
Luckey on pro-Trump donation: “My actions… do not represent Oculus” - danarmak
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/luckey-apologizes-for-negative-impact-of-support-for-pro-trump-group/
======
danarmak
As a non-American, I find the recent US trend of publicly punishing high-
ranking tech people for their private, legal political speech scary. (The
previous example is Brandon Eich being forced to leave Mozilla.) The prospect
of successful tech being filtered by the political opinions of its creators
does not appeal.

~~~
stephenr
When you're the ceo/founder of a reasonably well-known company and donate
money to bigoted, racist, sexist/etc political causes, you need to expect some
blowback from the community that knows your company.

No one said these people can't _have_ those opinions. People simply take
action (i.e. saying they will boycott mozilla products/services) based on
_their_ opinions about the issues.

~~~
danarmak
Do you want to live in a world where people don't dare to support political
causes (even privately or in secret) because, if discovered, a constituency
opposed to that cause can successfully demand they be punished? Even when the
political cause they support is as mainstream as the official candidate of one
of the two big parties, or one side of a public vote as in the case of Eich?

Even if you personally oppose Trump, there are enough Trump supporters to
boycott organizations whose leaders are known to donate to Hillary Clinton.
The natural outcome of such boycotts is segregation - a VR company catering to
Democrats, and a different VR company catering to Republicans.

More concretely: you can boycott Oculus for the private actions of its CEO.
And other people can boycott a local cafe because its owner is known to donate
to Planned Parenthood or because they agreed to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Do you prefer both things to happen, or neither?

One of the key principles of democracy is freedom of political association.
The usual saying is "I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Those who
don't hold to this norm, apart from being IMO unjust to their political
opponents, risk being on the losing side in their turn.

~~~
stephenr
When the two examples you have are a guy donating for a bigoted discriminatory
and unconstitutional law, and a guy donating to a group supporting a racist,
bigoted, sexist sociopath who wants to play mr president, it's not much of an
argument.

Even in the hypothetical: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences
of speech.

I _did_ say, no one says they _cant_ do what they do, they just shouldn't be
surprised when they get a reaction.

~~~
dalke
Consider the Hollywood blacklist, where people with communist ties or
sympathies were barred from working.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist)
.

I think danarmak's points also apply in that situation. Pete Seeger was found
in contempt of Congress for using his First Amendment right of free
association:

> "I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my
> philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted
> in any election, or any of these private affairs. I think these are very
> improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such
> compulsion as this."

But therein you see a problem with danarmak's proposal "If a person does
something which is indisputably legal, in their private capacity, that should
not be allowed (by the law) to affect their public standing or their job".

What sort of law would be strong enough that it could stand up to the future
equivalent of the McCarthy Era? None, of course, as its the politicians who
make the law.

My understanding of these sorts of laws are that they serve mostly to protect
the status quo. Those who have power and influence don't need protection.
Those who have little power can mostly only protest and boycott, which is a
power danarmak wants to reduce.

~~~
danarmak
It is true that the law in general is a very imperfect tool and standard, for
all the reasons you mention and more. But I do think many specific laws are
good ones.

For example, various laws says it's illegal to not hire or to fire someone
based on some protected characteristics like e.g. race, gender or sexual
orientation. (I'm aware that this isn't universal among US states.) I think
this is a good thing. And I think political opinions (expressed in a private
capacity) should also be a protected category, and for broadly the same
reasons: to prevent segregation, to protect minorities, to encourage healthy
democracy as opposed to all-out political war.

~~~
dalke
My primary criticism was that you haven't shown that tech in the US is any
different in this regard than other fields. I again assert that you (and I)
have heard of these case primarily because we are in tech.

FWIW, while Israel has laws which prohibit discrimination based on political
beliefs (according to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel)
), for most part of the US "Political speech and activity, especially in
private sector employment, is not well protected by anti-retaliation laws".
Quoting [http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-
activ...](http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-activity) .

~~~
danarmak
I never said that tech is different from other fields. If I implied that, it
was unintentional. Quoting my reply to you from a different comment:

> Finally, I don't know how much the US tech industry is different. I have a
> feeling it's more polarized than European or (in my case) Israeli tech,
> simply because US politics tends to be more polarized. Regardless, as a
> techie, I both care more and can influence more the tech industry than any
> other, and I'm more upset by such behavior in the tech field.

~~~
dalke
Good point. Had you made it more general I could have criticized you the other
way. Your original observation is sound.

------
whatever_dude
Since I haven't seen any discussion about this piece of news at all, I assume
it's being flagged and deleted.

What is the policy here? No political discussions? (Serious question for the
future)

------
danarmak
...Just realized this was discussed in several posts yesterday. This one from
today is about Luckey's forced public apology. Don't think it adds anything to
the discussion; it was obvious from the outset that an Internet outrage mob of
this kind can get anyone it likes fired or otherwise humiliated.

------
danarmak
Predictably, Oculus developers are now saying nothing but Luckey's resignation
will satisfy them: [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/some-developers-
droppi...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/some-developers-dropping-
oculus-support-to-protest-founders-politics/)

Which is tantamount to saying they don't want Trump supporters to be allowed
to work in high ranking positions anywhere (since neither Oculus the company
nor the tech industry in general is special in any relevant way).

If such demands are regularly complied with, I imagine the maximum rank or
salary allowed to politically-incorrect individuals will be lowered over time.

~~~
internaut
There's another possibility. Occupational bifurcation.

A high number of programmers and geeks have politically radical or reactionary
beliefs, often taking positions atypical of the party mainstream. They also
have some forms of unique politics non-extant in the general population.

Politically right wing individuals don't make the same kinds of choices as
left wing ones. This also applies to occupational niches.

So we could wind up with SV corporations dominated by leftists, and others by
rightists. The left would own things like social and healthcare, the right
would own finance and the murderbot factories.

I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

