
A new kind of labor movement in Silicon Valley? - RobertSmith
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/09/tech-labor-movement/567808/?single_page=true
======
quotemstr
This "movement" is not nearly as broad-based as the combination of loud online
activism and press coverage suggests. The current social-media-fueled frenzied
environment has a way of amplifying extreme views, and the concrete policy
propodals from the "ethics" camp are extreme indeed.

It is not "unethical", for example, among the huge majority of the population,
to cooperate with law enforcement in matters of immigration --- but to listen
to advocates, cloud hosting for these organizations is beyond the pale. Every
proposal I've seen has a similar character. To these people, "ethics" isn't
about the timeline virtues of honesty and integrity. Instead, it's
deplatforming your ideological opponents, because in activist world, the only
explanation for disagreement is intellectual or moral defect.

This whole effort is a thinly-disguised political power play, and large
socially-important infrastructure companies should not play politics. These
companies serve too important a role in society to allow themselves to be
weilded as political tools by a loud and angry few.

~~~
stuntkite
I decided a few years ago when I left the CTO role at a startup I founded over
what I considered a massively unethical feature, that I would never build
anything that violates my code of ethics. No one has to build racist face
tracking bots, or auto killbots, or automated sentancing platforms, or things
that are just useless cash grab garbage.

Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it. Fine, go
for it, but the power I do have is to not build it. I'm not a clerk, I'm a
creative partner and a damned good one. Money doesn't buy my soul.

Fun fact, that feature never got built in that platform that I left. In fact
they pivoted completely out of the field I had built the platform for.
Possibly because of the loss of the person that got them there. Today, they
make money, but not off something that would have haunted me for the rest of
my life. Also, I'm much better at qualifying my partners/employers now before
things like that come up and am much happier with the things I'm working on
now.

Maybe that's political. This feature could have been seen as de-platforming my
political opposition if you wanted to. It's not much different from the
stories in the article. We have a choice as the creators of the tools, like it
or not. Not building a weapon for mass surveillance is a power I have and I'm
willing to use it and it works. The world would be a better place if more
people drew that line in the sand.

~~~
true_religion
> Sure people can argue that they'll just get someone else to build it.

The true argument would be that those things aren't unethical (or are merely
poorly stated, or misunderstood), and no one should feel bad for their actions
in building them.

I don't think people want face tracking software to be explicitly "racist",
anymore than Apple wanted their first generation of digital cameras lenses to
poorly take pictures of dark skinned people.

> The world would be a better place if more people drew that line in the sand.

Thing is... people keep changing where the line in the sand _ought_ to be
drawn and soon start believing that anyone whose line is in a place it was
merely ten years previously is "unethical". Ethics isn't supposed to be a
spectrum, or a hammer to beat others over the head with, its supposed to be a
way in which we communicate our ideals to one another so we can build
together, or at least live together.

