Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

> The question to me is whether salesforce executives really think they can stop their customers from selling guns, or whether they are just virtue signalling.

If Facebook and others can kick white supremacists off their platforms, why can't Salesforce kick gun sellers off of theirs?

> because CRM software is not a necessary economic input for selling guns.

So what's the problem if Salesforce isn't necessary to sell this class of firearm?

View on HN

If you accept the propositions from my first post, and suppose that the owners of Salesforce value this virtue signalling more than they value the profit they lose, there is no problem for them. But I would also argue that this would be silly ordering of preferences, especially considering that it is a publicly owned company.

Being publicly owned does not require you maximize profits. Patagonia donated its $10 million in tax savings from US tax reform to fighting climate change. Is that virtue signaling? Yes! Is that also donating funds you weren't required to to a cause your business values? Yes!

I agree with you but I have point out that Pategonia is a private company

Great point that they're private (I missed that). Here's an older Fortune article about charity at public companies.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/fortune-500-most-charitable-co... (The 20 Most Generous Companies of the Fortune 500)

> In total, the 20 most generous companies donated $3.5 billion in cash in 2015.

Simply because you're public doesn't mean every dollar is being sent to either shareholders or directly reinvested into the business. Nor does it mean you are legally required to take actions to maximize shareholder value.

Your argument does not appropriately address the concern. Donating real cash to an effort actually helps. Withdrawing CRM software from gun retailers does not accomplish anything to reduce gun violence. Virtue signaling, as a term, is intended to address instances where the social signal is more highly prioritized than the action itself. The action was specifically to fire some of Salesforce's customers over a political motive.

Would you not consider it possible that by firing a gun customer, and thereby making it harder to transact, its possible gun violence was slightly reduced? I mean, it's clear the US isn't going to enact sane gun control policy, so you can't also be shocked when the free market decides to act. While Salesforce alone isn't big enough to move the needle with gun violence, as with deplatforming white supremacists, it does work when everyone acts in concert.

I strongly believe this will not reduce gun violence. I also concede that it is impossible to measure.

I think their CRM software (and other software) is about as integral to the sale of a gun as the Doritos for sale in the gun retailer's company canteen. If Frito-Lay came out and said "we will no longer sell snack products to gun retailers" would you applaud them?

Given that as I understand it most gun violence is undertaken by people who have obtained the firearms illegally[0] or are prohibited from owning them I doubt this will move the needle at all. All this does is prevent people who would legally obtain arms and very probably use them safely to be recorded in a competitors CRM system as opposed to Salesforce.

[0]https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/j...

To add to that the class of firearm in question is barely represented in crime in the first place.

They bought Demandware (eCommerce platform) a while ago so it is possible that they are talking about more than their CRM.

For any retailer, losing your eCommerce platform would be a pretty big bummer.

Henceforth Intel CPUs shall only compute on workloads deemed kosher by the cancel/activist/de-platform crowd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com