Hacker News Reader

They donate to Democratic candidates at roughly the same rate. Does that counterbalance the harm done to trans people?

That raises more questions than it answers; are they donating to both sides of the same race, or just candidates in different locations? For what purpose? Is this kind of "guilt offset" valid, can you just buy off harm while continuing to do it?

Simpler possibility: they're donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise regardless of party affiliation because that's how rent seeking and regulatory capture works?

Right - they're donating to help Google, not to help or harm trans people. They're a business, not an activist non-profit.

But I think it's more proactive than "donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise". I think it's more like "donating so that the candidate will support legislation (not just one piece!) favorable to Google as an enterprise". That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive. Google wants politicians to like Google before they're deciding which legislation to support.

That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive.

I'm definitely willing to concede that in many cases it's a little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B. Probably.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com