3 ms·

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 polit

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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
- zo1 12y ago
  They'd rather have you believe that voting with your wallet doesn't work. They would prefer that you think the only way to enact change is through coercive governmental power. It fits their world-view and pocket-book quite nicely.
- orochi235 12y ago
  There's a critical distinction between voting with your own wallet and launching an (anonymous) campaign to ensure someone never works again.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    What's the "critical distinction" between voting with your own wallet and trying to convince other people to vote with theirs too? Seems like it's just "vote with your wallet" plus "free speech".
    - orochi235 12y ago
      To be clear, I'm not trying to say this sort of action should be illegal. Just that I think it's tasteless, shortsighted, and somewhat hypocritical to do anonymously, given that it specifically targets an individual. Which is the other element of this that I find so abhorrent: it's one thing to target an idea, or campaign against someone running for public office. It's another to follow a private citizen around for the rest of his or her life, making demands of anyone who attempts to hire that person. It seems, well, vindictive. I think I mentioned above that I disagree with basically every decision Dr. Rice ever made while acting as a public official. The Iraq war was a huge disaster, and that was obvious before it even started. But there's a reason we have legal doctrines like qualified immunity: it's detrimental to a public official's ability to perform his or her duties if he or she has to view every decision as a question of personal liability. Upon further reflection, this isn't nearly as bad as last week's Mozilla witch hunt. You could probably make a legitimate argument in the context of privacy and government surveillance. But given the "success" of that purge, I'm worried that we'll be seeing three more of these campaigns every week. The fact that I've taken a karma beating for (completely earnest) posts I've made in this thread just reinforces my fear that we're becoming a community that finds it harder and harder to brook dissent. And I really thought the kind of person that reads HN was smart enough to see the inherent dangers in that. Thanks for not calling me an idiot this time. Really made my day.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

bronbron 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.

zo1 12y ago
They'd rather have you believe that voting with your wallet doesn't work. They would prefer that you think the only way to enact change is through coercive governmental power. It fits their world-view and pocket-book quite nicely.
orochi235 12y ago
There's a critical distinction between voting with your own wallet and launching an (anonymous) campaign to ensure someone never works again.
- mikeash 12y ago
  What's the "critical distinction" between voting with your own wallet and trying to convince other people to vote with theirs too? Seems like it's just "vote with your wallet" plus "free speech".
  - orochi235 12y ago
    To be clear, I'm not trying to say this sort of action should be illegal. Just that I think it's tasteless, shortsighted, and somewhat hypocritical to do anonymously, given that it specifically targets an individual. Which is the other element of this that I find so abhorrent: it's one thing to target an idea, or campaign against someone running for public office. It's another to follow a private citizen around for the rest of his or her life, making demands of anyone who attempts to hire that person. It seems, well, vindictive. I think I mentioned above that I disagree with basically every decision Dr. Rice ever made while acting as a public official. The Iraq war was a huge disaster, and that was obvious before it even started. But there's a reason we have legal doctrines like qualified immunity: it's detrimental to a public official's ability to perform his or her duties if he or she has to view every decision as a question of personal liability. Upon further reflection, this isn't nearly as bad as last week's Mozilla witch hunt. You could probably make a legitimate argument in the context of privacy and government surveillance. But given the "success" of that purge, I'm worried that we'll be seeing three more of these campaigns every week. The fact that I've taken a karma beating for (completely earnest) posts I've made in this thread just reinforces my fear that we're becoming a community that finds it harder and harder to brook dissent. And I really thought the kind of person that reads HN was smart enough to see the inherent dangers in that. Thanks for not calling me an idiot this time. Really made my day.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]