Hacker News Reader

Comment by bencpeters | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I find this "turn to anger" a little hollow/self-serving. Nothing Trump has done so far is in any way out of line with what he was saying on the campaign trail - the only people who are surprised by his actions are the people who took a "he's not being serious, it's just talk" view when evaluating his speeches. I wish SV companies and executives could have had this "turn to anger" back when it mattered and helped avert this when it was easiest to do so - before the election.

View on HN

What was the tech sector supposed to do? Go campaign in Wisconsin for Hillary?

Tech was already shoveling tons of money into her campaign. Bezos-owned Washington Post was about as Anti-Trump as a news organization can be.

People in Boulder were making calls to more contested states. Historically these personal calls have had a small but measurable effect.

They should have done whatever it is that qualifies as "turning to anger" now.

(Personally, I think the article is overstating the case.)

Google Facebook should support remote work from red states in republican counties.. maybe a few remote offices as well.

Twitter could have suspended his account.

Having the temporary immigration ban affect current temporary and permanent residents to the United States was pretty out of line with campaign promises. So was extending that ban if banned nations don't cooperate with United States (really Syria, Yemen and Iran are going to cooperate?) Kinda makes it a not so temporary ban.

I think they were disgusted but generally uncomfortable fighting against the power and the electorate that voted him in. Maybe the campaign was all talk like his locker room talk, who knows? And campaigns are often quite dirty affairs.

But now its week one, the policies are eggregious and the implementation is incompetent, and a groundswell is building. I suppose now industry leaders dont feel like they are sticking their necks out, or at least they have a lot of company.

Though if we must have egregious politics, it's best if they're implemented incompetently.

Hollow, maybe. Too little too late, probably. Self-serving??

Now they jump in and intervene to play the role of hero, begging the question: why not sooner?

Rhetorically, the answer implied is that, had they made their voices and opinions known earlier, it might not have seemed as heroic as it does now. Letting circumstances become dire, when they could have been prevented altogether suggests performances are crafted and dishonest for the purpose of branding, marketing or personal fame.

Sort of like if John McAfee reared his head right about now, but with greater subtlety.

The biggest problem is that the Dems could only offer a hawk who had issues getting along with Putin. I would have held my breath if she entered office while Putin was still in power. That and her globalist outlook (even if later she tried to pretend to become anti-globalist.)

There was really no good choice and it became a choice of the least bad and the guy who won at least isn't afraid to say he's looking out for Americans whereas Hillary was more timid about looking out for the average Joe and Sue.

A lot of them did. Dustin Moskovitz publicly spent millions for Hillary, and Brin did as well, secretly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com