Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

If you are a US company, or have a US user base, politics is non-optional. How do you deal with "hateful" user-generated content? Hate is now politics. How do you deal with employees expressing thier opinions at work? Basic fashion is now politics (masks). Which health care plan do you adopt? There are right and left-wing plans (birth control etc). The holidays are comming. Do your employees say "merry christmas" or "happy holidays"? Dont think you can avoid that one. Letting them pick is still taking sides. What is your policy on weapons? Can guns be sold/discussed on your platform? Then politics comes knocking on the door directly. To which parties or candidates will you donate? Will you create special rules for well-connected users? (Facebook). Will you turn off a politician's account when it violates your rules? (Twitter). Will you accept a political party as a customer? What if they insist you then turn away a different party?

Politics cannot be avoided. It is part of the US tech landscape. The only option is to plan and engage thoughtfully.

View on HN

Is a whiteboard political? If I buy a whiteboard from Staples, and draw a confederate flag and some hate speech it does not get erased automatically. Have the whiteboard manufacturers made a political statement because their products do not censor hate speech?

I'm skeptical of this claim they everything is political. A forum they hosted any and all content will definitely host political speech, but those are the politics of the users not the site. Your kind of rhetoric seems like an attempt to say that hosting something is equivalent to an endorsement of it. This is not at all the case.

Where was the whiteboard manufactured? Did the frame use Canadian aluminum?

Then there is that pesky issue of it being a Whiteboard.

Most stuff from canada comes in white these days. The country is litterally covered in snow at the moment.

If content is posted onto a site that is obviously hateful, the site has the choice to keep it up or take it down. The outcome of that choice is a political act (to not act is to act). The severity of the hate speech might matter, but ultimately regardless of which path they take, they've taken a path.

In your whiteboard analogy, if you were giving an interview to a candidate and walked into a meeting room that had a swastika on a whiteboard and opted not to erase it, as a candidate I would assume that was an endorsement.

Not taking a side is taking the side of whoever is being most aggressive. "I don't want to get involved" is getting involved.

Someday people will realize that there is something called laws and law enforcement.. till that day tech companies can keep playing that part..

What do laws have to do with this?

Not getting involved is not getting involved. You might take this as an indirect endorsement of content. But by that logic, a site with no moderation simultaneously liberal, conservative, and centrist because all are allowed. I guess you can say that it's political, but because it allows all content it's political nature is all-encompassing. Calling a completely apolitical stance political is sort of like calling Atheism a religion. It's arguably correct but it's really the absence of religion.

Also, I think your whiteboard with a swatstika analogy demonstrates the shortsightedness of this sort of "inaction is endorsement" line of thinking. What about a candidate who's family was personally affected by the Holocaust and is so mortified to see the swatstika that they are too uncomfortable to even do anything about it? What about a South Asian candidate for whom the symbol doesn't elicit a reaction because of it's prevalence in South Asian culture? Or what about a candidate who thinks, "the people at this company definitely aren't Nazis, clearly this was part of diagram or something."

> Not getting involved is not getting involved.

No.

> But by that logic, a site with no moderation simultaneously liberal, conservative, and centrist because all are allowed.

We aren't (and haven't been) talking about political ideals, but hate speech. A website that doesn't take action on hate speech is allowing and condoning hate speech.

> Calling a completely apolitical stance political is sort of like calling Atheism a religion. It's arguably correct but it's really the absence of religion.

We're not talking about apolitical stances like "I like chocolate." We're talking about hate speech, which is implicitly political.

> Also, I think your whiteboard with a swatstika analogy demonstrates the shortsightedness of this sort of "inaction is endorsement" line of thinking. What about a candidate who's family was personally affected by the Holocaust and is so mortified to see the swatstika that they are too uncomfortable to even do anything about it?

Isn't this just even more evidence to suggest that an employee not taking action is an action itself?

What-aboutism is great, but it doesn't really matter in this context, right? "What about a candidate who's blind" etc etc. I defined a hypothetical scenario to prove a point in response to the above hypothetical scenario.

Reducing the scope to content you categorize as "hate speech" doesn't change the problems with trying to claim that refusal to remove content condoning that content. Say group X posts content proclaiming superiority over group Y. And group Y also posts content proclaiming superiority over group X. Say website does not take action on either instance of hate speech. It would follow that the website is condoning two contradictory views.

