
Silicon Valley Takes a Right Turn - prostoalex
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/opinion/silicon-valley-takes-a-right-turn.html?_r=0
======
suryacom
I'm an H1-B visa holder living and working in USA for past 10+ years. I cannot
express how much happier I'm to see the Tech industry being on the wrong side
of the presidential election. The out going administration had sold us (and
indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to
benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys.

Here is an example, where every year, tens of thousands of legal immigrant
kids getting deported because legal immigrants followed all the laws. Instead
if we had not, and our kids were in illegal status, then Obama
administration's DACA would have saved our kids.

Just read the 1st two paragraph of this article:
[https://www.cato.org/blog/congress-should-help-young-
legal-i...](https://www.cato.org/blog/congress-should-help-young-legal-
immigrant-dreamers-too)

[Note: there are tons of other examples I can provide, where it is more
beneficial to claim to be an illegal vs trying to be legal status]

P.S. the fwd.us, a tech industry backed non-profit organization would never
speak about our issues; but would bend over backward to prevent illegals from
deported (check their twitter handle "FWD_us" if you don't believe). Btw- I
have nothing against illegal immigrants; but it hurts to be disadvantaged
after following every impossible immigration rules for past 10+ years.

~~~
deyan
>The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American
workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies
and immigration attorneys.

The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. The
facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under
Obama (with a few notable exceptions like Cuba but that is not really related
to the tech industry). Please stop spreading FUD.

The immigration policy is nonsensical, but Obama has little to do with it.
Perhaps the only legitimate criticism you can make is that he was not able to
reform it properly.

~~~
suryacom
>The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false.

That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the
office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was
not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could
take under his executive power.

~~~
foldr
>gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not
anymore tied to the employer)

Reference for this? I see that Bush proposed something like this in 2004, but
I can't find any reference for it ever having been implemented.

~~~
suryacom
I did a quick google search but could not find any reference. Media barely
covers any of our issues (no NYT no WashingPost, no noone). But, I personally
know more than few of family friends were benefited.

Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this
allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file
and obtain 485-EAD.

~~~
foldr
You're saying there was a major change to the H1B rules, and that Obama then
reversed this change, and that there is no reference to this anywhere?

~~~
suryacom
They were allowed to move out of H1B visa to EAD status (non-visa legal
status). The same legal status DACA recipients got from Obama administration.
So, technically nothing was changed to the H1B rule.

~~~
foldr
Broadly speaking, this is allowed now, no? There is a route to an EAD for H1B
holders (and various advantages and disadvantages to each).

[https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-
option...](https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option-for-
employment/)

~~~
suryacom
80% of the H1B holders today are from India. And they cannot reach that step;
because the wait time to reach there (485-EAD) is 70+ years.

------
mst
Augh. URL in /opinion/ fails to consider that you're going to donate more
money to the people winning because you get more influence per dollar that
way, decides to blame "tech has decided the republicans are more in line with
their interests".

Well, yes, in so far as "their interests" involve actually getting things done
rather than blaming everybody else for not doing.

