Luckey on pro-Trump donation: “My actions… do not represent Oculus”
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Then there are the CEOs who are fired, err, "step down" for having an affair - which again, is entirely legal. For example, Ashley Madison's CEO Noel Biderman, and GE's CEO Jack Welch.
Plagiarism is not illegal. (Copyright infringement is illegal, but it's possible to plagiarize without infringing on copyright.)
What do you think of the trend in Germany of punishing high-ranking politicians for plagiarism in their published works?
Because it seems to me that the US tech industry is not all that unusual. I suspect it's more that we know it better because we're tech people.
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. Otherwise everyone will enforce their own morality and we'll end up with segregation. One company will censure employees for having affairs, another will censure them for being gay.
That said, when it's the employer (or company board, commander-in-chief, etc.) who is censuring, they have a legal right to do so (up to the laws about firing without cause). It's different from public pressure demanding they be censured. Engaging in such pressure is of course legal (and properly so), but I think it's it's both unproductive and ethically wrong.
Politicians are a special category: they are judged by voters on pretty much everything they do. People vote for them based on large part on their public personas, and if their private behavior is found to contradict their public statements, that's valid information for voters to act on. However, nobody was going to buy Oculus because of Luckey's persona or behavior; they're punishing the company not because the company is at fault but because it's a way to punish Luckey by proxy.
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.
Especially since tech and open source has a standard (among others) of judging people by the quality of their work, and not by who they are. "Shut up and show me your code" - unless you're a Trump voter, in which case I don't want your pull request?
I think "Shut up and show me your code" is another way to enforce a morality, and it ends up with a different form of segregation, expressed well be Alan Cooper's book "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum". I prefer egalitarianism over the false promises of meritocracy.
As such, we have very different views of how the world works, much less should work. They cannot be resolved in HN comments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FWIW, while Israel has laws which prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs (according to 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... .
> 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.
California Proposition 8 passed the public vote with 52% in favor, and Trump consistently polls above 40% today. Do you support boycotting every company where at least one executive officer belongs to a 40%+ part of the population? Do you really expect that, if applied fairly, this wouldn't result in boycotting almost all companies in the market? Would you support policies routinely vetting the private behavior of company executives? Are you alright with the other camp boycotting companies whose executives hold opinions you support?
I believe that people should be able to employ, be employed, and not be ostracized, regardless of their private strictly legal and in fact mainstream political opinions, however odious those opinions may be to a subset of the population. Quite apart from morals, it's the only workable equilibrium in a politically polarized society.
I'm not sure about America but in the developed world, there are laws against shit like "I didn't hire him because he voted for Reagan"
There are not laws forcing people/companies to do business regardless of their opinions on the behaviour/actions of a company/CEO/etc.
Are you really saying allowing people to boycott things based on their own beliefs is bad?
Gotcha.
Edit: also:
I still don't understand why you believe there is a problem. If someone is actually fired because they support a particular party/etc that would be (in sane countries) illegal.
If it's not illegal in your country, maybe you should fix that before insisting that anything anyone says should be automatically free of consequences. That is a very slippery fucking slope, especially with the sort of shit trump supporters say aleady.
As for the specific issues: Brendan resigned from Mozilla because he couldn't "manage effectively", aka the staff in Mozilla didn't respect him because of his prior actions. It was the staff in Mozilla who publicised his donation - they knew what he'd done before the shit storm that happened online.
If you can't unfuck yourself from a situation where people don't respect you, maybe you didn't have the chops to be CEO in the first place.
And for the trump supporter, I don't fucking care. Trump is an orange hitler with less charm and a worse haircut than the original. To those who support him: fuck you very much, from the rest of the fucking world.
What is the policy here? No political discussions? (Serious question for the future)
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.
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. ;-)