27 ms·

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with most of the opposition to Condi Rice wrt the illegal war, warrantless wiretaps, tor

by pvnick 13y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with most of the opposition to Condi Rice wrt the illegal war, warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. On the other hand, I threw a hissy fit over the opposition to Eich based on his beliefs. I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency. Anybody else feel conflicted and have some insight? I'm still probably going to cancel my Dropbox membership simply because I have free 100gigs google drive that I got when I bought my chromebook [1] and this gives me a great excuse to transfer over and save some money. But I don't know that I can go on the same kind of crusade for which I faulted the Eich lynch mob. [1] Free 100 gigs google drive when you buy a chromebook, which if you install crouton makes for a cheap, decently powerful linux machine (great deal!). I recommend the hp chromebook 14 with 4 gigs ram since it comes with free 200mb 4G tmobile internet every month for life.

JasonFruit 13y ago
If you cancel your Dropbox membership now, you will affect their measurements as though you're doing it in response to this kerfuffle. I'm in exactly the same position you are — I've found a better service, so I'm backing up my Dropbox stuff to it and letting Dropbox idle until this blows over. I don't want to encourage political and moral witch-hunts in tech (or other) companies.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - silvertonia 13y ago
    I think you misunderstood. It sounds like he's keeping his DropBox account active for a while until this blows over, then will actually cut it off.
- nollidge 13y ago
  So you're participating in the "witch-hunt", you just don't want it to seem like you are?
  - JasonFruit 13y ago
    No, my finding a better service is unrelated to Condoleezza Rice. Sorry if I wasn't crystal clear.
    - nollidge 13y ago
      Understood, sorry about that.
- arjie 13y ago
  Others are reporting that there is a box to state your reason when you close your account. You may be able to do exactly what you want without having another item on your to-do list (and without paying, if that's what you're doing). If you want to, that is. I'm not advocating anything.
  - scottydelta 13y ago
    But wouldnt it make sense if you cancel your membership now to show your protest against this?
vdaniuk 13y ago
Rice is much more evil then Eich, that's one reason for you. I just cant trust people running Dropbox anymore. Will they go in the board meeting, shake their hands with Rice and discuss business matters? That's not a kind of people I'd like to support. My 2c.
spktrthhrts 13y ago
There is a difference between Eich and Rice. Eich didn't torture and murder people.
- steve_benjamins 13y ago
  You are inferring that being in a US administration while US sanctioned murder and torture occurs, means that the leader therefore murdered and tortured people. Which puts Condi in a large group of people: nearly every member of a US administration in the last century. Edit: Jesus. A lot of people missed the point of what I said. All I did was argue the issue is more nuanced than "[Condi Rice] tortured and murdered people" My mistake for trying to broaden a Hacker News discussion.
  - ntakasaki 13y ago
    Oh please, the role was much much bigger than being part of an administration. And this isn't some stupid conspiracy theory, these are the outcome of senate committee investigations. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#Role_in_authorizing_use_of_controversial_interrogation_techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#Role_in_author... >Role in authorizing use of controversial interrogation techniques >A Senate Intelligence Committee reported that on July 17, 2002, Rice met with CIA director George Tenet to personally convey the Bush administration's approval of the proposed waterboarding of alleged Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. "Days after Dr Rice gave Mr Tenet her approval, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret August 1 memo."[62] >Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[63][64][65][66] war veterans,[67][68] intelligence officials,[69] military judges,[70] human rights organizations,[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder,[79] and many senior politicians, including U.S. President Barack Obama.[80] >In 2003 Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft met with the CIA again and were briefed on the use of waterboarding and other methods including week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity and the use of stress positions. The Senate report says that the Bush administration officials "reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy".[62] >The Senate report also "suggests Miss Rice played a more significant role than she acknowledged in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee submitted in the autumn."[62] At that time, she had acknowledged attending meetings to discuss the CIA interrogations, but she claimed that she could not recall the details, and she "omitted her direct role in approving the programme in her written statement to the committee."[81]
eigenvalue 13y ago
It seems to me that there is a big difference between making a modest financial contribution to a bad cause, versus being a primary actor in furtherance of bad causes. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, it's like comparing a high ranking party member to someone who voted for the dictator and went to some rallies. Both are bad, but only one results in war crime tribunals.
jtreminio 13y ago
One person wanted to rob people of their right to marry whom they wish; the other person helped lead the push to a war that has killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. You make the call.
Taylorious 13y ago
I feel similarly, I'm just not sure where I draw the line because it makes me feel like a hypocrite. I see a lot of people on HN criticizing the Obama administration for drones, NSA, Guantanamo, etc., but how many of them have stopped using tech companies whose leadership contributed large amounts of money to Obama's campaigns? I can't help but feel like there is a something deeper resonating with people when it comes to this Condi issue. I'm guessing if Hilary Clinton quit tomorrow and joined DigitalOcean,the people up in arms about this wouldn't be outraged.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  Well, it's actually quite simple some people want to turn Silicon Valley into an arm of their preferred political party. Oh, they don't want that outright, certainly, but they certainly want it and everyone in it to be aligned with the party's principles, especially at the leadership level.
  - nickff 13y ago
    The extent of black-listing is quite remarkable; especially for a group of people so emphatic in describing themselves as 'tolerant'.
    - pyronite 13y ago
      Believing in legal tolerance (most people who are described as "tolerant"/socially liberal) is not the same as believing you cannot say anything negative about someone or make judgments based on their actions and beliefs.
      - nickff 13y ago
        I find it difficult to explain how it is permissible to fire someone for campaigning against gay marriage, but not permissible to fire them for being gay and married, or being from an opposing political party, or any other personal reason. Could you please explain the principled distinction for this dichotomy?
adnam 13y ago
Unlike Eich, Rice went far beyond simply holding beliefs and making donations. She held real power and used it in unconscionable ways. Given the current climate, I find it incredible that a cloud storage company would be involved with someone who actually wiretapped members of the UN Security Council. It's almost like they're saying "thanks for all the data, oh and f* you".
- mokus 13y ago
  This is the key point. The things she is being called out on are things that actually relate to her trustworthiness in the position she has entered, and as a cloud service provider trust should be very important to Dropbox.
  - dasil003 13y ago
    Although I agree Rice's actions were much more direct, extensive, and much worse than Eich's by any measure, I don't agree that equal rights are necessarily less relevant to the leadership of Mozilla than neocon government overreach shenanigans is relevant to data privacy at Dropbox.
- rmc 13y ago
  Yeah, Eich donated $1,000 to a campaign. Rice ran the campaign.
  - boondox 13y ago
    Touché...
  - thwest 13y ago
    Would there have been a campaign to run without donors?
  - baddox 13y ago
    And one campaign was to deny a group the legal right to marry, while the other was to kill thousands of people. Neither is particularly wholesome, but I think there is a difference in scale.