Now this may not be you, but I think too many people are becoming intractable
about their views.

~~~
stuntkite
Well, the problem with the racist face tracking AI is THAT it's unintentional
and being used by people that are clamoring to use it because it sounds great
but aren't concerned about the human fallout. As the person who's educated in
the tools, I feel that it's my responsibility to speak up about what these
tools can do from my knowledge and experience. I decided that it's my duty as
the person who writes the code and creates the thing to inform the executives,
sales, marketing, and other engineers that even though there's a Scrooge
McDuck money sack there that I won't be a part of it and other people in the
company may not be either. I have to define what is ok or not on my own. There
isn't a single source that can tell me the dangers of what I create.

As an individual, I have spent countless hours thinking about what I do for a
living and the moral code I need to live by and no one who has cut me a check
can modify my personal code of ethics. The people who want to use these tools
don't always know or care what the problems are. It's a race to market. Move
fast and break things. IPO and get a jet.

To counter that you may be saying that my ethics aren't hammer to beat people
with... I say their paycheck isn't a whip to get me to build them a bomb to
destroy people's lives with. Nor a gag to keep me silent if the company is
building the bomb without me. Whatever I'm doing is funding the process that
lets them engage in that project. I have a responsibility to use my voice if I
have a problem with my contribution to something I see as dangerous,
unnecessary, ugly, or stupid. My work could potentially outlive me, I have to
be aware of my role is bringing it to the world. Having a discussion about
that balance is how we will find ways to use the power we have as a society to
create these things in a way that doesn't destroy people (guinea pigs) who
have no say in these technologies creation.

Coming together with other employees who say "We won't work for a company that
builds this weapon" is how we are going to put the breaks on long enough to
make the right choices and not just build it because we can. You can't put the
genie back in the bottle. Testing these things live, in the name of corporate
bottom line, can cause problems that can last decades. If a person is the
principal engineer on something that could be looked upon in the future like
how stupid leaded gas was, and they knew it, and they still shipped that
product... They are a fucking asshole and history, if they can identify them,
will see them as criminals.

This isn't about being a whiney snowflake, this is speaking up with the power
we have as people to put the breaks on the creation of capital to have a say
about the future world we want to live in. We ARE a very divided society here
in the US, for precisely this reason... because until now no one at Facebook
and Twitter was speaking up about their business model. They towed the line.
Local news papers died, people siloed, and now you are right; people are
becoming intractable in their views. People protesting at these companies are
not doing something akin trolling Breitbart on Twitter for likes, they are
saying that they don't want to be involved in making digital leaded gas and
the people writing their checks have to listen. If they don't speak up, who
else can that Apple, Google, or Amazon will listen to? The user? The
government? Neither of those groups have the knowledge to know what the
details are. They may think they want them. Leaded gas also poisoned the
families of the people that sold it, and the politicians that lobbied for it,
and the people that wanted it for their cars.

As engineers we have a responsibility to have a moral compass and understand
the impact of the things we create. We have a responsibility to think very
deeply about the things that we create because we are in the role to create
them. We are directly in the role to poison the well of humanity. If you don't
think that's part of your job (if you are an engineer), then I would plead
with you to move into something else. What we do matters. Introspection into
the effects of our action or inaction is vital.

------
tboyd47
You really don't need to bring in politics to justify a programmer's union,
but if that's the trigger that causes workers to organize, so be it.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of a number of entirely non-political
ways a union could benefit tech workers:

1) Personalized ergonomic workspaces

2) Legal counsel on basic tech-related issues (patent law, non-compete
clauses, sexual harassment, discrimination, etc.)

3) Training and career development

4) Representation to recruiters

5) Group health insurance, tax advice, equipment rentals for freelancers

~~~
ralusek
What exactly do you mean by unions without politics? Unions are inherently
political. The things you've listed here are literally just employment perks,
they can exist independently of unions as reasons that someone might want to
work at a given company. They also all have a cost to the employer and
employee, either of which might prefer to have those resources allocated
elsewhere.

Companies naturally offer differing employment perks to try to entice people
to work for them. Google famously has bowling alleys, dance classes, laundry,
massages, food, etc, which all form a part of the package of what might make
somebody want to take a job as a developer at Google. Facebook followed suit
with many similar perks. As an SF/SV contractor for the last 5 years, it has
been my experience that all different companies offer completely different
costs and benefits to working for them, and I'm perfectly happy to let the
companies compete among themselves for talent.

If I have to join some software engineering union whose demands are going to
be some bastardization of collective goals, which inevitably will deteriorate
into a wasteful bureaucratic entity (as unions tend to do), I lose my ability
to freely choose what exactly I'm looking for in a workplace.

For example, I don't care about personalized ergonomic workspaces, I don't
care about legal counsel, I don't care about training, I don't care about
representation to recruiters, I have my own health insurance, I get my own tax
advice, and I don't need equipment rentals. Every thing that you've outlined
as an objective for a union to accomplish are things that I would rather have
the employer spend on salary. Your objectives do not align with mine, I don't
want to pay you to accomplish them, and I don't want you to have my employer
spend money accomplishing them. I have completely ignored companies with
things like swimming pools, ping pong, seminars, etc, and have instead chosen
places based off of how much they pay, or how interesting the project is to
work on.

