Hacker News Reader

Comment by notSupplied | Hacker News Reader

When a group of employees demand that their employers engage in political activism, what they are asking for is the ability to commandeer the resources of the company, whether it be its reputation, money, or labor to advance their political objective. They want to amplify their impact beyond what they can accomplish with their personal resources. I wonder how these same people feel about the political contributions of companies from the opposing end of the spectrum. Would they say "Get corporate power out of politics!"?

View on HN

While I agree, I think you have it ultimately backwards. The push for politicizing the workplace is being driven from the top. Jeff Bezos is just one of many wealthy Americans who own large stakes in both media and tech companies. Their media companies promote diversity because they think it will produce positive global social effects, but their tech companies resist it presumably because they think it creates negative local economic effects (why else wouldn't Google be %15 Black and 25% Hispanic?) Assuming the positive global effects, its a "tragedy of the commons" situation where ironically the strongest pressure on individual companies comes from employees who consume the media being produced by the owners of those companies instead of those owners directly.

During WWII, IBM supplied the Nazis with mainframe computers and were responsible for untold deaths in exchange for money.

It's not that black and white.

That was in the early/mid 30s, not during WW2.

Not only is that not factually incorrect, it's pretty trivial to check before you comment. Why didn't you?

Excuse me?

"The Nazis used Hollerith equipment that IBM's German subsidiary during the 1930s – Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen GmbH (Dehomag) – supplied... As did hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time"

https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/1388.wss

This argument is always brought up. But it's insincere, because you're just arguing that the nazies are bad, not that IBM was bad for helping the nazies.

Because if you were, you should also argue that during WW2, any companies that helped the Allies should also befall the same criticism (that of being politically aligned rather than be neutral).

I really would love to grill you on this in real time because I suspect you're simply ignorant of IBM's involvement.

IBM helped with the holocaust. Actively. Past 1939.

IBM is bad for helping the nazis and for helping kill many people.

What you got out of that comment was that IBM was wrong to help the Nazis because doing so made it politically aligned??

It's true that IBM sold unit record (punch card) equipment to the Nazis, but we can be pretty damn sure IBM didn't sell them computers, mainframe or otherwise, because they didn't exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com