nice1 13y ago
It is a matter of judgement. On the one hand you have a guy donating to what he feels is a good/rational cause. On the other we have one complicit in war crimes and squandering America's wealth for a generation. I have no problem making up my own mind.
orblivion 13y ago
Funny I feel the opposite way. I (barely) decided the opposition to Eich was okay because of the nature of Mozilla as a company, and the progressive culture around it. (I'm not a progressive myself, which is why I was iffy about it). But if it's any other organization, I decided, it actually starts to become bullying.
- pohl 13y ago
  That's the perfect meme to consolidate power at the top. First we get the Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC rulings, making money "free expression" for the rich. And now we associate the Little Guy's "free expression" with their meager consumer dollars with "bullying", "witch hunts", etc... Bravo, I say. Machiavellian!
  - orblivion 13y ago
    If there's Machiavellian here it's not me. I'm just a dude trying to keep things in perspective in a sea of passion and fanaticism. I'm not a conservative either, in case that's what you inferred; I'm a libertarian. I don't care much for the Bush administration either. Perhaps I just didn't pay enough attention to what Condi had to do with the war to have the same negative passion about her. I'm quite fond of boycotts. I'm just afraid that the passions will get to the point where boycotts are used to imply that a difference in opinion is unacceptable. I don't have a huge problem with boycotting Condi per se, that's just fine. I'm just afraid of the swell of power of the mob mentality over people's thinking. If this is really about the big guy vs the little guy (or gal, here), are you ready to protest if Eric Holder joins the board of Dropbox? If you are, then I can get behind it. EDIT: I would cite Jon Stewart, I suppose, at the big speech at the end of his rally a few years back. His point is that we all get things done outside of Washington. Sure, we may disagree a lot and our disagreements may be a fundamental threat to each other. However if we let that decide who we engage in commerce with, we lose out on a lot of the benefits of commerce, and it doesn't really solve our differences anyway. I rather prefer boycotts over actions. Chick Fil A was a boycott (iirc) over a policy of the company. Even if it was in response to something that the president said, he's an acting president as he's saying it, a boycott there makes some sense. But it's not cut and dry. If Hitler joined the board of Dropbox I could probably get behind a boycott.
king_jester 13y ago
> I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with most of the opposition to Condi Rice wrt the illegal war, warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. On the other hand, I threw a hissy fit over the opposition to Eich based on his beliefs. I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency. The issue here isn't just about someone's personal beliefs. Eich and Rice both operate at very high levels within their organizations and that means they both have a leadership role and are representatives of those companies to the larger public. When people have a problem with those people's actions and point of view, they most certainly have a right to voice that disagreement. It is important to note that a personal belief which is discriminatory (Eich) does not make that belief legitimate. Why exactly should Eich be defended at all? Support of legalized discrimination against groups of people is morally reprehensible, even if you think marriage isn't that big of an issue. In the case of Rice, a track record of getting people tortured and killed is horrifying and this person should not be supported. When a business selects someone to join a C-level position or its board of directors, they are endorsing that person completely, including the unseemly things they do or endorse that do not directly relate to the company. You can't separate the two, a company is empowering a person to a degree when they get that position and that is a form of direct support of that person.
- facepalm 13y ago
  Gay marriage really isn't such an obvious case. Marriage means subventions by the government. So I suppose you could argue that the subventions are really for promoting families with the ultimate goal of having children. Even though gay families can adopt, you could argue that promoting gay marriage does not bring more children into the world. Not saying that is my opinion, or that marriage is currently perfectly designed for that goal (after all, childless couples can marry too and get some benefits). But I can understand if people feel "if I am paying for other people's marriage, I want to pay for more children being brought into the world in my country" - or something like that. Then I think it would be acceptable to oppose (gay) marriage on that ground. Just an example - I am not big on the theory of gay marriage, just saying that there can be reasons to oppose it. It's not a question of denying people the right to be together, but a question of what the community should pay for. From my European perspective it seems much less ethical to deny people health care (talk about basic human rights), yet I am sure many who support gay marriage are opposed to public health care for a variety of reasons (they don't want to live in a socialist country or whatever).
janj 13y ago
They can keep her on their board but it's our duty to react in ways that are consistent with our own personal values. My wife was recruited this morning for an HR position with Dropbox. We briefly imagined how exciting the opportunity might be but I quickly recoiled at the thought of her being so closely affiliated with a war criminal. It's their decision to have whomever they want on their board, it's our duty to respond appropriately.
orochi235 13y ago
I hated the Eich thing and I hate this too. Even if she has been wrong about basically everything she was ever put in charge of, this is not how we settle political disputes in a civil society. If you want to stop using Dropbox, fine. If you're a stakeholder in Dropbox, then you have a legitimate interest here. But no one else does.
- bronbron 13y ago
  > this is not how we settle political disputes in a civil society Um.. what? We don't settle political disputes in a civil society by boycotting entities who choose to associate with actors we believe are immoral? That's silly. I don't think it gets much more civil than this.
- jsutton 13y ago
  How would you settle political disputes like this in a civil manner? Doesn't get much better than withdrawing support for a product, at least for regular people.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Do you even know who the stakeholders are? Anyone who finished Entrepreneurship 101 will tell you the stakeholders include users, general public and various advocate groups. So yeah, stakeholders are making their voice heard.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Excuse me? Not doing business with companies who do things we dislike is exactly how we settle political disputes in a civil society. Seriously, what the hell is with all these idiots lately saying that we're not supposed to even vote with our wallets anymore? I apologize for my harsh language but I'm just so flabbergasted, and it's such a stupid thing to say that I think "idiots" is justified. Do you really think that we should limit the expression of our dissatisfaction to the ballot box and the internet comment box? Why shouldn't we change how we do business to make a point? The way some people react to this stuff, you'd think we were talking about assassinating political opponents, rather than criticizing them and taking our business elsewhere.
BobMarin 13y ago
I'm not sure It's the same thing. Eich was forced out on the grounds of his beliefs, yes, but people are condemning Dropbox because Rice is a filthy politician that was a part of a war mongering administration. Not the same. I'm definitely switching over from Dropbox. I was planning to do it anyway. I know this sounds bad but - the fact that I can't store illegal files just bugs me to no end. [1]MaidSafe is launching it's token sale (Safecoins) effort in 10 days and I will switch my business over to them completely. I know it's not as slick or developed as Dropbox but it's private, decentralized, anonymous and free(I know it sound ridiculous but that's what you get when you combine the concepts of a distributed systems network and Bitcoin) Not to mention that I have the chance of participating in something great as the possible birth of a decentralized and anonymous internet with a built in payment network. [1]https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers
rakoo 13y ago