Everyone's objectives are different, and so long as there is not a massive
imbalance of power against the workforce wherein we lose the ability to choose
freely, which in the case of a SV developer is absolutely _not_ the case, then
I see many more problems than solutions from an attempt to collectivize them.

~~~
tboyd47
I guess I meant more of a labor collective than what's normally considered a
"union." I'm not interested in paying for pensions or protecting jobs of old
farts who feel threatened by young people. But I _am_ interested in
collectivizing with workers to get access to the sort of "perks" that most
people rely on their company for, because that's going to increase my ability
to freely choose who I do and don't work for.

You mentioned you have your own health insurance and that's great. As an
independent consultant, I do too, but I don't get the same kind of rates and
coverage as I would as part of a company. It's just not offered to people like
me. The "free market" response to that would be, "Well, then get a FTE job
then, there's plenty out there." But what if I'd rather not depend on my
employer for that? We can collectivize; we choose to let our employers do it
for us.

I don't understand the stark anti-union sentiment. You must realize that
sometimes, your interests will diverge from your employers, and that the
optimal result _for both sides_ may not always be for you to give up or risk
your employment being terminated over it, but it might actually be for the
company to change their policies. That outcome is much harder to imagine
without some sort of collective bargaining.

~~~
masonic

      You must realize that sometimes, your interests will diverge from your employers
    

But Unions _span multiple employers_ and have the last word over any grievance
you might have. You lose standing as an individual to negotiate with or
complain to management.

And when union leadership and management collaborate against the best
interests of employees, you're really screwed. I've been there.

~~~
tboyd47
Interesting story, do you mind giving more detail?

------
akshayB
In case of using AI for drones and warfare I am glad that people decided to
standup against it. Although there is a big moral question here the technology
is there even some of the tools are open sourced. Google employees decided to
raise their hand and say it is wrong but there is no checks if a dictator
decided to make use of AI in a bad way. Technology is constantly evolving and
there is no oversight when misuse happens. CEO's will sign contracts like
these as long as there is a big dollar sign attached to it.

~~~
eanzenberg
I'm glad people are building AI for drone warfare. I would much rather not put
uniformed people at risk where the risk could be avoided. I would much rather
have discriminate weapons as opposed to ones with more collateral damage.

~~~
losteric
I think AI drones make us more willing to kill indiscriminately. When our
people are also at risk, we pay more attention to whether there is sufficient
information to safely operate with minimal casualties on either side. Drones
invite "spray-and-pray" warfare that breeds further aggression.

They definitely have value, drones would have been great at D-Day, but
realistically considering human behavior... I suspect these "discriminate"
weapons will result in a net increase of collateral damage.

~~~
yourbandsucks
Nobody's talking about AI drones, or anything close to that.

The proposal was better image recognition algos for surveillance drones.
[https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project...](https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project-
maven-to-deploy-computer-algorithms-to-war-zone-by-years-
end/utm_medium/facebook/?utm_source=dlvr.it)

Let's take a step down the slippery slope and assume that in the future it was
repurposed for manually triggered weapons drones. Ever see a story about how
the US drone-bombed a wedding or a goat farmer? Maybe better (or any) image
recognition could have saved innocent lives.

It's not that clear cut.

~~~
losteric
_You_ aren't thinking about AI drones, other people are. Project Maven was a
first step towards securing broader DoD contracts. Pretending drones were not
part of the picture is either naive or disingenuous.

~~~
yourbandsucks
You can't do any better than slippery slope? Who's being disengenuous?

There are several rubicons between here and AI killing machines. Why draw this
particular line? Why not just halt all AI research?

If I said that banning bump stocks was "basically gun confiscation" or that
implementing universal healthcare was "basically the great leap forward",
would you be convinced?

I'm really trying to understand your argument here, please help me out.

------
s09dfhks
To play devil's advocate, couldn't these employees be terminated for refusing
to do the job they were hired to do?

~~~
s73v3r_
That's one of the things that the union/guild would be there to protect
against.

~~~
masonic
That's not within their purview. The CBA binds management and labor alike.