Can I have a new left wing please? This one appears to be broken :(

~~~
464192002d7fe1c
> Can I have a new left wing please? This one appears to be broken :(

I've been saying this since basically after Obama was elected.

I was a _HUGE_ supporter of his, even in the democratic primaries. I donated
to him, I was running local groups that were canvassing and phone banking to
get him elected. I was ecstatic when he got elected (though I viewed it as a
foregone conclusion, I didn't think McCain had a chance).

When it came to the governing, I was not really impressed. Basically from day
1, everything seemed stuck. He got a few things done (ACA though that's of
dubious benefit, and was done in such a way that it became a political
punching bag and can't get any reforms), but mostly in the first two years.
After the 2010 midterms, this shit was just complete gridlock. You can blame
whomever you want for the gridlock but a good leader builds compromise and
ends gridlock.

I think there are two good examples of this. First, after sandy hook Obama
promised that he would pass gun control legislation. Now, I do not agree with
lots of things that he would like to do with such legislation, but, I do agree
that there are some changes required. He has basically failed to pass any
legislation around gun control and his response to that isn't to propose new
legislation that can pass congress. His reaction was to go on national
television and cry (literally) about his failure to pass gun control
legislation.

I'm sorry, I don't want a damn leader who CRYS about their political failures.
I know dead children is a sad subject, but, this is ultimately a political
failure.

The 2nd one is Guantanamo. When he was campaigning one of his promises was to
close Guantanamo, bring prisoners home and try them for their crimes. After 8
years, that has not happened and its become so politically untenable that he's
basically letting these people out, without trying them at all. It is a mind-
boggling

Withdrawing from Iraq/Afghanistan was another campaign promise that I was
personally invested in too, but that is a far more complex one and though he
doesn't get a pass from me on that as I have personal losses there, I
acknowledge that its more complex.

I do not agree with lots of things that (old) republicans did (though I am
hopeful about the new republican party of today), but they get shit done. They
wanted to block (stupid) gun control legislation, they did. They wanted to
block returning Guantanamo prisoners to the USA, they did.

Sometimes doing something, even if its not perfect, is more important than
doing nothing, especially when you don't have a crystal ball and don't know
what exact result specific actions/legislation will have. Move fast, break
shit.

~~~
bojl
What's your solution, then? What form of a left wing would have been any
better than Obama in light of the obstruct-at-all-cost policy the Republicans
held for the last 6 years?

>I do not agree with lots of things that (old) republicans did... but they get
shit done. They wanted to block (stupid) gun control legislation, they did.
They wanted to block returning Guantanamo prisoners to the USA, they did.

Blocking legislation (esp legislation brought forth by the opposition party)
is, always has been, and always will be 100x easier than putting forth any
legislation. Blocking legislation isn't getting anything done. We already see
a failure to get things done by the Republicans in their handling of
Obamacare-- they have no collective idea as to how to replace it, despite
their vigor in denouncing and repealing the bill. They have had 6 years.

~~~
ufmace
I can agree that blocking legislation is much, much easier than passing it.

On the other point, I lean Republican, and I'm more inclined to agree with
464192002d7fe1c. A lot of leftists love to blame the Republicans for being
obstructionist during the Obama administration. But were you paying any
attention to Obama's attitude? See [1]. He basically says "I won, deal with
it, if you don't like it, then go win some elections". Well, they did, and
they obstructed him in exactly the spirit that he invited. And in roughly the
same spirit that the Democrats obstructed GWB during his term.

A good leader accepts the political situation and seeks to work within it. If
your political opponents have control of Congress, you better learn how to
compromise and work with them to get things done. This might actually involve
not getting everything your way and sometimes doing something that the other
side wants. Whining that you can't get the things that you want done is poor
leadership.

I'll grant that there's a big divide between the two sides, and neither side
is innocent in perpetuating it. But who can be the bigger person, lay off the
name calling for a while, and make some compromises? Evidently not Obama.
Maybe Trump will? I guess we'll see soon enough.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2013/10/17/pr...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2013/10/17/president-obama-to-republicans-i-won-deal-with-it/)

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>Well, they did,

Well no. They REDMAP'd it. That was _impolite_ , so to speak: not technically
illegal, but sufficiently unethical that in 2004 the Supreme Court basically
said they'd ban it if only they had some consistent standard to apply.

This year they might have that consistent standard, and starting with North
Carolina and Wisconsin, the permanent Republican Congressional majority might
_stop being so permanent_.

In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority",
with or without a party name in the middle, should be _jailed_. A democracy
_never_ has a _permanent_ majority, or else _it ceases to be a democracy_.

~~~
chimeracoder
> the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so
> permanent.

> In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority",
> with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy
> never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy.