I do see a difference. Eich's stance was (and is) personal, and I'm pretty sure it would have stayed that way. I would have kept using Firefox because of the Mozilla position on privacy and openness, and despite its CEO position. On the other hand, Dropbox is a private company. They don't stand for you, they stand for themselves. They are their own first priority. Having someone as important as Mrs Rice on board is certainly not something that will be beneficial to the public. If she's not there for the public but for Dropbox, then yes, we must fear the worst.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Eich's stance was (and is) personal, and I'm pretty sure it would have stayed that way I think that political contributions are (and should be) fundamentally public acts. You can think all the reprehensible things you want, but once you start materially supporting reprehensible campaigns, it's a different thing altogether.
  - rakoo 13y ago
    Totally agree with you, I must have made myself unclear: Eich is gay-unfriendly, Mozilla is not, and having Eich as a CEO wouldn't have changed Mozilla on this particular topic. Mozilla would have stayed open to everyone without any distinction. This is all I care about. (I also disagree with Eich's view on gays, but that's outside of the scope of this conversation)
  - arg01 13y ago
    I disagree mostly because counter culture is much easier for the powers that be to hinder if it needs to declare all it's activities.
podperson 13y ago
Clearly being an actual war criminal probably outweighs donating to prop 8, so there's that. In any event, I think your problem is you took the wrong position on Eich -- first, there was no "lynch mob" -- being denied a high profile, well-paid job as head of a non-profit is not the same as being lynched. Second, no-one forced Eich to donate to prop 8, and the outcome was quite foreseeable. Isn't a bit of judgment an important job skill for the CEO of a non-profit?
droopybuns 13y ago
I find this offensive and foolish. People should put more effort into holding their politicians accountable while they are in office- not for settling idealogical scores after they reenter private life. We the people have no one to blame but ourselves for this. It is the voter's fault that these people are able to flourish. If we don't take our civic responsibilities seriously, then these kinds of campaigns are petty and destructive. Americans that act in these kind of thought police exercises instead of actually investing in the system should be ASHAMED of themselves. Is what she did illegal? Nominate politicians that will instill FBI leaders who will prosecute crimes. WORK FOR IT. Don't just talk. You need to do more than vote.
- jaboutboul 13y ago
  smartest comment on this story.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  >Americans that act in these kind of thought police exercises instead of actually investing in the system should be ASHAMED of themselves. Is what she did illegal? Nominate politicians that will instill FBI leaders who will prosecute crimes. WORK FOR IT. Don't just talk. You need to do more than vote. Yeah, many of us did exactly that back in 2007/2008. We nominated and worked hard to promote and to get elected a politician we believed -- based on our candidate's deeply-persuasive statements -- who would be "different". We did much more than vote. We built amazing software systems for our candidate, went door-to-door in places that almost got us shot, worked 80 hour weeks at the grass roots level, and in some cases estranged ourselves from our families. And of course we voted for him. And look how things turned out. So don't go fucking blaming the victims here. Our political system is deeply flawed and heading toward a cliff -- with both parties at the helm.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"So don't go fucking blaming the victims here." Are you trying to imply that you are a victim, just because you naively believed that investing a great deal of power in another politician, who you thought was 'your man in Washington' would lead to better results? It is hard to be sympathetic to someone who pursued such poorly thought-out objectives. It is not the political system that was at fault; in fact, if anyone is to blame, it is all the conceited individuals who believed that the politician they picked would be 'better' than the 'opponents'.
dguaraglia 13y ago
There's a big difference between Eich, who comes from a technological background (he created JS, for crying out loud) and just happens to support policies I don't agree with, and Condoleezza Rice who comes from a majorly political background. I don't know, there's something that feels just wrong about having a political figurehead mixed in with a company that is (arguably) one of the success examples of Silicon Valley. It just... difficult to describe with words.
jsutton 13y ago
Consumer power is the only power most of us normal folks have. This is one of the best ways we can exercise it--by refusing to buy or use products that conflict with our moral or ethical codes.
facepalm 13y ago
I suppose everybody has to draw their own line. I feel differently about Eich because I think he just participated in a democratic process and he has an unpopular opinion. I can understand reasons to be against gay marriage (even though I am personally in favor of it). But it seems to me he always was honest and upfront. There is no reason for me to believe he would not accept a democratic vote pro gay marriage. I would have felt differently if I had seen any evidence of him being an actual homophobe. Rice seems to have gone far far wider than that (beyond democracy). But of course you could argue that she nevertheless remained true to her beliefs or whatever. So at the end of the day, it's a personal decision...
- aryastark 13y ago
  > participated in a democratic process and he has an unpopular opinion It may be unpopular in certain circles, but the majority of California first voted yes on Prop 22 and then again on Prop 8. Hard to get more mainstream than that. But then again, Bush won a 2nd term as well. I guess we can only conclude that democracy doesn't work because the masses are stupid.
naughtysriram 13y ago
Well then it's time people drop the box; after all its dropbox.
IvyMike 13y ago
Let me say up front, my politics and Rice's are at odds. But specifically to this issue, my views and Rice's views on privacy are diametrically opposed. When it comes down to it I simply do not trust her with my data. So it's not so much that I dislike her politics, it's that I think her decisions could have a direct impact on me as a customer. I know dropbox has terms and conditions on what they will do with my data, but once again, my take is that Rice has a history of weaseling out of those kind of things.
tomkarlo 13y ago
It's one thing to express and/or support a political view that others may disagree with, within the accepted bounds of our democratic process. (You can disagree with the viewpoint, but the act of making the donatio itself isn't illegal or immoral.) It's another thing to subvert our system of government via deception, surveillance and/or intimidation, either by taking action outside the bounds of legal limits, or working to redefine those limits to suit your own purposes. There's a fair argument that these two situations are not comparable, regardless of how you feel about Eich's donation.
Eliezer 13y ago
So my first thought looking at this was, "Companies in modern times are forced to pay dues of this type as a cost of doing business and not having the government randomly shut them down." In other words, that Dropbox doesn't have much of a choice in the modern business environment. Does anyone in a position to know, by which I mean that they've actually been in politics at the national level, care to tell me whether I'm right?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 13y ago
  I'm not in a position to know anything, but your question reminds me of the situation when I worked at Lucent in Asia years ago. There were various middle-manager/jr. exec types one would meet occasionally who were obviously useless and non-contributing, in that they had no direct reports and hadn't ever been on a project or sales effort. I was young and stupid so I would ask other people what was up. One time, I got an honest reply, from someone who looked over his shoulder first: "That guy? His uncle is the chair of some Senate committee. AT&T had him on the payroll so now we do. If you know what's good for you, don't ask about him again."
peterwwillis 13y ago