The reality is that hosting content is not condoning it. An approach of "we're treating this like a whiteboard, we are not going to be involved in taking action against particular content" isn't an endorsement of anything. Whatever objectionable content someone might post, another person could post the complete opposite.

Not getting involved is exactly that: not getting involved. Ultimately, this claim that refusal to take action against hate speech is the same "inaction with respect to _____ is condoning ______" rhetoric that's been trotted out time and time again. At best, it's a misguided effort to inspire opposition to harmful views.

People don’t change their opinions on the internet, so I’m not going to change your mind. This just such an upset tingly misguided stance it’s hard to even brush it off. I’m unsure what the negative side effect of suggesting opposition to harmful views, but that’s on you I guess.

There are entire books discussing whether inaction is action, so that debate is clearly not getting solved here. I just ask, how do you think Facebook’s stance (the same as yours) is working out?

> People don’t change their opinions on the internet, so I’m not going to change your mind. This just such an upset tingly misguided stance it’s hard to even brush it off.

I would say the exact same thing regarding your misguided claim that refusal to censor content amounts to endorsement of it.

> I’m unsure what the negative side effect of suggesting opposition to harmful views, but that’s on you I guess.

Where did I write that there are negative side effects of removing content? All I wanted to dispel is the false claim that lack of censorship is a political stance.

> I just ask, how do you think Facebook’s stance (the same as yours) is working out?

Where do you get the idea that Facebook doesn't remove hate speech? Their content policies are easily found via Google: https://m.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech

>Is a whiteboard political? If I buy a whiteboard from Staples, and draw a confederate flag and some hate speech it does not get erased automatically. Have the whiteboard manufacturers made a political statement because their products do not censor hate speech?

Considering that in that case you are the "moderator and owner" of that white board, yes it would be a political action if you decide to remove or not the confederate flag. That's without getting into the fact that the whiteboard didn't come from the ether and it's production, sale and all processes that compose the two are, also in some manner, political.

I am a policy person by trade, I will say that there is a quote “you cannot separate politics from administration” this is a public sector term but I think it applies to any admin functions of a business. I also think politics (more accurate policy, regulatory, and administrative law) would play a huge role in making a white board due to compliance requirements. But maybe not in the way you say.

As non-american... I don't get offended when somebody mentions halloween or that green thing day. If people ask how was the celebration, I've no issues telling that I don't participate in said holidays and maybe introduce to my culture and what we do instead. I'd expect same response from me telling "merry christmas".

As for political donations - one of the best things in my country is that non-personal political donations are banned, period. And personal donations are capped. There're safeguard to prevent bums from suddenly getting lots of money and donating that too.

That sounds sensible and Scalia in the court said he didn't think such rules would make much difference. Still not happy about his call there.

Banning commercial donations is a good idea, but difficult in reality. How do you handle commercial speech? What if a corporation wants to express its opinion using its own money? That is common in the US. Can a company come out for/against a new law, a proposed project, a pipeline?

Specifically donations to political parties and individual politicians are banned.

If a corporation wants to run a media campaign on social issues - that's fine. But if an ad features a politician, especially leading up to election, that'd be treated as illegal political ad.

The legal way to do is through legal lobyist. Companies can pay them and certified lobyists can talk to institutions/individuals/parties. But meetings are semi-public and the public is +/- aware of what is lobying what. Lobyists can't give gifts to politicians, otherwise they risk their license.

There's a workaround though. Politicians love to establish NGOs, then corporations donate to NGOs and politicians go on speaking tour in the name of NGO to cash out. But at least that limits use of corporate money for over-the-top election campaigns.

> If a corporation wants to run a media campaign on social issues

Well the problem is that "running media campaigns" is the vast majority of what political donations are spent on. All the other stuff (campaign salaries, etc) fits easily into any candidate's totally-aboveboard-donations revenue account.

Not saying I approve of the current system; just that this is not a problem with an easy fix.

But that campaign cannot feature a party or politician. It can just coincidentally support same cause as party X.

