
Ask HN: Is it ok that founders are taking to social media about politics? - vilified_throw
Is it fair that technology company founders are taking to social media and claiming that their entire company is against Trump&#x27;s executive order? This feels like the definition of entitlement and quite honestly hypocrisy. As long as you prescribe to the founders political beliefs all good. Think if you&#x27;re an employee of any of these company&#x27;s and support Trump how&#x27;d you feel. Vilified... Alienated. Causing a stressful work environment. Aren&#x27;t these the sort of things that social justice warriors claim to be fighting against?<p>The founders absolutely have the right to say what they believe, but saying their entire company takes a stance on a political issue rubs me the wrong way.
======
danhak
> As long as you prescribe to the founders political beliefs all good. Think
> if you're an employe of any of these company's and support Trump how'd you
> feel.

I must be missing the part where people are being forced to work for founders
they disagree with. "Free market" and all that...

Like it or not, companies operate within a policy framework. The decisions and
actions that are being undertaken absolutely are affecting companies in
material ways and it's entirely appropriate for leadership to publicly
advocate for / against policies according to its interests--whether it relates
to trade, recruitment, culture / morale. Hell, even for pure PR reasons as is
surely the case at times.

~~~
thescribe
I think it helps to imagine the opposite, a founder being radically pro-trump.
I still think it's ok, but it seems like a poor representation of the company.

~~~
vilified_throw
Exactly, pro Trump technology founders are very few and far between. Most of
them are "closet" republicans, for fear of being alienated, chastised, and
vilified, especially in the bay area.

~~~
confirm_essence
Oh my god. Trump and his supporters are endlessly victims.

Hard to muster sympathy for a political movement based on fear and hatred of
the eternal other.

Strange how the vast majority of highly intelligent, creative, entrepeneurial
people hate Trump.

~~~
relics443
I think the point is (and the election _may_ have shown) that in reality, it
is the vast majority of the highly vocal, intelligent, creative,
entrepreneurial people that hate Trump.

------
alphonsegaston
Families being torn apart. Doctors being stopped from healing the sick. The
elderly and children being bullied, handcuffed, and imprisoned. A probable
constitutional crisis.

And your concern is that your boss is tweeting something you that makes you
feel bad?

This is your bed. Lie in it.

[http://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/handful-still-
detain...](http://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/handful-still-detained-jfk-
under-trump-muslim-ban-attorneys-say)

[https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-executive-order-
st...](https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-executive-order-strands-
brooklyn-doctor-in-sudan)

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-
bord...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-border-
protection-agents-trump-muslim-country-travel-ban)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I honestly think liberals need to lie in the bed too. Liberals chose to reduce
the required votes to effectively confirm cabinet members to prevent
Republicans from opposing Obama's nominees... leaving us powerless now to
oppose Trump's.

Do we have a worst case scenario? It kinda seems like it. But don't sit back
and blame the other side when your side is pretty much equally to blame for
gutting the checks and balances our government was based on when it was
convenient.

~~~
unclenoriega
First, Democrats changed the rules. I'm not sure what the point of saying
'liberals' is. Second, there was nothing to stop Republicans from making the
same rule change, or unmaking it. Most importantly, there's no reason to
assume two sides to this argument. The United States may have a largely two-
party system, but it doesn't follow that there are two sides to every fight.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It is literally referred to as the 'nuclear option' because both parties
basically knew not to touch it. But after the Democrats did it, the
Republicans obviously aren't going to intentionally cripple their own use of
it.

Mutually Assured Destruction, and Democrats fired first.

------
jat850
I guess what matters most is whether or not it's "ok" with you, or whoever you
may be referring to. There's no single answer that applies to all situations,
to all founders, to all employees.

If it's not okay with you, then use your available options to determine how to
act. I think it was tptacek yesterday that suggested the idea that more
important than founders speaking out with their beliefs, the workers should
band together and make their voices known - in agreement, or in dissent, or in
whatever they believe in the absence of founders taking a stand.

If it's going to negatively effect you personally, then evaluate it the same
way as you would any other negative work situation - a bad manager,
harrassment, or similar. I just do not think you will find an answer by means
of surveying people in different, or even similar, situations.

People choose to stay with an employer for personal reasons, and leave
employers for personal reasons. This is no different.

------
toast0
Not to pick on you, but when did the definition of hypocrisy change from
'saying one thing and doing the opposite' to 'saying something I don't like'
or even 'saying something is untrue.' Unless it's a company that is
highlighting differences of politics among employees of companies, I don't see
the hypocrisy.

Founders certainly can speak for their company, although saying that they're
speaking for the entire company can be a stretch. Immigration is an area that
is commonly discussed by company leaders. Given that many companies have
employees who are directly affected because they are out of the country and
unable to return as scheduled as well as those who have had to change plans so
that they don't leave and become unable to come back, I'm not surprised
company leaders are upset and making statements.

------
scarmig
Tearing apart families and banning large groups of Muslims from entering or
returning to the USA also rubs me the wrong way.