If there's verifiable facts that prove Rice has acted in an unethical way in her job, then it would be a bad decision to give her more power and responsibility. If, on the other hand, it's found only that she made decisions in good faith based on the information given to her, you can't really fault her in terms of her occupational duties. But there's a separate question to that, which is the moral ethics of a person who would do things (even in good faith) that they know will result in hurting others. Will Rice make decisions at Dropbox that she knows will hurt people, even if it's the right "business" decision? With regard to the warrantless wiretaps, it's clear that if there was an actual terrorist that she was trying to put in jail, a warrantless wiretap may help accomplish that goal. She would in effect be acting in good faith while trying to accomplish the goals of her job. But at the same time, she's violating someone's privacy and potentially violating the law. If a similar situation came up at Dropbox, where violating someone's privacy could help the business, would you still want that person employed?
mindslight 13y ago
A big difference is that Eich is a well-respected contributor to his organization who independently has an unpopular political viewpoint, and his actions only became notable in the context of Mozilla. Whereas Rice is known generally for her actions, has not been involved in creating Dropbox, and was most likely hired precisely for the skills that people despise. But I also think this backlash comes from people being reminded about the fundamental reality of Dropbox. It's always been a centralized technology with a controller that's free to do whatever it pleases with your data, either for their own gain or simply out of expediency - any sane hacker should have been recommending avoiding Dropbox and its ilk this whole time. Appointing someone who's directly associated with facilitating and justifying hostile acts reminds everyone of this inconvenient truth, which makes those in denial uncomfortable.
MartinCron 13y ago
I think it's really great how you're grappling with an internal political inconsistency. Most people (of all political stripes) aren't intellectually honest enough to do that.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
"But I don't know that I can go on the same kind of crusade for which I faulted the Eich lynch mob." This is so insanely hyperbolic I don't even know where to begin. We're now using the term "lynch mob" for a situation where people a) boycotted the product and b) wrote a lot of things about how what Brandon did was wrong and how he is the wrong choice for CEO. So, lynch mob, which means, "a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority" is used for a situation where there was zero violence, zero murder and everyone was perfectly within their legal rights. Want to reconsider? Furthermore, your use of "crusade" makes no sense either. The thing you described was you deleting your dropbox account. How is this anything other than a normal rational thing. I'm really worried that people now seem to view "people opposing an idea in a nonviolent way" as a lynch mob and deleting your account for a web service is a crusade. Isn't this just you exercising the same freedom of expression that you believe Brandon deserves but his opponents don't?
- humanrebar 13y ago
  "so insanely hyperbolic"
  - ryguytilidie 13y ago
    The litmus test for mental problems: throwing a tantrum about the word choices of a stranger on the internet. Hope you get those fixed!
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  For more on the historical and present-day usage of 'lynch mob': http://rarlindseysmash.com/posts/2013-03-19-you-have-no-idea-what-a-lynch-mob-is http://rarlindseysmash.com/posts/2013-03-19-you-have-no-idea...
- vacri 13y ago
  There is an irony in accusing someone else of hyperbole, but demanding that the literal interpretation of their terms be used.
  - deleted 13y ago
Florin_Andrei 13y ago
Rice did something of material, substantial consequence. People got killed because what she did. Eich had opinions based on mythology. And his impact on people's lives, in terms of health, security and happiness, was orders of magnitude less.
rbx 13y ago
Seeing the comparison to Eich is ridiculous tbh. Do I want to drink a beer with Eich? Looking at his donation record - no. Will his contribution improve the Mozilla product? Looking at his history as a technologist with Mozilla and JavaScript - probably yes. Do I want to drink a beer with Rice? Looking at her career history - no. Will her contribution improve Dropbox? Looking at her career history - can't imagine any positive effect, probably negative, especially in the privacy area. Definitely going to try some Dropbox alternatives now.
steven2012 13y ago
Of course you're being hypocritical. It's because you feel a lot stronger about the Iraq War than you do about gay marriage. Now put the shoe on the other foot. Think about all those people that feel as strongly about gay marriage as you do about the Iraq War. Their belief that they should protest against Mozilla doesn't feel that much different than your own protest, does it?
- harpyeagle 13y ago
  I'd like like to redirect you back to adnam's comment. > Unlike Eich, Rice went far beyond simply holding beliefs and making donations. She held real power and used it in unconscionable ways. All I can say is that personally I find Eich and Condoleezza to be worlds apart. Nor do I think it is hypocritical to feel stronger about the Iraq War than about gay marriage. People will have different priorities.
  - steven2012 13y ago
    The argument could be made that she was mislead by the CIA, just like Colin Powell was. I do agree that the Iraq War was a crime against humanity. Personally, I admire Rice, and don't think I would personally boycott Dropbox because of that choice. But I understand why some/many people would boycott Dropbox, and I don't think they're wrong to want to do so. The hypocrisy isn't in that the OP feels stronger about the Iraq War than gay marriage. The hypocrisy is because he thinks it's okay to boycott Dropbox because they chose someone for the Board of Directors that he disagrees with, but he thought it was wrong that people boycott Mozilla because they chose a CEO that they disagreed with.
    - ameen 13y ago
      Opposing gay marriages and killing people aren't the same, and the magnitude at which both of these events took place is also important. Prop 8 was a legal process, you could've successfully opposed it (and it was). But going to war isn't something the public could vote on. Also Eich's donation was $1000, Rice's War was several billions and massively haemorrhaged US Economy.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ripter 13y ago
I'm in the same boat. Other people have pointed out how she's done things far worse than Eich. But here is my reasoning. If you disagree with the board of a company and you want to stop using them, thats fine. Doesn't matter if it's Eich or Rice. Don't like them, stop using their products/services. What isn't right is personally attacking either of them. Don't like Rice, that fine, you can post a blog or say whatever you want. Crossing the line is harassing them and sending death threats. If the whole Eich thing would have stayed with people talking about how they don't like him, I wouldn't have a problem. When people started harassing him and it became popular to harass him it crossed the line. So far I haven't heard of anyone harassing Rice. (Maybe people do and they "disappear", I don't know.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rlu 13y ago
Are those free 100 gigs permanent or only for X amount of time? Microsoft has a similar program when you get a Surface 2, but the extra space only lasts for 2 years :\
nathas 13y ago
> I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency Politics vs Ethics. "I think marriage equality is politically correct" vs "I think someone who violated their own country's privacy law and had a hand invading a foreign country which resulted in the deaths of thousands shouldn't own my data". One is inherently a political issue - state-issue marriage licenses. States can say "yes this marriage is valid." The other is non-political, a bigger question of human-kind and what is always correct.
morgante 13y ago
I likewise supported Eich and oppose Rice. This is because it's a matter of looking at whether there's a conflict between their stated beliefs and the way I'd like their companies to be run. In Eich's case, he was opposed to marriage equality. While I disagree with him, this does not affect his work because (thankfully) private corporations don't issue marriage licenses. In Rice's case, she supports warrantless wiretaps. This attitude (that government requests can and should be responded to even if they lack warrants) is directly applicable to the decisions and policies she'll guide for Dropbox. My privacy will be directly compromised. It's a matter of applicability and impact, not politics.
DonGateley 13y ago
Be aware that with a Google Drive account you explicitly give Google unfettered access to all of your data to do with what they want.