------
htor
what does "blue-collar" and "white-collar" mean?

~~~
biztos
"blue-collar" generally means people who do physical, non-office work; and the
jobs that they do. "white-collar" generally means office workers and
management, and their jobs.

AFAIK it originates in the color shirts normally worn, i.e. if you're out
working on engines you can't afford white shirt collars as they'll get
stained.

The difference is a lot less clear in tech, where we're all "white-collar" in
old-school terms but there is still a very wide scale of job-pleasantness and
pay and everything else. I think when these terms originated, an entire
productive industry of only white-collar folks was unimaginable.

("Productive" as opposed to, say, banking.)

------
scarface74
I am of two minds about immigration enforcement.

One on hand, I don’t have a problem with enforcing immigration laws.

On the other hand, I hate the demonization of “other” and immigration
enforcement has turned into being more openly racially motivated than it ever
has been before and this isn’t a Democrat vs Republican thing. None of the
other Republican administrations have been like this one.

I hope the Romney/Bush wing of the party can take back over. I can deal with
“big business” Republicans even if I don’t agree with them on a lot of issues.
I would love to have two sensible parties fighting over ideas or even more
cynically which special interest they favor.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> On the other hand, I hate the demonization of “other” and immigration
> enforcement has turned into being more openly racially motivated than it
> ever has been before and this isn’t a Democrat vs Republican thing. None of
> the other Republican administrations have been like this one.

"Racially motivated" is a misnomer. Trump uses "Muslim" and "Mexican" not in
the way that Confederate politicians used "Negros" (or worse), but in the way
that older Republicans used "Russian" or "Communist".

It's obviously not used in a sympathetic way but it's not about _racism_ any
more than Nixon was racist against Russians. Trump isn't threatening to expel
the ethnic Mexican with US citizenship operating an auto repair shop in
Alabama, but he's also not offering citizenship to low-income people from
neighboring socialist-leaning countries who would probably vote for Democrats.

Democrats hate this with a burning fire because it's the exact opposite of
what they want. But it's not actually about race, it's all politics and the
culture war.

~~~
scarface74
_Trump isn 't threatening to expel the ethnic Mexican with US citizenship
operating an auto repair shop in Alabama,_

Actually he is threatening to expel US citizens who are Mexican who he doesn’t
believe have valid birth certificates. Not because he believes they are
forged, but because the babies were delivered by midwives at the border....

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-is-
deny...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-is-denying-
passports-to-americans-along-the-border-throwing-their-citizenship-into-
question/2018/08/29/1d630e84-a0da-11e8-a3dd-2a1991f075d5_story.html)

ICE also detained an American citizen that was speaking Spanish.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2018/05/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2018/05/20/a-border-patrol-agent-detained-two-u-s-citizens-at-a-gas-
station-after-hearing-them-speak-spanish/)

Not to mention that whole Obama’s is not a US citizen but he is a “secret
Muslim” trying to spread Sharia law.

 _but he 's also not offering citizenship to low-income people from
neighboring socialist-leaning countries who would probably vote for
Democrats._

If it were about socialism and not race, why is he so enamored by people from
Norway?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Actually he is threatening to expel US citizens who are Mexican who he
> doesn’t believe have valid birth certificates. Not because he believes they
> are forged, but because the babies were delivered by midwives at the
> border....

According to your article the passports were denied for the same reasons
during the Bush and Obama administrations. Because the midwives actually
admitted to committing fraud.

At that point the affected people will have to come in and sort things out.
What's the alternative? _Don 't_ sort things out? It's a huge pain but you can
blame the midwives for that.

> ICE also detained an American citizen that was speaking Spanish.

Law enforcement is constantly looking for a stupid pretext to check your
papers. "Speaking Spanish" is a stupid pretext to check your papers.

But you're claiming it's evidence of racism. If they had detained a white
person for speaking Spanish, would that also be racist? If they had detained a
Mexican person for "speeding" (but really for being Mexican), would that be
_less_ racist?

The specific pretext isn't the issue. The issue is that they're using stupid
pretexts to check papers. But that's a very broad problem with law enforcement
in general.

And notice what you're doing with it -- speaking Spanish is the cultural
rather than racial characteristic.

> Not to mention that whole Obama’s is not a US citizen but he is a “secret
> Muslim” trying to spread Sharia law.

This is kind of my point. "Trump is a jackass" and "Trump is a racist" are not
the same thing unless you're just defining racist to mean jackass, in which
case everybody knows that already.

> If it were about socialism and not race, why is he so enamored by people
> from Norway?

Because they aren't immigrating here (in violation of the law) in numbers that
could change the outcome of elections.