The GOP has controlled the House for only six years running. Before that, the
Democrats controlled it for four - before that, the GOP controlled it for six,
and before that, the Democrats controlled it for _61 years_ , with the
exception of one term (1947, under Truman). During the vast majority of that
time, the Senate was also under Democratic control as well, although the
Senate has leaned slightly more right than the House fairly consistently ever
since the Seventeenth Amendment was passed.

I agree that a democratic system should not be controlled by a single party,
but it's rather silly to say that the GOP has a "permanent Congressional
majority" given how recent their majority is.

------
_yosefk
Brendan Eich's donation of $1000 in support of Prop 8 ended his career at
Mozilla, making a tech employee donating to Trump an obvious potential career-
ending move. It's not very surprising that they didn't. An interesting
question is whether their family members donated to Trump what was actually
the tech employee's money.

~~~
pseudalopex
Eich's career at Mozilla ended when he resigned as CEO and declined to remain
as CTO. He resigned because he let a predictable PR problem get away from him
and couldn't effectively lead. He had marginal support to begin with; three
board members resigned when he was appointed for reasons that had nothing to
do with his political activities.

Someone somewhere probably got fired for donating to Trump. Someone somewhere
probably got fired for donating to Clinton. Eich donated to curtail civil
rights and kept his job as CTO until he gave it up.

~~~
BrendanEich
Since you weren't on the board or privy to details about my time as CEO, what
you are doing in your first paragraph is simply lying.

On board resignations:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651)

On "curtail civil rights" canard:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721928](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721928)

~~~
pseudalopex
I stand corrected on the resignations. You know that's how the Wall Street
Journal reported it, so accusing me of _lying_ is out of line, but I
appreciate you correcting the record.

"Curtail civil rights" is exactly right, though. Prop 8 didn't nullify
existing marriages, but it did prevent new ones. Whatever philosophical
reasons you had for supporting the measure, its language and effect were
specific.

~~~
BrendanEich
Lying is when you disparage someone by asserting as facts, without any
speculative words such as "might have", your negative guesswork that you can't
possibly know to be a true and complete account, due to non-disclosure. I'll
talk about the Mozilla situation in 2014 later, if I ever do; I'm not out to
make trouble right now for a project and org that I co-founded.

"Civil rights", if the phrase meant anything at stake in 2008, meant positive
rights under state law that were protected by CA's domestic partnership
section of its family law code, which an earlier generation of allies
(including me) had supported. You could reframe now (post-Obergefell) in
federal civil rights terms, but that tells a revisionist account of the
history. Back in 2008, state-guaranteed rights were not the issue in front of
the citizens of California, and federal bad law (DOMA) was beyond state power
to affect.

Remember Obama was also at that time in favor (he said; maybe he was
strategically lying but we don't know) of the conjugal definition of marriage.

Yes, I know people find Obama's position then defective and wrong, and some
(few) even said so at the time. But I don't see anyone going around arguing
that Obama thereby curtailed civil rights, since he supported civil unions or
domestic partnerships. If he got off the hook for the "curtailing civil
rights" charge by evolving many years later, then what does the phrase mean?
It's not a historically or legally accurate description. It's just a
rhetorical club to beat up enemies and spare friends.

~~~
pseudalopex
I never claimed to have inside knowledge. People don't usually attach "might
have" to news reports from reputable sources. If I remember correctly, the
story was that the dissenters wanted someone with mobile experience, which
wouldn't reflect negatively on you even if it had been true. Still, it must be
frustrating to see misinformation keep circulating years after the fact. All I
can do is apologize for an honest mistake.

"Curtailing civil rights" means simply this: marrying someone of the same sex
was legal in California, and then it wasn't. A right previously recognized was
taken away. It doesn't matter if you disagree with how that right was
recognized. It doesn't matter that domestic partnerships provided most of the
same benefits within California as marriage. Most isn't all. Even if those
deficiencies had been repaired, "separate but equal" isn't equal.

Obama "got off the hook" because he opposed writing his claimed personal
beliefs into law. Even in 2008, he spoke against Prop 8 and advocated
repealing DOMA. You aren't my enemy, and he isn't my friend; he just had a
better position on this issue.