by pvnick 13y ago

JasonFruit 13y ago

If you cancel your Dropbox membership now, you will affect their measurements as though you're doing it in response to this kerfuffle. I'm in exactly the same position you are — I've found a better service, so I'm backing up my Dropbox stuff to it and letting Dropbox idle until this blows over. I don't want to encourage political and moral witch-hunts in tech (or other) companies.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- silvertonia 13y ago
  I think you misunderstood. It sounds like he's keeping his DropBox account active for a while until this blows over, then will actually cut it off.
nollidge 13y ago
So you're participating in the "witch-hunt", you just don't want it to seem like you are?
- JasonFruit 13y ago
  No, my finding a better service is unrelated to Condoleezza Rice. Sorry if I wasn't crystal clear.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    Understood, sorry about that.
arjie 13y ago
Others are reporting that there is a box to state your reason when you close your account. You may be able to do exactly what you want without having another item on your to-do list (and without paying, if that's what you're doing). If you want to, that is. I'm not advocating anything.
- scottydelta 13y ago
  But wouldnt it make sense if you cancel your membership now to show your protest against this?

vdaniuk 13y ago

Rice is much more evil then Eich, that's one reason for you. I just cant trust people running Dropbox anymore. Will they go in the board meeting, shake their hands with Rice and discuss business matters? That's not a kind of people I'd like to support. My 2c.

spktrthhrts 13y ago

There is a difference between Eich and Rice. Eich didn't torture and murder people.

steve_benjamins 13y ago
You are inferring that being in a US administration while US sanctioned murder and torture occurs, means that the leader therefore murdered and tortured people. Which puts Condi in a large group of people: nearly every member of a US administration in the last century. Edit: Jesus. A lot of people missed the point of what I said. All I did was argue the issue is more nuanced than "[Condi Rice] tortured and murdered people" My mistake for trying to broaden a Hacker News discussion.
- ntakasaki 13y ago
  Oh please, the role was much much bigger than being part of an administration. And this isn't some stupid conspiracy theory, these are the outcome of senate committee investigations. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#Role_in_authorizing_use_of_controversial_interrogation_techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#Role_in_author... >Role in authorizing use of controversial interrogation techniques >A Senate Intelligence Committee reported that on July 17, 2002, Rice met with CIA director George Tenet to personally convey the Bush administration's approval of the proposed waterboarding of alleged Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. "Days after Dr Rice gave Mr Tenet her approval, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret August 1 memo."[62] >Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[63][64][65][66] war veterans,[67][68] intelligence officials,[69] military judges,[70] human rights organizations,[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder,[79] and many senior politicians, including U.S. President Barack Obama.[80] >In 2003 Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft met with the CIA again and were briefed on the use of waterboarding and other methods including week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity and the use of stress positions. The Senate report says that the Bush administration officials "reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy".[62] >The Senate report also "suggests Miss Rice played a more significant role than she acknowledged in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee submitted in the autumn."[62] At that time, she had acknowledged attending meetings to discuss the CIA interrogations, but she claimed that she could not recall the details, and she "omitted her direct role in approving the programme in her written statement to the committee."[81]

eigenvalue 13y ago

It seems to me that there is a big difference between making a modest financial contribution to a bad cause, versus being a primary actor in furtherance of bad causes. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, it's like comparing a high ranking party member to someone who voted for the dictator and went to some rallies. Both are bad, but only one results in war crime tribunals.

jtreminio 13y ago

One person wanted to rob people of their right to marry whom they wish; the other person helped lead the push to a war that has killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. You make the call.

Taylorious 13y ago

I feel similarly, I'm just not sure where I draw the line because it makes me feel like a hypocrite. I see a lot of people on HN criticizing the Obama administration for drones, NSA, Guantanamo, etc., but how many of them have stopped using tech companies whose leadership contributed large amounts of money to Obama's campaigns? I can't help but feel like there is a something deeper resonating with people when it comes to this Condi issue. I'm guessing if Hilary Clinton quit tomorrow and joined DigitalOcean,the people up in arms about this wouldn't be outraged.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
Well, it's actually quite simple some people want to turn Silicon Valley into an arm of their preferred political party. Oh, they don't want that outright, certainly, but they certainly want it and everyone in it to be aligned with the party's principles, especially at the leadership level.
- nickff 13y ago
  The extent of black-listing is quite remarkable; especially for a group of people so emphatic in describing themselves as 'tolerant'.
  - pyronite 13y ago
    Believing in legal tolerance (most people who are described as "tolerant"/socially liberal) is not the same as believing you cannot say anything negative about someone or make judgments based on their actions and beliefs.
    - nickff 13y ago
      I find it difficult to explain how it is permissible to fire someone for campaigning against gay marriage, but not permissible to fire them for being gay and married, or being from an opposing political party, or any other personal reason. Could you please explain the principled distinction for this dichotomy?

adnam 13y ago

Unlike Eich, Rice went far beyond simply holding beliefs and making donations. She held real power and used it in unconscionable ways. Given the current climate, I find it incredible that a cloud storage company would be involved with someone who actually wiretapped members of the UN Security Council. It's almost like they're saying "thanks for all the data, oh and f* you".

mokus 13y ago
This is the key point. The things she is being called out on are things that actually relate to her trustworthiness in the position she has entered, and as a cloud service provider trust should be very important to Dropbox.
- dasil003 13y ago
  Although I agree Rice's actions were much more direct, extensive, and much worse than Eich's by any measure, I don't agree that equal rights are necessarily less relevant to the leadership of Mozilla than neocon government overreach shenanigans is relevant to data privacy at Dropbox.
rmc 13y ago
Yeah, Eich donated $1,000 to a campaign. Rice ran the campaign.
- boondox 13y ago
  Touché...
- thwest 13y ago
  Would there have been a campaign to run without donors?
- baddox 13y ago
  And one campaign was to deny a group the legal right to marry, while the other was to kill thousands of people. Neither is particularly wholesome, but I think there is a difference in scale.

nice1 13y ago

It is a matter of judgement. On the one hand you have a guy donating to what he feels is a good/rational cause. On the other we have one complicit in war crimes and squandering America's wealth for a generation. I have no problem making up my own mind.

orblivion 13y ago

Funny I feel the opposite way. I (barely) decided the opposition to Eich was okay because of the nature of Mozilla as a company, and the progressive culture around it. (I'm not a progressive myself, which is why I was iffy about it). But if it's any other organization, I decided, it actually starts to become bullying.