~~~
vilified_throw
Of course you're completely entitled to voice your opinion personally.
However, these founders using their company as a political soapbox is the
issue.

~~~
jpnelson
You don't need to abstract this to that extent. You might be able to say in
most cases it's a bad idea to use your company to express a political opinion,
which I agree with, but this is going beyond that – this is a human rights
issue.

In terms of "tearing apart groups of people", like you might do by voicing a
political comment that your company partly disagrees with, I think that this
particular ruling tears people apart to a _much_ larger degree.

------
chrismartin
For decades, companies have practiced political speech by paying lobbyists and
donating to industry groups who support friendly candidates -- these actions
may be less obvious to you but they wield a powerful influence on public
policy. Why aren't you complaining about that?

These companies are speaking up for their own employees who are now
systematically targeted for discrimination because of where they were born.
This transcends everyday politics and impacts human decency.

------
mildbow
Maybe I'm mistaken, but it appears these founders are decrying Trump's heavy
handed ban that has actual human cost.

I suggest anyone who does support such heavy handed actions with such dubious
benefit to examine their views. It's easy to be lost in rhetoric, but there
are people separated from families who have played by the rules. Who have done
nothing provably wrong. People who are put in this situation ... why?

If you have a good answer to why, then you should totally muster up some
backbone to tell your CEO they don't speak for you.

This is the United States of America, after all.

If people speak out against Trump, and you don't agree, you should speak up
for yourself/Trump.

------
mcphage
You're assuming that silence on an issue is not taking a stance. But silence
_is_ a stance.

~~~
wyager
I think this argument is nothing more than a dirty tactic to guilt people into
supporting a cause. People are allowed to be ambivalent about things. People
are allowed to recognize that they don't have enough information to form an
opinion. People are even allowed not to care.

~~~
zardeh
And they are allowed to be vilified for their ambivalence. Saying "I don't
care" doesn't absolve you of any guilt.

~~~
grzm
_Ambivalence_ and _apathy_ are two very different things. _Ambivalence_ is
having mixed or contradictory ideas about something. _Apathy_ is disinterest
or lack of concern. For a lot of difficult issues, it's reasonable to be
ambivalent. Sometimes it's hard _not_ to be able to see multiple sides of an
issue and understand the appeal of more than one.

------
panic
Yes, it is OK. There are more important things at stake here than Trump
supporters' feelings.

And anyway, criticizing this executive order doesn't mean you think Trump
supporters are bad people. I'm sure at least a few of his supporters agree
that the order goes too far.

------
beefsack
It's important to distinguish speaking officially on behalf of a corporate
entity, as opposed to speaking individually or on behalf of a group of people.
I don't think there's any problem with a corporate entity having an official
stance on an issue; some issues directly impact the running of companies.

I feel it's crucial that if founders want to voice some form of political /
social / religious / divisive opinion, they choose their language very
carefully as to avoid misrepresenting others.