Of course it's not a 100% fix. But it's a step in a correct direction.

edit: thinking more, it may be complicated in US where X always means party A and Y always means party B. Here we've a bunch of overlapping parties and there're multiple parties (or factions) behind pretty much any issue from any angle.

Not to mention the whole, "to 'not do politics' is itself a political stance [in favor of the status quo].", eh?

(I'm not "that guy" myself, but I bet he'll show up. edit: There we go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25179187 Thank you zabhi. )

- - - -

> The only option is to plan and engage thoughtfully.

FWIW, I feel that that begins with getting real clear on one's deepest values and motives. I think what we're seeing in the USA is kind of like when a kid from a small town goes to the big city for the first time. US culture even after WWII has always been kind of insular and provincial. (As a kid, my world was divided into SF, the East Bay, and the rest of it.) Now with the Internet everybody is up in each other's faces (also driven by those clicks, gotta get those clicks) and we're a bit shocked, collectively.

It's a bit weird from the outside, as a non-american. When I was growing up there was a very narrow window of acceptable ideas in the US, anything else was "unamerican". "The two parties are basically the same" was a cliche when I was a kid.

The reaction to a relatively tiny number of new acceptable ideas in the discourse has been pretty surprising, even to someone who thought they already had a low opinion of American culture.

And yeah, sure, the ad-generated enragement feeds don't help. But it is clearly mostly the small town kid getting exposed to more ideas thing, no question.

Heck, when I was growing up, just being a nerd was enough to catch flak. I was once literally called a "poindexter" by a shirtless yokel while travelling by train though the Midwest!

Granted, there's always been an undercurrent of counter-culture in America. The Puritans had their witches. But by the 50's at least it was all buttoned up tight, and then exploded in the 60's and 70's, recoiled in the 80's, then everybody took a decade off in the 90's, and somehow in the 00's and 10's we all lost our fwcking minds.

The thing about mainstream American culture is that it pretty much had been under the thumb of mass media and religion. That's why the whole "fake news" attack is so devastating: our news has been fake. I read Noam Chomsky at an impressionable age and I recall the realization that we (in the USA) were living in what I called a "media blackout". Anything "they" didn't want you to know was simply omitted. It worked so much better than the Russian system.

But only until the Internet hit...

haha ... yeah, that's kinda "the thing" you don't mention to Americans because they get mad. It's incredibly apparent from just outside the bubble (or half-in it like in Canada).

Every country with a heavily controlled media, with a people indoctrinated with a nationalistic fairy tale is having the same problems with the internet breaking down the old singular media narrative. The heavier the controls were, the larger the societal shock now.

It's ... touchy. We have all learned in the last couple years how to empathize with our American friends who just learned about Tucson or the MOVE bombing or something we learned in school that they just learned about from a superhero show or an apology. It's fine to blame it on your schools, it is definitely a bad move to mention the actual cause.

most of this only applies to social media companies. there are business models, even in tech, that simply don't revolve around user-generated content. but yeah, if you host mass UGC and have moderation, you can't really escape the political implications.

> How do you deal with employees expressing their opinions at work?

have a policy that work comms are only for discussion of work-related topics. keeping politics outside the permanent record is probably beneficial for everyone, and people are usually less nasty in person anyway. you'll probably end up with only a handful of employees who routinely start arguments over non work-related topics. after a couple warnings, it's time to "separate" them from the company.

> There are right and left-wing plans (birth control etc).

this is currently not an issue for the company. per ACA, employers are required to cover birth control in their health plans.

> The holidays are comming. Do your employees say "merry christmas" or "happy holidays"?

I really don't believe many people care about this. I work with people of every major faith, and it has literally never been an issue. if you want to be extra neutral, you can get rid of company holidays and just give everyone a little extra PTO. this way the company doesn't have to play the delicate game of deciding which faith's holidays to recognize.

tl;dr: I don't think any of this stuff is terribly hard to sidestep. many tech companies choose not to; I suspect they feel they benefit from playing the game.

There are exceptions to the ACA mandate. Small/closely held corporations (most startups) can opt out if they have religeous objections. Last time i looked there was no price difference between such plans. So if you are a small business, by not opting out you are taking a side. The system abhores indecision and so will make them for you.