pohl 13y ago
That's the perfect meme to consolidate power at the top. First we get the Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC rulings, making money "free expression" for the rich. And now we associate the Little Guy's "free expression" with their meager consumer dollars with "bullying", "witch hunts", etc... Bravo, I say. Machiavellian!
- orblivion 13y ago
  If there's Machiavellian here it's not me. I'm just a dude trying to keep things in perspective in a sea of passion and fanaticism. I'm not a conservative either, in case that's what you inferred; I'm a libertarian. I don't care much for the Bush administration either. Perhaps I just didn't pay enough attention to what Condi had to do with the war to have the same negative passion about her. I'm quite fond of boycotts. I'm just afraid that the passions will get to the point where boycotts are used to imply that a difference in opinion is unacceptable. I don't have a huge problem with boycotting Condi per se, that's just fine. I'm just afraid of the swell of power of the mob mentality over people's thinking. If this is really about the big guy vs the little guy (or gal, here), are you ready to protest if Eric Holder joins the board of Dropbox? If you are, then I can get behind it. EDIT: I would cite Jon Stewart, I suppose, at the big speech at the end of his rally a few years back. His point is that we all get things done outside of Washington. Sure, we may disagree a lot and our disagreements may be a fundamental threat to each other. However if we let that decide who we engage in commerce with, we lose out on a lot of the benefits of commerce, and it doesn't really solve our differences anyway. I rather prefer boycotts over actions. Chick Fil A was a boycott (iirc) over a policy of the company. Even if it was in response to something that the president said, he's an acting president as he's saying it, a boycott there makes some sense. But it's not cut and dry. If Hitler joined the board of Dropbox I could probably get behind a boycott.

king_jester 13y ago

> I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with most of the opposition to Condi Rice wrt the illegal war, warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. On the other hand, I threw a hissy fit over the opposition to Eich based on his beliefs. I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency. The issue here isn't just about someone's personal beliefs. Eich and Rice both operate at very high levels within their organizations and that means they both have a leadership role and are representatives of those companies to the larger public. When people have a problem with those people's actions and point of view, they most certainly have a right to voice that disagreement. It is important to note that a personal belief which is discriminatory (Eich) does not make that belief legitimate. Why exactly should Eich be defended at all? Support of legalized discrimination against groups of people is morally reprehensible, even if you think marriage isn't that big of an issue. In the case of Rice, a track record of getting people tortured and killed is horrifying and this person should not be supported. When a business selects someone to join a C-level position or its board of directors, they are endorsing that person completely, including the unseemly things they do or endorse that do not directly relate to the company. You can't separate the two, a company is empowering a person to a degree when they get that position and that is a form of direct support of that person.

facepalm 13y ago
Gay marriage really isn't such an obvious case. Marriage means subventions by the government. So I suppose you could argue that the subventions are really for promoting families with the ultimate goal of having children. Even though gay families can adopt, you could argue that promoting gay marriage does not bring more children into the world. Not saying that is my opinion, or that marriage is currently perfectly designed for that goal (after all, childless couples can marry too and get some benefits). But I can understand if people feel "if I am paying for other people's marriage, I want to pay for more children being brought into the world in my country" - or something like that. Then I think it would be acceptable to oppose (gay) marriage on that ground. Just an example - I am not big on the theory of gay marriage, just saying that there can be reasons to oppose it. It's not a question of denying people the right to be together, but a question of what the community should pay for. From my European perspective it seems much less ethical to deny people health care (talk about basic human rights), yet I am sure many who support gay marriage are opposed to public health care for a variety of reasons (they don't want to live in a socialist country or whatever).

janj 13y ago

They can keep her on their board but it's our duty to react in ways that are consistent with our own personal values. My wife was recruited this morning for an HR position with Dropbox. We briefly imagined how exciting the opportunity might be but I quickly recoiled at the thought of her being so closely affiliated with a war criminal. It's their decision to have whomever they want on their board, it's our duty to respond appropriately.

orochi235 13y ago

I hated the Eich thing and I hate this too. Even if she has been wrong about basically everything she was ever put in charge of, this is not how we settle political disputes in a civil society. If you want to stop using Dropbox, fine. If you're a stakeholder in Dropbox, then you have a legitimate interest here. But no one else does.

bronbron 13y ago
> this is not how we settle political disputes in a civil society Um.. what? We don't settle political disputes in a civil society by boycotting entities who choose to associate with actors we believe are immoral? That's silly. I don't think it gets much more civil than this.
jsutton 13y ago
How would you settle political disputes like this in a civil manner? Doesn't get much better than withdrawing support for a product, at least for regular people.
vdaniuk 13y ago
Do you even know who the stakeholders are? Anyone who finished Entrepreneurship 101 will tell you the stakeholders include users, general public and various advocate groups. So yeah, stakeholders are making their voice heard.
mikeash 13y ago
Excuse me? Not doing business with companies who do things we dislike is exactly how we settle political disputes in a civil society. Seriously, what the hell is with all these idiots lately saying that we're not supposed to even vote with our wallets anymore? I apologize for my harsh language but I'm just so flabbergasted, and it's such a stupid thing to say that I think "idiots" is justified. Do you really think that we should limit the expression of our dissatisfaction to the ballot box and the internet comment box? Why shouldn't we change how we do business to make a point? The way some people react to this stuff, you'd think we were talking about assassinating political opponents, rather than criticizing them and taking our business elsewhere.

BobMarin 13y ago

I'm not sure It's the same thing. Eich was forced out on the grounds of his beliefs, yes, but people are condemning Dropbox because Rice is a filthy politician that was a part of a war mongering administration. Not the same. I'm definitely switching over from Dropbox. I was planning to do it anyway. I know this sounds bad but - the fact that I can't store illegal files just bugs me to no end. [1]MaidSafe is launching it's token sale (Safecoins) effort in 10 days and I will switch my business over to them completely. I know it's not as slick or developed as Dropbox but it's private, decentralized, anonymous and free(I know it sound ridiculous but that's what you get when you combine the concepts of a distributed systems network and Bitcoin) Not to mention that I have the chance of participating in something great as the possible birth of a decentralized and anonymous internet with a built in payment network. [1]https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers

rakoo 13y ago

I do see a difference. Eich's stance was (and is) personal, and I'm pretty sure it would have stayed that way. I would have kept using Firefox because of the Mozilla position on privacy and openness, and despite its CEO position. On the other hand, Dropbox is a private company. They don't stand for you, they stand for themselves. They are their own first priority. Having someone as important as Mrs Rice on board is certainly not something that will be beneficial to the public. If she's not there for the public but for Dropbox, then yes, we must fear the worst.

