also took over leadership of "GNAA" from Weev (a Nazi with Nazi tattoos etc.) while employed at Cloudflare (I won't type out what it stands for here)

zahlman 1y ago
Even Wikipedia does not describe that organization (I assume you don't mean the Greater Nashville Apartment Association...) as itself an extremist organization. (It is also described as defunct.) By its very nature, statements by its members (which you have not evidenced) cannot be taken at face value. Auernheimer's views are his own. The only identification I can find of a possibly other leader of the organization (who you have not named) leads to nothing that confirms any detail of your story - not the supposed Nazism of that person (assuming it's the right person), nor employment at Cloudflare, nor any knowledge on their part. In short, I can find no good reason to believe this.