Also because the people who immigrate legally are more likely to be affluent
(and thus more conservative) than their home countries, the people who sneak
across borders the opposite.

~~~
scarface74
_According to your article the passports were denied for the same reasons
during the Bush and Obama administrations. Because the midwives actually
admitted to committing fraud. At that point the affected people will have to
come in and sort things out. What 's the alternative? Don't sort things out?_

It’s that whole innocent until proven guilty. The government has to prove
guilt on an individual basis.

From the article.

 _The same midwives who provided fraudulent birth certificates also delivered
thousands of babies legally in the United States._

 _Law enforcement is constantly looking for a stupid pretext to check your
papers. "Speaking Spanish" is a stupid pretext to check your papers._

You really believe that law enforcement looks for “stupid pretext” to stop
blond haired blue eyed white people?

 _This is kind of my point. "Trump is a jackass" and "Trump is a racist" are
not the same thing unless you're just defining racist to mean jackass, in
which case everybody knows that already._

Was Reagan ever called a “secret Muslim” when he was sending weapons to Osama
backed Mujihadeen and Iran during the Iran Contra scandal?

 _Also, the people who immigrate legally are more likely to be more affluent
(and thus more conservative) than their home countries. People who sneak
across borders the opposite._

Right because people from _Norway_ wouldn’t support a large social safety net,
government run health care, and free college education....

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It’s that whole innocent until proven guilty. The government has to prove
> guilt on an individual basis.

Which is the thing that happens after they deny your passport, in the same way
that it's the thing that happens after they arrest you for a crime. "Innocent
until proven guilty" means you go free if they can't prove you're guilty, not
that you don't have to go through the process.

> You really believe that law enforcement looks for “stupid pretext” to stop
> blond haired blue eyed white people?

Finding a stupid pretext to conduct a search is literally 90% of what they do
all day. Ask all the meth heads who got pulled over for a minor traffic
violation and ended up charged with possession.

> Was Reagan ever called a “secret Muslim” when he was sending weapons to
> Osama backed Mujihadeen and Iran during the Iran Contra scandal?

What does that have to do with racism? Your argument can't be that no one has
ever made a false claim against a white person.

> Right because people from _Norway_ wouldn’t support a large social safety
> net, government run health care, and free college education....

The people from Norway are going from a country with more government benefits
to one with less. If they liked what they had then why did they leave?

~~~
scarface74
_Which is the thing that happens after they deny your passport, in the same
way that it 's the thing that happens after they arrest you for a crime.
"Innocent until proven guilty" means you go free if they can't prove you're
guilty, not that you don't have to go through the process._

You still have to have some type of evidence specifically linking you to a
crime. The midwives never gave names of specific people.

 _What does that have to do with racism? Your argument can 't be that no one
has ever made a false claim against a white person._

We aren’t talking about any random White person. We are talking about a
President of the United States who specifically helped “radical Muslims” and a
President who was accused of being a “secret Muslim” before he was ever
elected.

 _The people from Norway are going from a country with more government
benefits to one with less. If they liked what they had then why did they
leave?_

Actually most don’t.

[https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/13/norway-better-than-
don...](https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/13/norway-better-than-donald-trump-
united-states/)

So if Trump wants them here despite their viewpoint being more in line with
Democrats, that kind of puts your whole argument to rest....

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> You still have to have some type of evidence specifically linking you to a
> crime. The midwives never gave names of specific people.

Which is why they ultimately get their passports after the government has
conducted their investigation. For the people who weren't actually born here
the government should be able to find evidence of that, e.g. the mother is not
a US citizen and her passport wasn't stamped into the US before the child was
born.

> We aren’t talking about any random White person. We are talking about a
> President of the United States who specifically helped “radical Muslims” and
> a President who was accused of being a “secret Muslim” before he was ever
> elected.

But what does that have to do with racism? People falsely accuse political
candidates of things _constantly_.

> Actually most don’t.