MartinCron 13y ago
Eich's stance was (and is) personal, and I'm pretty sure it would have stayed that way I think that political contributions are (and should be) fundamentally public acts. You can think all the reprehensible things you want, but once you start materially supporting reprehensible campaigns, it's a different thing altogether.
- rakoo 13y ago
  Totally agree with you, I must have made myself unclear: Eich is gay-unfriendly, Mozilla is not, and having Eich as a CEO wouldn't have changed Mozilla on this particular topic. Mozilla would have stayed open to everyone without any distinction. This is all I care about. (I also disagree with Eich's view on gays, but that's outside of the scope of this conversation)
- arg01 13y ago
  I disagree mostly because counter culture is much easier for the powers that be to hinder if it needs to declare all it's activities.

podperson 13y ago

Clearly being an actual war criminal probably outweighs donating to prop 8, so there's that. In any event, I think your problem is you took the wrong position on Eich -- first, there was no "lynch mob" -- being denied a high profile, well-paid job as head of a non-profit is not the same as being lynched. Second, no-one forced Eich to donate to prop 8, and the outcome was quite foreseeable. Isn't a bit of judgment an important job skill for the CEO of a non-profit?

droopybuns 13y ago

I find this offensive and foolish. People should put more effort into holding their politicians accountable while they are in office- not for settling idealogical scores after they reenter private life. We the people have no one to blame but ourselves for this. It is the voter's fault that these people are able to flourish. If we don't take our civic responsibilities seriously, then these kinds of campaigns are petty and destructive. Americans that act in these kind of thought police exercises instead of actually investing in the system should be ASHAMED of themselves. Is what she did illegal? Nominate politicians that will instill FBI leaders who will prosecute crimes. WORK FOR IT. Don't just talk. You need to do more than vote.

jaboutboul 13y ago
smartest comment on this story.
jnbiche 13y ago
>Americans that act in these kind of thought police exercises instead of actually investing in the system should be ASHAMED of themselves. Is what she did illegal? Nominate politicians that will instill FBI leaders who will prosecute crimes. WORK FOR IT. Don't just talk. You need to do more than vote. Yeah, many of us did exactly that back in 2007/2008. We nominated and worked hard to promote and to get elected a politician we believed -- based on our candidate's deeply-persuasive statements -- who would be "different". We did much more than vote. We built amazing software systems for our candidate, went door-to-door in places that almost got us shot, worked 80 hour weeks at the grass roots level, and in some cases estranged ourselves from our families. And of course we voted for him. And look how things turned out. So don't go fucking blaming the victims here. Our political system is deeply flawed and heading toward a cliff -- with both parties at the helm.
- nickff 13y ago
  >"So don't go fucking blaming the victims here." Are you trying to imply that you are a victim, just because you naively believed that investing a great deal of power in another politician, who you thought was 'your man in Washington' would lead to better results? It is hard to be sympathetic to someone who pursued such poorly thought-out objectives. It is not the political system that was at fault; in fact, if anyone is to blame, it is all the conceited individuals who believed that the politician they picked would be 'better' than the 'opponents'.

dguaraglia 13y ago

There's a big difference between Eich, who comes from a technological background (he created JS, for crying out loud) and just happens to support policies I don't agree with, and Condoleezza Rice who comes from a majorly political background. I don't know, there's something that feels just wrong about having a political figurehead mixed in with a company that is (arguably) one of the success examples of Silicon Valley. It just... difficult to describe with words.

jsutton 13y ago

Consumer power is the only power most of us normal folks have. This is one of the best ways we can exercise it--by refusing to buy or use products that conflict with our moral or ethical codes.

facepalm 13y ago

I suppose everybody has to draw their own line. I feel differently about Eich because I think he just participated in a democratic process and he has an unpopular opinion. I can understand reasons to be against gay marriage (even though I am personally in favor of it). But it seems to me he always was honest and upfront. There is no reason for me to believe he would not accept a democratic vote pro gay marriage. I would have felt differently if I had seen any evidence of him being an actual homophobe. Rice seems to have gone far far wider than that (beyond democracy). But of course you could argue that she nevertheless remained true to her beliefs or whatever. So at the end of the day, it's a personal decision...

aryastark 13y ago
> participated in a democratic process and he has an unpopular opinion It may be unpopular in certain circles, but the majority of California first voted yes on Prop 22 and then again on Prop 8. Hard to get more mainstream than that. But then again, Bush won a 2nd term as well. I guess we can only conclude that democracy doesn't work because the masses are stupid.

naughtysriram 13y ago

Well then it's time people drop the box; after all its dropbox.

IvyMike 13y ago

Let me say up front, my politics and Rice's are at odds. But specifically to this issue, my views and Rice's views on privacy are diametrically opposed. When it comes down to it I simply do not trust her with my data. So it's not so much that I dislike her politics, it's that I think her decisions could have a direct impact on me as a customer. I know dropbox has terms and conditions on what they will do with my data, but once again, my take is that Rice has a history of weaseling out of those kind of things.

tomkarlo 13y ago

It's one thing to express and/or support a political view that others may disagree with, within the accepted bounds of our democratic process. (You can disagree with the viewpoint, but the act of making the donatio itself isn't illegal or immoral.) It's another thing to subvert our system of government via deception, surveillance and/or intimidation, either by taking action outside the bounds of legal limits, or working to redefine those limits to suit your own purposes. There's a fair argument that these two situations are not comparable, regardless of how you feel about Eich's donation.

Eliezer 13y ago

So my first thought looking at this was, "Companies in modern times are forced to pay dues of this type as a cost of doing business and not having the government randomly shut them down." In other words, that Dropbox doesn't have much of a choice in the modern business environment. Does anyone in a position to know, by which I mean that they've actually been in politics at the national level, care to tell me whether I'm right?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 13y ago
I'm not in a position to know anything, but your question reminds me of the situation when I worked at Lucent in Asia years ago. There were various middle-manager/jr. exec types one would meet occasionally who were obviously useless and non-contributing, in that they had no direct reports and hadn't ever been on a project or sales effort. I was young and stupid so I would ask other people what was up. One time, I got an honest reply, from someone who looked over his shoulder first: "That guy? His uncle is the chair of some Senate committee. AT&T had him on the payroll so now we do. If you know what's good for you, don't ask about him again."

peterwwillis 13y ago

If there's verifiable facts that prove Rice has acted in an unethical way in her job, then it would be a bad decision to give her more power and responsibility. If, on the other hand, it's found only that she made decisions in good faith based on the information given to her, you can't really fault her in terms of her occupational duties. But there's a separate question to that, which is the moral ethics of a person who would do things (even in good faith) that they know will result in hurting others. Will Rice make decisions at Dropbox that she knows will hurt people, even if it's the right "business" decision? With regard to the warrantless wiretaps, it's clear that if there was an actual terrorist that she was trying to put in jail, a warrantless wiretap may help accomplish that goal. She would in effect be acting in good faith while trying to accomplish the goals of her job. But at the same time, she's violating someone's privacy and potentially violating the law. If a similar situation came up at Dropbox, where violating someone's privacy could help the business, would you still want that person employed?

mindslight 13y ago

A big difference is that Eich is a well-respected contributor to his organization who independently has an unpopular political viewpoint, and his actions only became notable in the context of Mozilla. Whereas Rice is known generally for her actions, has not been involved in creating Dropbox, and was most likely hired precisely for the skills that people despise. But I also think this backlash comes from people being reminded about the fundamental reality of Dropbox. It's always been a centralized technology with a controller that's free to do whatever it pleases with your data, either for their own gain or simply out of expediency - any sane hacker should have been recommending avoiding Dropbox and its ilk this whole time. Appointing someone who's directly associated with facilitating and justifying hostile acts reminds everyone of this inconvenient truth, which makes those in denial uncomfortable.