------
mc32
I would not do this even if I were a Trump supporter, but If I were a braver
person, for the sake of politics, I would try being the Trump guy/gal get flak
for it, maybe even harassed and sue for political discrimination or just
making you all around "uncomfortable" or "threatened". If I were really brave,
I'd wear one of those red hats but also keep a the phone on loop audio record
just in case conversations get uncomfortable.

------
vivekd
At the end of the day, it's their company and they can do whatever they like
with it, including using it as a political soap box. It may turn away some
investors and VCs but I don't think these founders really care. The only
exception is if they are a part of a corporation and that's all dependent on
what sorts of limitations the corporation puts on their officers and
directors.

~~~
lazyjones
> _it 's their company and they can do whatever they like with it, including
> using it as a political soap box. It may turn away some investors and VCs_

By definition, if they have investors and VCs already, it's no longer their
company to do as they please.

Perhaps it's useful to go public with such opinions in some
markets/environments. Perhaps it's unwise in general to alienate at least some
people while trying to grow. Most often, it's not particularly useful to add
to the social media chaos by posting "me too" opinions. It's more useful to
join a demonstration, talk to friends (if they can bear you still) or vote
accordingly.

------
helthanatos
I very much prefer companies to stay out of politics. If I like your company
but hate your political view, it makes it harder to buy from. If I am forced
to use your product and hate your political views, it makes it very
uncomfortable. Personally, I hate how much everything is involved in politics
now. The US President is not the global emperor and no one should think he is.

~~~
jadell
In what way are you forced to use their product?

~~~
helthanatos
Work, school, life, monopoly. Many times when you must use a certain product.

------
plaguuuuuu
I see it as more of a problem of the current era that the mode and content of
discourse in the US has devolved to a point where everyone has such extreme
and polarised views that one is bound to be completely politically
incompatible with... what, ~40% of the population? And espousing any sort of
political opinion is likely to completely alienate anyone who disagrees.

So if one's employer leans towards Republican politics and you're a Democrat,
or vice versa -- even though it's purely for reasons of profit (e.g.
restricting visas reduces ability to hire skilled employees from overseas) --
it's basically as if your employer is literally Hitler because the supported
policies on the whole are bound to be wayyyy over on the other end of the
scale.

In other countries with a less.. binary political system, disagreement is more
nuanced. It's not either-or. And companies publicly supporting extreme
politics are in the minority, and it's safer to have political discussions
with friends without having to disown people.

------
sidlls
All the comments in here so far implying you should speak up seem to me to
misunderstand the power dynamic at work.

Individuals, even in the tech industry (and perhaps especially in the startup
world) can very easily be fired, blacklisted, or otherwise made to have a
difficult time practicing his or her career if he crosses the wrong founder in
the wrong way.

------
eva1984
You can post your opinion on social media to state you are not in line with
your founder and he/she doesn't represent you.

If your company would fire you for this, then it means you and your company
doesn't fit, in a mutual manner.

------
molecule
_> Is it fair that technology company founders are taking to social media and
claiming that their entire company is against Trump's executive order? This
feels like the definition of entitlement and quite honestly hypocrisy. As long
as you prescribe to the founders political beliefs all good. Think if you're
an employee of any of these company's and support Trump how'd you feel.
Vilified... Alienated. Causing a stressful work environment..._

[https://literarydevices.net/hyperbole/](https://literarydevices.net/hyperbole/)

------
jasonlotito
Can you please share the posts where you find founders claiming that their
entire company is against Trump's executive order? I've seen "we" used, but
that's a far cry from claiming the entire company is against Trumps orders.

So, please share the posts you are referring to.

------
confirm_essence
Please provide a link to all the outraged posts you made condemning Trump
speaking for all his employees, will ya?

------
jadell
When a company lobbies the government, or makes a donation to a PAC, is that
not speaking for the company? Even if you disagree with what's being done?