Which is why there aren't enough socialist-leaning immigrants from Norway to
affect election outcomes.

~~~
scarface74
_Which is why they ultimately get their passports after the government has
conducted their investigation. For the people who weren 't actually born here
the government should be able to find evidence of that, e.g. the mother is not
a US citizen and her passport wasn't stamped into the US before the child was
born._

That’s not how the US constitution works. Whether or not the parents were here
legally, if the child was born on US soil, they are still a citizen.

So it is still not on them to prove their innocence. It’s on the government to
prove that they were not born in US soil.

 _Which is why there aren 't enough socialist-leaning immigrants from Norway
to affect election outcomes._

You claimed that it had to do with politics and not race. But Trump was more
than willing to welcome people who would vote against his party’s interest.
Why would that be?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> That’s not how the US constitution works. Whether or not the parents were
> here legally, if the child was born on US soil, they are still a citizen.

> So it is still not on them to prove their innocence. It’s on the government
> to prove that they were not born in US soil.

That's what the government is doing by providing strong evidence that the
mother wasn't in the country at the time. If the person contends that she
actually was, they have the opportunity to present their own evidence of that.

> You claimed that it had to do with politics and not race. But Trump was more
> than willing to welcome people who would vote against his party’s interest.
> Why would that be?

Because they are not those people. The people who (as most of that country
does) prefer socialist policies are already living in a place that has them,
so they do not come and do not change election outcomes. The few people who do
come are the ones less likely to support socialist policies.

~~~
scarface74
_That 's what the government is doing by providing strong evidence that the
mother wasn't in the country at the time. If the person contends that she
actually was, they have the opportunity to present their own evidence of
that._

That’s not how criminal law works. The defendant is never under any obligation
to prove innocence. The prosecution always has to prove guilt. Having
suspicion is not having proof.

 _Because they are not those people. The people who (as most of that country
does) prefer socialist policies are already living in a place that has them,
so they do not come and do not change election outcomes. The few people who do
come are the ones less likely to support socialist policies._

So you attribute that level of conciseness that Trump never stated. He never
said that we want the good non socialist minority of Norwegians.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> That’s not how criminal law works. The defendant is never under any
> obligation to prove innocence. The prosecution always has to prove guilt.
> Having suspicion is not having proof.

Applying for a passport isn't a criminal proceeding, for one thing, but
regardless of that, not having a passport stamp is strong evidence that you
weren't here. It's like proof that your car was parked in your driveway all
night when you claim you were at work -- when all other methods of travel are
illegal. It's theoretically possible that you got there some other way, but
now it's on you to show that. It's not about "proving your innocence" but
rather rebutting the government's strong evidence that you're not.

> So you attribute that level of conciseness that Trump never stated. He never
> said that we want the good non socialist minority of Norwegians.

That's a fair point, only then it goes the other way. Trump doesn't want more
people from Mexico because he actually knows they don't vote for him (it's a
thing the media regularly talks about). Does he contemplate how immigrants
from Norway would vote _at all_ , or is he just arbitrarily choosing a country
known to have a middle class?

~~~
scarface74
_Applying for a passport isn 't a criminal proceeding, for one thing, but
regardless of that, not having a passport stamp is strong evidence that you
weren't here._

According to the article:

 _In some cases, passport applicants with official U.S. birth certificates are
being jailed in immigration detention centers and entered into deportation
proceedings. In others, they are stuck in Mexico, their passports suddenly
revoked when they tried to reenter the United States._

Being “jailed in immigration detention centers and entered into deportation
procedures” sure sounds criminal to me.

 _It 's like proof that your car was parked in your driveway all night when
you claim you were at work -- when all other methods of travel are illegal.
It's theoretically possible that you got there some other way, but now it's on
you to show that. It's not about "proving your innocence" but rather rebutting
the government's strong evidence that you're not._

Do you know how many Black people alive right now in the South also have
parents that were born as late as the early 1900s without any official
documentation besides thier names written in a Bible? Should that also make it
harder for my parents to get passports? (btw, it doesn’t.)

------
mc32
I don’t know of any country which is able to which does not enforce
immigration policy, including Mexico, Canada, as well as Colombia, Brazil,
Costa Rica, etc... Never mind Japan, Koreas, China, etc.

~~~
monocasa
Do those countries make toddlers represent themselves in immigration hearings?

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/children-immigration-
court...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/children-immigration-court-
deportation-attorney/)

~~~
jerf
I seriously, seriously, _seriously_ doubt that if you examined all those
countries with the same level of examination you've applied to the US (even if
that is not all that much) that you'd find they're all just hunky dory. In
fact I all but guarantee you'd find over half the policies aggressively
racist, let alone all the other things you might think to fault immigration
policies for.

Note this is not an "everybody else does it so it's OK" argument, this is my
not being particularly sympathetic to a lamppost argument. If the area under
the lamppost is dirty, you don't have much logical basis to assume that
everywhere else is clean, and then critique the area under the lamppost for
its _unique_ dirtiness.