MartinCron 13y ago

I think it's really great how you're grappling with an internal political inconsistency. Most people (of all political stripes) aren't intellectually honest enough to do that.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

"But I don't know that I can go on the same kind of crusade for which I faulted the Eich lynch mob." This is so insanely hyperbolic I don't even know where to begin. We're now using the term "lynch mob" for a situation where people a) boycotted the product and b) wrote a lot of things about how what Brandon did was wrong and how he is the wrong choice for CEO. So, lynch mob, which means, "a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority" is used for a situation where there was zero violence, zero murder and everyone was perfectly within their legal rights. Want to reconsider? Furthermore, your use of "crusade" makes no sense either. The thing you described was you deleting your dropbox account. How is this anything other than a normal rational thing. I'm really worried that people now seem to view "people opposing an idea in a nonviolent way" as a lynch mob and deleting your account for a web service is a crusade. Isn't this just you exercising the same freedom of expression that you believe Brandon deserves but his opponents don't?

humanrebar 13y ago
"so insanely hyperbolic"
- ryguytilidie 13y ago
  The litmus test for mental problems: throwing a tantrum about the word choices of a stranger on the internet. Hope you get those fixed!
steveklabnik 13y ago
For more on the historical and present-day usage of 'lynch mob': http://rarlindseysmash.com/posts/2013-03-19-you-have-no-idea-what-a-lynch-mob-is http://rarlindseysmash.com/posts/2013-03-19-you-have-no-idea...
vacri 13y ago
There is an irony in accusing someone else of hyperbole, but demanding that the literal interpretation of their terms be used.
- deleted 13y ago

Florin_Andrei 13y ago

Rice did something of material, substantial consequence. People got killed because what she did. Eich had opinions based on mythology. And his impact on people's lives, in terms of health, security and happiness, was orders of magnitude less.

rbx 13y ago

Seeing the comparison to Eich is ridiculous tbh. Do I want to drink a beer with Eich? Looking at his donation record - no. Will his contribution improve the Mozilla product? Looking at his history as a technologist with Mozilla and JavaScript - probably yes. Do I want to drink a beer with Rice? Looking at her career history - no. Will her contribution improve Dropbox? Looking at her career history - can't imagine any positive effect, probably negative, especially in the privacy area. Definitely going to try some Dropbox alternatives now.

steven2012 13y ago

Of course you're being hypocritical. It's because you feel a lot stronger about the Iraq War than you do about gay marriage. Now put the shoe on the other foot. Think about all those people that feel as strongly about gay marriage as you do about the Iraq War. Their belief that they should protest against Mozilla doesn't feel that much different than your own protest, does it?

harpyeagle 13y ago
I'd like like to redirect you back to adnam's comment. > Unlike Eich, Rice went far beyond simply holding beliefs and making donations. She held real power and used it in unconscionable ways. All I can say is that personally I find Eich and Condoleezza to be worlds apart. Nor do I think it is hypocritical to feel stronger about the Iraq War than about gay marriage. People will have different priorities.
- steven2012 13y ago
  The argument could be made that she was mislead by the CIA, just like Colin Powell was. I do agree that the Iraq War was a crime against humanity. Personally, I admire Rice, and don't think I would personally boycott Dropbox because of that choice. But I understand why some/many people would boycott Dropbox, and I don't think they're wrong to want to do so. The hypocrisy isn't in that the OP feels stronger about the Iraq War than gay marriage. The hypocrisy is because he thinks it's okay to boycott Dropbox because they chose someone for the Board of Directors that he disagrees with, but he thought it was wrong that people boycott Mozilla because they chose a CEO that they disagreed with.
  - ameen 13y ago
    Opposing gay marriages and killing people aren't the same, and the magnitude at which both of these events took place is also important. Prop 8 was a legal process, you could've successfully opposed it (and it was). But going to war isn't something the public could vote on. Also Eich's donation was $1000, Rice's War was several billions and massively haemorrhaged US Economy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ripter 13y ago

I'm in the same boat. Other people have pointed out how she's done things far worse than Eich. But here is my reasoning. If you disagree with the board of a company and you want to stop using them, thats fine. Doesn't matter if it's Eich or Rice. Don't like them, stop using their products/services. What isn't right is personally attacking either of them. Don't like Rice, that fine, you can post a blog or say whatever you want. Crossing the line is harassing them and sending death threats. If the whole Eich thing would have stayed with people talking about how they don't like him, I wouldn't have a problem. When people started harassing him and it became popular to harass him it crossed the line. So far I haven't heard of anyone harassing Rice. (Maybe people do and they "disappear", I don't know.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rlu 13y ago

Are those free 100 gigs permanent or only for X amount of time? Microsoft has a similar program when you get a Surface 2, but the extra space only lasts for 2 years :\

nathas 13y ago

> I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency Politics vs Ethics. "I think marriage equality is politically correct" vs "I think someone who violated their own country's privacy law and had a hand invading a foreign country which resulted in the deaths of thousands shouldn't own my data". One is inherently a political issue - state-issue marriage licenses. States can say "yes this marriage is valid." The other is non-political, a bigger question of human-kind and what is always correct.

morgante 13y ago

I likewise supported Eich and oppose Rice. This is because it's a matter of looking at whether there's a conflict between their stated beliefs and the way I'd like their companies to be run. In Eich's case, he was opposed to marriage equality. While I disagree with him, this does not affect his work because (thankfully) private corporations don't issue marriage licenses. In Rice's case, she supports warrantless wiretaps. This attitude (that government requests can and should be responded to even if they lack warrants) is directly applicable to the decisions and policies she'll guide for Dropbox. My privacy will be directly compromised. It's a matter of applicability and impact, not politics.

DonGateley 13y ago

Be aware that with a Google Drive account you explicitly give Google unfettered access to all of your data to do with what they want.