
Tech firms are departing from their see-no-evil stance on society and politics - martincmartin
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21716020-tech-firms-are-last-departing-their-see-no-evil-stance-society-and-politics
======
concinds
This _really_ has to be put in perspective.

You never saw Ford or GM campaign against the Iraq War. You never saw Wall
Street criticize the Patriot Act.

Some people call this activism, others would call it hysteria. Case in point:
many people, mostly in the Silicon Valley subculture, are calling Trump an
actual fascist, and saying that any CEO collaborating with him is just as evil
as him. Textbook definition of hysteria. The grassroots left has been
revitalized, but most Americans don't care much about Trump either way.

Now that's the big picture. Of course, immigration matters to people, and, in
a minor way, to Silicon Valley. But discourse has become so tinged with
emotion that corporations staying mum is now seen as evil, rather than
business as usual. This mob-mentality may be productive now, but isn't an
entirely positive development.

~~~
dave_sullivan
> many people, mostly in the Silicon Valley subculture, are calling Trump an
> actual fascist, and saying that any CEO collaborating with him is just as
> evil as him

I mean... how is Trump _not_ an actual fascist? What definition of fascism
does Trump not embody? I'm being serious--if he could actually wave a magic
wand and create the government/world he wanted, how would this government not
be a fascist government?

Consider this: Why are Hitler and Mussolini fascists, but not all dictators
are fascists? That's the definition of fascism. Now please tell me how that
doesn't fit the definition of the government Trump wants?

As far as CEO's collaborating with him being evil... Yeah, I would say working
for the Trump administration at this point is basically like working with
fascists in the 30s. Lots of people did. Many of those companies are still
around. People are people. But they're--rightly--not congratulated by history
for it. In fact, mostly history says, "They should have taken it more
seriously at the time when they had the chance."

This is one of those cases where if you're _not_ a fan of fascism, you should
be fighting Trump every chance you get. It's not hysteria at all; calling it
hysteria is in fact (mostly effective) propaganda.

~~~
concinds
> Consider this: Why are Hitler and Mussolini fascists, but not all dictators
> are fascists? That's the definition of fascism. Now please tell me how that
> doesn't fit the definition of the government Trump wants?

Here's what I can think of: Hitler and Mussolini wanted to create a "New Man",
unlike Hussein, Assad, and... Trump.

Trump isn't even a dictator yet, and may never become one. The biggest charge
you can make against him is that he's pro-oligarchy, and empowers nefarious
radical grassroots movements on the right. It may get a lot worse, but we're
not there yet, not even close. The real problem is in public opinion, i.e. how
to convince people on the right to care more about facts, and make better
voting decisions. But rejecting Trump wholesale isn't a solution to _that_
problem.

> As far as CEO's collaborating with him being evil... Yeah, I would say
> working for the Trump administration at this point is basically like working
> with fascists in the 30s.

We're not talking IBM-participating-in-the-Holocaust. We're talking left-wing
businessmen getting the president to listen to them about how to best create
manufacturing jobs. There's miles of difference between the two.

Edit: this article, "Nationalism is Rising, Not Fascism" is a great read.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-
is...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is-rising-
not_b_10281138.html)

~~~
dave_sullivan
> Hitler and Mussolini wanted to create a "New Man", unlike Hussein, Assad,
> and... Trump.

Interesting that you hone in on that; it's true but their views on "men being
more manly" do strangely reflect the alt-right and Trump. So yes, this is a
fascist-like concept; Trump holds it in spades.

> Trump isn't even a dictator yet, and may never become one.

Don't quit smoking until you're riddled with cancer?

> The biggest charge you can make against him is that he's pro-oligarchy, and
> empowers nefarious radical grassroots movements on the right.

No, that's not the biggest charge, but those are themselves rather strong
reasons to not want someone to be president. "He's a fascist" is the biggest
charge in my mind.

> The real problem is in public opinion, i.e. how to convince people on the
> right to care more about facts, and make better voting decisions. But
> rejecting Trump wholesale isn't a solution to that problem.

That is A real problem, I agree. It's also a separate (but related) problem.
The most acute problem is a fascist president (cancer), an uninformed public
is more like "smoking" (the environment the cancer needs to form).

> Edit: this article, "Nationalism is Rising, Not Fascism" is a great read.
> [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-
> is...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is..).

Thanks! I disagree though; Trump is very very much a fascist, not merely a
nationalist (we don't need any more of those either, btw)

------
appleiigs
I think tech firms were thrown into politics more so than other industries.
Tech has had to fight for privacy: PRISM/SOPA/PIPA; Apple vs FBI; Google in
China; even Blackberry vs middle eastern countries (if i recall correctly).

I bet they don't want to be involved, but have been thrown into it. It's
almost expected of them to say something to protect their brand.

If they made coffee like Starbucks, sure... no politics, no problem.

------
ars
I don't want any _publicly owned_ companies to get involved in politics, no
donations, no comments, no lobbying, nothing.

Just stay out of it.

If the CEO wants something that he feels is good for his company let him
donate personally.

Privately held companies can do what they want.

The reason I'm opposed is that the CEO is putting his opinion into the mouth
of his shareholders, who may or may not share his opinion. The shareholders
hire the CEO to decide things related to the company, but not political
things.

There are obviously gray areas like laws the impact the company directly, but
I think people can handle those case by case, with the general policy of stay
out of it.