~~~
monocasa
I mean, can you point to one example of another country that we'd consider
part of the free world that makes toddlers represent themselves in any sort of
court proceeding? I can't exactly prove a negative here, and am willing to
hear non theoretical arguments.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I mean, can you point to one example of another country that we'd consider
> part of the free world that makes toddlers represent themselves in any sort
> of court proceeding?

Are you sure this isn't the general practice? The US isn't prohibiting them
from having an attorney (or their parents etc.), it's just not _paying_ for
their attorney.

It's the same as when a toddler sets fire to someone else's property. If there
is a lawsuit the government doesn't pay for the defendant's lawyer,
independent of how old they are. That's on the parents.

~~~
monocasa
> Are you sure this isn't the general practice?

I have yet to see examples to the contrary.

> The US isn't prohibiting them from having an attorney (or their parents
> etc.), it's just not paying for their attorney.

They just separated them from their parents, and expect a toddler in a
detention center to somehow shit out an attorney. Meanwhile the government is
represented by an attorney.

> It's the same as when a toddler sets fire to someone else's property. If
> there is a lawsuit the government doesn't pay for the defendant's lawyer,
> independent of how old they are. That's on the parents.

Can you even sue a toddler? Like, you can sue the parents sure, but can you
think of another situation civil or criminal that has a toddler representing
themselves?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I have yet to see examples to the contrary.

[https://www.loc.gov/law/help/right-to-counsel/detained-
migra...](https://www.loc.gov/law/help/right-to-counsel/detained-migrants.php)

 _The United Kingdom appears to be the only country where legal counsel is
provided by the government’s legal aid agency free of charge to all migrants
in detention._

Also remember that (like most of these countries) the US does have legal aid
services available for this purpose in various cases.

> They just separated them from their parents, and expect a toddler in a
> detention center to somehow shit out an attorney.

How does anyone find an attorney? For young people their parent or guardian
would typically do it.

In the cases where they were separated from their parents (a stupid, short-
lived policy that has been discontinued) the attorneys were often finding
them.

> Meanwhile the government is represented by an attorney.

What would you propose they be represented by?

> Can you even sue a toddler? Like, you can sue the parents sure, but can you
> think of another situation civil or criminal that has a toddler representing
> themselves?

Why not? Typically there is no reason to because they typically have no assets
and are not legally responsible for many of their actions. But suppose you
have a toddler who is the legal owner of some inherited property where someone
is injured.

In practice they would have a parent or guardian deal with it (or hire an
attorney), but that's also normally what happens with immigration.

And the people who can't afford an attorney get shafted. But that's par for
the course. Even in criminal cases the time and resources available to the
public defender are totally inadequate.

------
throwawaysea
I have to think the authors of articles selling the same point are
participants in an activist cabal, because they keep pushing this narrative as
if it is the dominant perspective and has momentum. But it's not the dominant
perspective and doesn't have momentum. And except for the outrage machine of
Twitter/Vox[Recode]/Atlantic/Gizmodo/etc. trying to stand up a positive
feedback loop around this issue, we would probably have moved on. The number
of participants in these efforts are so small and unrepresentative, to a point
where it is not material and these companies should not change their
direction. Based on what I've heard, Microsoft and Amazon have triple-digit
participants at best. Google is where this vocal minority is most present, and
they're just in the low four-digit range (~3K per this article, out of ~100K
employees).

There are FAR more employees who either do not share these same views or are
OK with the company pursuing its own agenda independent of their personal
political views. For example with workers not willing to build image
recognition algorithms that assist/augment the capabilities of joystick-drone-
operators, I bet there are a much larger number that are totally willing to
work on it, and they are signaling that by not participating in the protest
even when it is socially/professionally safe to do so.

As for the others - they're just not screaming about it due to the intolerance
exhibited by far-left progressives at these companies, especially with all the
purposeful/malicious leaking. And as a left progressive, I think that sort of
behavior must be stopped and not tolerated.

