Hacker News Reader

Comment by backlava12 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Clearly this is something that was important to the person who posted it.

I am not the OP, but I am somebody who decides what software we use org-wide in a company, and this sort of thing matters to me.

Would you chose a product inferior to 1password if it better aligned with your politics?

I heard a wonderful quote the other day:

> Politics is just another word for how we treat our neighbors.

So yes, as I accept this definition - I may choose a "less efficient" tool if it treated my neighbor better.

I've got a neighbour that throws garbage onto my balcony, how should I treat them?

To stick with your analogy, why should that allow you to throw out every tenant who shares the ethnicity of your troublesome neighbor?

It's not an analogy, I literally have neighbours that do this. It's annoying. And I don't even necessarily want them gone, I just want them to stop throwing garbage on my balcony.

But then people like you come up with dumb scenarios like this to excuse it.

DHH wants to deport entire groups REGARDLESS of whether they've done anything wrong. So either you shared this example while aware who you are defending, or you do not understand what your words imply.

> But then people like you come up with dumb scenarios like this to excuse it.

Yeah, it's really mean of me to point out that collective punishments for entire ethnic groups are wrong. What a dumb reaction to your excellent point!

You seem to be reading a lot of words that no one wrote, you just imagined.

> DHH wants to deport entire groups REGARDLESS of whether they've done anything wrong.

He literally doesn't. He just mentions removing the problem ones.

> Yeah, it's really mean of me to point out that collective punishments for entire ethnic groups are wrong

You're literally the only one who brought up collective punishment.

I just want my (real) neighbours to stop throwing garbage on my balcony, especially when my 4 year old son is out there playing. I never even mentioned their ethnicity, you're assuming they're foreign. Why do you assume that?

Nice try, but this one's too obvious :)

Continuing the analogy: the new landlord started evicting tenants who are dumping their trash and there are other tenants protesting against those evictions and are defending the trash dumpers and will call you a Nazi for not wanting trash dumped on you.

Nope, you don't get to dismiss the detail that DHH wants to deport people regardless of whether they've committed crimes. Let's fix that in your analogy:

"The new landlord started evicting tenants of the same ethnicity as those who are dumping their trash and there are other tenants protesting against those evictions and are defending the trash dumpers and will call you a Nazi for wanting the entire ethnic group to get evicted."

Funny that you happened to miss that small detail!

You would willingly and intentionally chose a less secure password manager and put your company at risk?

Is your management chain aware of this? Which company do you work for? They have the right to know.

This doesn't concern me, but how do you go from "inferior product" to "less secure" and "let me contact your employer"?

There are other secure password managers out there, including open-source alternatives, which can be considered to be inferior due to having fewer features or a worse UI.

On a side note, while I'm sure some people only make decisions based on technical reasons, most don't. Not saying if it's right/wrong or better/worse, but that's how most humans work.

No no no, you are dodging the question. My question could not have been more clear but you are trying to side step it: "You would willingly and intentionally chose a less secure password manager and put your company at risk?"? Yes or no?

What company do you work for that is okay with that? To let your own personal politics compromise their security posture?

Slow down mate, you're not replying to the same user :-)

You asked them the following:

> Would you chose a product inferior to 1password if it better aligned with your politics?

Nowhere in your question you mentioned security, but your conclusion was that they would pick a less secure option and that their employer should be made aware. Maybe not intentionally, but looks like you're trying to win the argument with some word twisting and a 'gotcha'? But maybe that's just my limited English.

Anyway, I'm just pointing out that "inferior" doesn't mean "less secure" and that most people don't only choose things based on technical merits alone (I'd be surprised if you did). With this clarified... I will now leave the thread. Have a nice day!

That wasn't my "conclusion", that was my question to them. There was no "gotcha" here, only asking OP to clarify their position on if they would let politics influence their decision making to the point of undermining their company's security posture.

That "You would willingly and intentionally chose a less secure [...]" did sound like you assuming they would do it, but I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. My bad.

By the way, if you don't consider politics when making these decisions, then I'm not sure if you're doing a very good job either. Your employer may lose customers as result, you may end up without access to the tools or having to move again due to new laws, etc. Politics are always there.

Trump won the popular vote while running a platform of mass deportations. It's just as likely to cut the other way, which goes back to my original point that this type of "woke outrage" is played out and no longer effective.

That will depend a lot on the user/customer base you have. I doubt your business will continue as normal if you support those same ideas publicly and many of your clients are likely to be targeted, for example. The same would happen if you support complete opposite ideas and most of your clients think anyone that doesn't look like them should be deported. If there's a mix, well, you know you're going to piss off some of them.

You always need to be aware of who you're dealing with. This was true 100 years ago, still is today, and I doubt it will ever change.

If you're implying 'being slightly racist' (if you even consider that possible) not being as offensive as it was in the past, sure.

But the DHH posts linked in the original post are clearly beyond any kind of 'light'.

"Slightly" racist? He literally wants to ethnically cleanse Britain by removing anyone who isn't white?

https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...

He's also wildly misogynistic, transphobic...he's your standard white supremacist, far-right fascist.

The linked article (not DHH's article) is the reason why Trump is in power and why right wing extremists are in the rise in Europe.

People are concerned about things that can't even be expressed without getting labeled as fascist or racist. While the concerns may be irrational and without merit, it should be talked and discussed with those people and trying to understand their concerns better. Instead the reaction is "no need to talk with them as they are racists".

And yes, there are many racists out there and they have gotten so much support lately because many people feel heard by them and only them.

Bullshit: the primary reason Trump (and many other right-wingers) are in power is economic. Pushback to this sort of outward white supremacy is, in fact, quite popular.

And to a large degree, there is little point in rationally debating these concerns as they are rooted in racial animus. If somebody deeply feels that their glorious white race is being replaced by hordes of deranged brown immigrants, that's not a position they can be argued out of: it's an axiomatic outlook on the nature of society and humanity that, for the most part, only generational turnover (and maybe life experience) can correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com