~~~
dorkwagon
There's something to this, but it's also possible for shareholders to divest
from companies that don't share their political views (in the same way that
you can refuse to work for or buy from a company whose views you hate.)

~~~
ars
Not if you buy index funds you can't. And index funds are the best way to
invest.

~~~
bilbo0s
To be fair...

That's an opportunity for an ideology based index fund.

Of course, having said that...

I'm not sanguine about the relative performance of such an instrument.

~~~
MereInterest
I would be surprised if it did as well monetarily standard index funds, though
that would be rather beside the point. The set of companies in which a morally
aligned index fund may invest is, by design, smaller than the set of companies
in which an amoral index fund may invest, and so they may be intentionally
passing over profitable companies.

One of my favorite quotations is from A Man for All Seasons, with Paul
Scofield as Sir Thomas More. "If we lived in a state where virtue was
profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice,
anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty,
justice and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of
being heroes."

------
thescribe
It's kind of a shame, one of the thing I value most about working in tech is
the apolitical stance a lot of companies take.

~~~
mmakunas
So build stuff that completely disrupts entire industries, and eliminates
whole categories of jobs, but STFU about it's actual effect on people? Just
cash the check, geek out about the tech, and get on with your life?

~~~
flukus
> So build stuff that completely disrupts entire industries, and eliminates
> whole categories of jobs, but STFU about it's actual effect on people?

Yes. The jobs weren't their responsibility when the existed and shouldn't be
when they're gone. We have other entities to worry about things like that,
governments.

------
yarou
I don't like the fact that American society is becoming so heavily
politicized. I have family members, cousins who are brother and sister,
refusing to _talk_ to each other because of this nonsense.

This needs to end.

~~~
grzm
I agree. This is a primary concern for me as well. What are your ideas on how
this can be addressed and improved?

~~~
zaphar
Cultural change is hard. Like really hard. It's easier to join a culture you
like than it is to change a culture you don't like. Cultures form a part of
someone's identity and when you mess with someones identity they get defensive
and sometimes violent.

I'm not sure that there is a fix for this that isn't a local long term
commitment to finding common ground with those around you.

~~~
grzm
Is there anything you are personally doing?

~~~
zaphar
I'm doing exactly what I said in my last sentence. I'm committing to a local
long term effort to find common ground with those around me. I'm also under no
illusions that it will happen quickly.

~~~
grzm
I think that's a great idea, and I'm of the same opinion that it needs to be
done locally and personally. Do you have specific strategies or tactics you're
using? The status quo doesn't appear to be enough.

~~~
zaphar
The thing about local and personal is that the strategies tend to be pretty
specific to your particular situation. But there are some general things that
will help.

1\. Listen first. And don't just passively listen actively listen. Ask
questions which leads into the second thing.

2\. Try to genuinely understand why someone believes as they do. What is
motivating their actions and reactions.

3\. Once you are able to empathize with someone that should inform the tactics
and strategies you use.

~~~
grzm
Agreed on all points. Even though actions may be specific to the local
situation, I think it can still be useful to share, as it can provide a
starting point for ideas, even if it's not directly applicable.

Thanks again!

------
sparkzilla
Sam Altman's anti-Trump blog posts are the main reasons I am not applying to
YC this time, and won't do so in future. As a pro-Trump founder I don't want
to have to face a political litmus test just to get into a fucking
accelerator.

~~~
Daishiman
Your political posturing is considered by the gatekeepers of the industry to
harm the industry. Fine by you, but I don't think you'll get nor deserve any
sympathy.

~~~
sparkzilla
And how does that apply to Peter Thiel? Or is he not part of "the industry"?

------
caseysoftware
What they're missing is that by speaking (and acting) as moral arbitrars,
they're stepping into a position they may not want to be long term.

If Facebook and/or Twitter are people's primary source of information and
they're moderating content that is annoying (but not illegal), do those
actions start to fall under FEC rules? What about Google's tweaking of Page
Rank? How does that affect their valuations?