~~~
BrendanEich
You wrote "declined to remain as CTO." That assertion requires inside
knowledge. Note Andreas Gal was made CTO within two months of my leaving.
There was a reorg that I announced (which is public info), and a CTO plan
which is now clear enough.

I realize it's easy to speculate unintentionally but I try to draw a bright
line around things like speaking for someone else, saying they "declined" an
offer where you weren't involved and didn't actually see any offering or
declining.

In the link I sent about board resignations
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651)),
I wrote "Alistair Barr of the WSJ was working on a story about Mozilla being
in trouble". Barr was getting the "need CEO with mobile experience" line from
someone, possibly an ex-executive, even a (soon-to-be-ex) board member. A
number of people thought it might be Gary Kovacs, but no one knew for sure.

For my part regarding getting the appointment, I can only say that "mobile
experience" line did not come up. Doing Firefox OS (for all its problems) did
get us a lot of mobile experience and good partner contacts. I'm engaging with
some of those contacts at Brave, so I think the ding from whomever leaked to
Barr was not material re: me, then or now.

On where law comes from, why CA voters can override the CA supreme court, see
"status quo" on at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721928](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721928).

Obama had no skin in the game in California, but he did say (to Rick Warren in
public) that he supported the conjugal definition of marriage. He did not
explain how he squared this with being against Prop 8, as far as I know
(references welcome). It sure looks like strategic lying to me, and nothing
against Obama -- I voted for him in the 2008 CA primary. Politians do this
kind of inconsistent fence-sitting all the time.

Thanks for writing back.

------
home_boi
PAC: A political action committee (PAC) is a type of organization that pools
campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaign for or
against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation

Tech companies have been annoyingly left for a very long time. I'd like to see
more parity. It becomes annoying to have people make questionable political
statements (especially HR) and not have the ability to speak up without being
called names.

------
ryandamm
Oddly enough, it's on tech-oriented sites like this one that I hear the most
chatter about universal basic income or post-work societies, and grappling
with the very disruptions of the social fabric that tech development creates.

Perhaps this shift is partly a seismic realignment; traditional left-right
divides don't fit as comfortably as they used to, as issues move faster than
constituencies and demographics.

Or maybe just corporations, like people, get more conservative when they're
richer. Possibly out of cynical self-interest.

~~~
cderwin
> Or maybe just corporations, like people, get more conservative when they're
> richer. Possibly out of cynical self-interest.

In the case of people, this is a popular misconception. Democrats are funded
by more billionaires than Republicans, are in control of a majority of the
wealthiest congressional districts, and among people earning more than
$200,000 the presidential vote was very evenly split.

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/article/2014/jun/23/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-
democ...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-
become-favorites-of-the-rich.html)

[http://ijr.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-
donors...](http://ijr.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors-agree-
democrat-party-new-party-rich/)

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/e...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/exit-
poll-analysis.html)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Democrat versus Republican makes more sense as urban versus nonurban than
anything else.

~~~
ryandamm
Very true (and parent makes a really good point, also).

I do wonder: rather than a single axis, how many would be appropriate? If you
did PCA on... well, some crazy mishmash of factors -- demographic, political,
socioeconomic, geographic -- what would be the eigenvalues of today's US
politics? (And what's the minimum sensible number of values to capture the
range of experience?)