A lot of b2b firms deal with political issues - Axon, Microsoft, hosting companies, etc. many of them are in the position where they will be approached to do a function for a government entity at some point and their decision, if not compelled, will have political ramifications.

> How do you deal with "hateful" user-generated content

Consistently. Whatever you policies, apply them as consistently as possible.

Then all political camps will be against you, as you violate each of their norms in turn.

Once at least one major (political) group calls views held by tens of millions of people hate speech, there is no way to avoid being in someone's black book. This is why many companies are aligning with one party - they can't have both, and it's better than none.

>black book

Careful with those metaphors!

People shouldn’t care if trying to do the right thing makes you end up in someones black book. There will always be people who are on the wrong side of things. Just do what you think is best for our society.

But "the right thing" differs from person to person. A 10 person company [say, running a local grocery store] comprised entirely of conservatives will think it's right to allow customers to decide if they want to wear a mask, while the same company comprised entirely of liberals will think that it's right to make customers wear masks and otherwise refuse servicing them. Who decides which company is doing the right thing? You?

Yes. And you're allowed to be wrong. To make mistakes. Own up to them if you do.

But never stop trying to do what you thing is right because it's unpopular in certain circles. You'll be very unhappy if you do.

That is fine. Consistently being on no one's side is better than being on someone's side.

Then you'll have to withstand at least one party: twitter mobs, editorials, maybe employee protests or resignations. Both you personally, and your company. It's not surprising that many companies give in. They want to make a product and make money, not to make a political or moral stand.

That's also fine, Coinbase is doing that, and giving generous severence packages to leaving employees as well. There will always be detractors but most people won't really care.

Conveniently not mentioned in the article, though it saw fit to point out that "About 60 Coinbase employees, or 5 percent of the work force, have resigned,"

Then the side you take will be determined by whatever content you move against first.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

-- Anatole France

And when short of bread, both rich and poor alike are free to eat cake.

I’ve never gotten this quote. On the face of it it seems like a high priority that the law should not respect the station of a person. If a society has made something illegal it needs to apply from the least to the greatest, or the law is unjust.

Equally-applied law sustains inequity.

Inequity is a natural state.

Should discrimination be applied to achieve "equity"?

If so, how is that fair to those being discriminated against?

Inequality sustained or increased by the law of man is entirely artificial.

Discrimination has long been applied to achieve inequality. I'm willing to try the opposite as a countermeasure.

https://www.newberry.org/newberry-and-restrictive-covenants

Any sort of bettering that is not globally experienced equally sustains inequity. To go to an absurd place the improvements I made to my garden this year sustain inequity since I now have and enjoy them and others do not, but they would if I had donated the same amount of time to a community garden. That alone should not be a compelling reason to act.

I think what I would take from it is that it all though the laws are the same, they do not effect each person in the same way.

How likely is it for the rich to sleep I under a bridge, beg or steal bread? Those are crimes to punish those too poor to be able to afford anything else.

Or to put it another way, it’s a crime to be poor.

Isn't that just to say that murder is a crime both for the pacifist and the psycopath? If society deems something to be illegal it is illegal for both those who would never do it and those who could gain from doing it. That is fundamental for all laws.

There is law and there is justice.

To my mind that is what I am advocating for, a law must apply universally to be just.

There is social justice and there are social laws.

Oh wait, footgun...

> On the face of it it seems like a high priority that the law should not respect the station of a person.

Generally the opposite is true. Consider, say, sumptuary laws.

It's one of those quotes you shouldn't think about too much, because it really makes no sense. It's meant to make people feel. Because feelings are easier to manipulate than thoughts.

I strongly disagree. It has a clear point, one you can understand quite clearly with your mind.

Laws against doing things that only desperate poor people do may appear equal, since they in theory apply just as much to the rich. But in practice they only affect the poor. And the way they affect the poor is to close off options, and thereby increase the desperation.

Sure, you should feel that. You should also understand it with your mind.

The law, also in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to murder, physically harm others etc.

Less fancy.

Consistency is not perfect but it is better than dictators picking favorites.

Take theft alone:

https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-fo...

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/abuse-by-bosses-comes...

https://images.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/ZQYbyzoDpfIv5LdWl1...

"our policies are a living document" -- Twitter

Reply on news.ycombinator.com