Since these processes are opaque, it's _easy_ to imply and accuse them of all
kinds of things.

We may see a situation where they have to open up processes, procedures, and
potentially algorithms. And I suspect they don't want that.

------
devoply
Tech firms are already heavily involved in politics. It's just that now that
the government is no longer doing what they want, they are going to get more
involved. News at 10. Has nothing to do with ethics or evil or any of that,
has to do with the fact that their profit is built on the backs of immigrants.
They don't want to lose that gravy train.

------
appleiigs
Tech firms over-value their own tech by only tweeting, posting or emailing
saying they are "concerned" or "upset".

Should be more actions. They can expand/setup offices in foreign countries for
developers (not just manufacturing), in effect moving jobs out of the US (and
the expensive SF area).

Some good would come of it. They can pay less because cost of living would be
cheaper. They would have less visa constraints in recruiting. They would be
spending their offshore cash (less cash to repatriate and pay tax on, less
currency risk). They would have better visibility into local/international
trends and preferences to create growth. Countries would give tax breaks.

They can do this loudly and publicly to get Trump's attention. Imagine the
headlines of jobs moving out of US because of Trump's actions.

EDIT: and this would be more business, less politics.

------
ilaksh
Technology just means applying what we know (science) to making tools or
systems for solving our problems. Ultimately we cannot avoid using technology
in that broad sense to solve societal and political problems.

I must once again challenge readers of Hacker News to consider the possibility
that the popular news feeds do not provide an accurate view of the global
political situation. This is because information control is a critical aspect
of warfare, and that comes in the form of propaganda. And, whether you believe
it or not, the United States maintains its position in the world through
deadly force that requires projection. This projection comes in the form of
extensive, connected military campaigns that have been ongoing for decades.
This warfare makes it important to shape information around it -- hence
American propaganda.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Critic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Criticism)
as a criticism (I suggest that America is _not_ an exception to history, but
much confusion comes from the belief that it is).

In the context that I am trying to make accessible, my own worldview, the fact
that these countries are largely Muslim is in a way a distraction from the
real issue, which is: the US and overall current geopolitical order is
dependent upon control over distribution of fossil fuels (with much, much more
resources allocated to US and closest allies), that (unequal) resource control
requires military force to protect key areas for extraction and transport,
military control over much of the territory of the affected countries is
unavailable/not secure, and those areas are all critical in relation to
maintaining the resource control and current order.

Look at a map
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Somalia/@21.0767185,36.995...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Somalia/@21.0767185,36.9953577,4z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x181d2ea7ecd15b83:0x9e393ace5ce9e5be!8m2!3d5.152149!4d46.199616),
see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz),
see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption),
compare to map of affected countries of recent immigration action
[https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-
ba...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-
of-interest/img/2017-trump-immigration-ban-conflict-of-
interest_twitter.png?v=1)

In my opinion, religion is not the real issue, and although (obviously)
immigration actions against these countries is likely to mainly inflame the
situation more, the problems are much more severe than people want to believe.
Its not just that we have some people who are prejudice against other
religions, however nice it would be to believe that is the whole problem. The
root of the problem is really the unequal resource distribution, unresolved
military security issues (or in some cases, undeclared war against) (with)
those countries, and the reality that the global order is maintained by deadly
force and propaganda.

~~~
hellbanner
"I must once again challenge readers of Hacker News to consider the
possibility that the popular news feeds do not provide an accurate view of the
global political situation. This is because information control is a critical
aspect of warfare, and that comes in the form of propaganda. And, whether you
believe it or not, the United States maintains its position in the world
through deadly force that requires projection. This projection comes in the
form of extensive, connected military campaigns that have been ongoing for
decades. This warfare makes it important to shape information around it --
hence American propaganda."

Yep. And let's not forget Steve Piecnizk

"The counter coup saying, we will convict and indite the president of the
united states" ... "we are going to stop you from making hilary the president
of the united states"

this guy was Psychological Warfare !!!!! for US State Department

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik#Professional_l...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik#Professional_life)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM&t=95s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM&t=95s)

------
nanistheonlyist
I think tech firms are opening up pandora's box by introducing themselves into
politics. What is next? Separate http protocols for liberal and conservative
websites? No good will come of this.

~~~
mmakunas
That is bull. Everything about what tech is creating is political. Software
cannot "eat the world" and not be political. Ignore it at your own peril.

------
allemagne
I basically consider Trump the devil and his immigration EO to be evil by both
it's motivations and by its effects, but the Snowden revelations should have
already done this.

In fact these companies should have done this before they started secretly
collaborating with the U.S. government and making Snowden revelations
necessary.