Man, I can just hear my cofounder exhaling in frustration, at such an ill-
posed problem, and abuse of terminology... and no doubt there are real,
quantitative answers to some of this (and PCA is probably naive compared to...
latest whiz-bang etc)... But still.

~~~
cderwin
I imagine at that point the cause and effect would become mightily, mightily
mixed up. Maybe race is a cause of political affiliation (it certainly isn't
an effect), but surely certain factors, like donations, would be an effect of
political affiliation. As it already stands, it seems reasonable to me that
the urban/suburban/rural split might be equally as much an effect as a cause.

As it stands, that sort of analysis might be interesting, but is of little
value without separating cause and effect (and surely those will be different
for everyone).

------
GrinningFool
In my opinion, Silicon Valley is pragmatic and always has been. The
contributions seem less likely to be party-based and more likely to be based
on the specific types of legislation they'd see advanced. Sometimes that will
fall left, and sometimes right.

Further, if the party likely to win is the right, they'll find candidates
within that party to support. Had it been going the other way, then candidates
in the left would have gotten that support.

Alternatively, the author is accidentally correct. As business grow, they tend
to get more benefit from right fiscal policy than left.

~~~
fullshark
Agreed, it was expected that Republicans would control congress after the
elections. I wouldn't be surprised to see every industry had given more money
to Republican candidates.

------
pipio21
[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nearly-all-of-
silicon-v...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nearly-all-of-silicon-
valleys-political-dollars-are-going-to-hillary-clinton/)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-donors-
favor-h...](http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-donors-favor-
hillary-clinton-over-trump-2016-11)

Here is what Paul Graham and Sam Altman had donated to:
[https://blog.dcpos.ch/silicon-valley-political-
contributions](https://blog.dcpos.ch/silicon-valley-political-contributions)

~~~
skwirl
The NY Times article says up front that tech companies donations in the
Presidential race went overwhelmingly to Clinton. It's the House and Senate
races where the rightward shift has occurred.

------
RichardHeart
I'm so very tired of the left/right analogy. Please describe your politics as
well as you do your sandwich toppings. They're likely similar in quantity. To
put Trump and many other republicans on the same "right" is more absurd than
ever. I made a video about it.

------
earthly10x
Well, we experienced a black swan event and maybe even the first shoe to drop.
Some of us are just capitalists and capitalists are able to do this:

\- Adapt. Even though it seems like we're all in a boat thats capsized and the
stove is above your head along with the sing while the cups are floating in
the water and in the dark, there's now new opportunity across the board.

\- Make an observation on a "product" and then take that "product" off the
table of a competitor and do it better. These are the rules. In 2020 the
"product" could be this new incoming administration.

------
benkarst
The influence of tech companies isn't measured in how much they donate to each
party (as the article suggests) so much as it is how they use their powerful
technology to influence public opinion and collude with politicians in
private.

------
rm_-rf_slash
To tech employees of corporations whose upper management and/or shareholders
have donated to Republican interests: how do you feel about that? If you vote
Democratic and contribute to Democratic campaigns, how do you feel knowing
that your work directly produced profits which could be used to significantly
outspend you and your like-minded colleagues?

I rejected the Valley years ago because I saw the direction it was going in. I
would like to hear from the people who are still there.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _how do you feel knowing that your work directly produced profits which
> could be used to significantly outspend you and your like-minded colleagues_

Like I live in a democracy? If you are scared shitless of the opposition
there's a problem with the checks and balances (or your understanding of
them). Democracy requires tolerance of disagreement.

------
rampage101
Good to see most of the CEOs have come to their senses and are going to put
the business before their political beliefs.

~~~
ryandamm
Personally, I don't think that's "good." I remember fondly Tim Cook's response
to an activist investor about why they support environmentally sound policies:

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider
the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to
environmental and health and safety issues. [1]

Personally, I think there's a higher system of value than corporate profits
and share price. But that's a first principle argument. Conveniently, I happen
to believe that purely shareholder-value-maximizing behavior rarely fails to
build long term value, so I'm having my philosophical cake and eating it, too.
But when push comes to shove, we do things for reasons beyond profit. It's
pretty hollow otherwise.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-
cook...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-
change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares)

~~~
RandomOpinion
Not to rain on your worldview or anything but I must point out that one of the
requirements for being in upper management that's public facing is the ability
to say just about anything with a straight face. ("Courage" anyone?) The fact
that Tim Cook came up with a good (from a PR perspective) response doesn't say
anything about the actual motivation.

