Hacker News Reader

Comment by rexreed | Hacker News Reader

This is getting to be a bit absurd. I understand and can sympathize with the plight of folks who feel that they are becoming economically marginalized in the region, because in many ways it is really happening. But public badgering of mid to low-level folks is not a way to gain a lot of support.

It's like damaging the lobby of a Bank of America or smashing the windows of a McDonalds -- all it does is ruin the day for the poor middle to low income folks who run the branch and does nothing to the folks who you aim to target.

View on HN

I'd take a different angle:

This is the behavior of desperate people who have lost hope that our government functions and are motivated to action.

This seems like the natural conclusion of our government's inattentiveness to it's citizenry. Violence isn't far when folks have achieved this level of frustration.

The last line of the link makes it clear that Google isn't going to be the only target. "All of you other tech companies, all of you other developers and everyone else building the new surveillance state--We're coming for you next." Burn the witch!

I don't think people should be resorting to violence out of principle, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect that "folks" who are economically marginalized should put up with this because "manners."

Great level-headedness.

I just wanted to point out, it's _not just the economic marginalization_, it's the cultural mismatch that fuels so much frustration for those in the outside group.

Of course the economic stuff is easy to measure (being numbers!), but stuff like calling yourself a robot (the develop calls himself a robot in his soul), having employees wear different colored badges according to their privileges and so on are cultural differences that people don't like and feel compelled to call out.

But targeting developers is exactly backwards! Or at least it would be if development was, net, increasing the number of housing units. SF has some insane zoning laws; why aren't they a target? Or is there an implication that SF should only ever serve the interests of those that live there as-of some unspecified date in the (recent?) past? Will the police enforce the borders of the city to prevent anyone from entering or leaving? How exactly is this worker paradise supposed to work?

I doubt the protesters are going to be logging into HN to answer your reasonable questions.

If I lived in SF- i would be concerned that something major has changed. Your response describes reasonable questions in a level playing field where people have hope that the system works.

I don't think these people have hope in the system anymore. They're trying fundamentally different approaches rather than just giving up.

If they are willing to go after specific employees like this in spite of perception damages that come with the approach, they probably aren't averse to the perception damages that violence cultivates either.

What's ridiculous is, they do it to themselves. If they just used their votes to get a zoning board and laws that let people build housing there wouldn't be this problem. 64% of people in SF rent. If you want lower rents, stop trying to make the city look the same in 2014 as it did in 1964.

I've noticed the same people that are crying about the gentrification are the same people crying about the new buildings killing the culture of the city. It seems like they just want to kick all the new people out and just keep the status quo.

If the status quo means having a place to live in what was your and your family's neighborhood (cultural and actual) for a long time, yours is not really an indictment.

Perhaps, but the view fails to understand what a city is and that cities change, grow and die. Cities are not monolithic static entities. They are not 'living' museums.

It's a pretty damning indictment for anyone who thought, even briefly, about exactly how that would work. How exactly will someone and their family have a place to live, in the same neighborhood? Will someone be responsible for ensuring that population doesn't grow too much? And will someone else be responsible for deciding how long "a long time" is, or what happens after said time passes? I mean, of course it would be fantastic if nice shit just fell out of the sky and could be had merely by bending down to pick it up off the ground – but that's an infantile hope and it's stupid to expect it.

Why should it matter what level they are? If its wrong to harass the low level worker its wrong to harass any level of worker at their home. If you wish to protest a business do so at their business.

Lets just hope feel the same the next time they read about some mid level banker or stock broker having people outside their homes. Amazing how even in this community we have groups who think there is a difference just because of who you work for.

> If its wrong to harass the low level worker its wrong to harass any level of worker at their home.

If we stipulate that actual harassment is illegal, I don't think the rest of your statement follows. Protesting at the home of a worker without decision-making authority is unlikely to change anything, protesting at the home of a high level executive (hypothetically--you'd never get past their security) could potentially convince them to change the way their company does business.

The analogy between Google and McDonalds only works in regard to commercial creepiness. It does not sufficiently cover collaboration with the surveillance state's organs.

>The analogy between Google and McDonalds only works in regard to commercial creepiness. It does not sufficiently cover collaboration with the surveillance state's organs.

What??? Uhh. This guy is the surveillance state's organs. You mean he's from Oregon? No wait...

I don't think anybody wants a situation in which companies pick-and-choose which laws to follow, and which to ignore.

The proper target for anger in this case is the NSA and the government which allowed this to happen.

And we might guess that majority of those "protesters" either did not vote or voted for Obama.

In a country where corporations seem to have more power over the government than its people, it more effective to target the corporations than the government.

Only individual persons have moral agency. The NSA is not a proper target for the expression of moral outrage because it is not a moral agent [and neither is Google or any other corporate entity]. If you call up the NSA to express moral outrage it is likely to be handled as a matter of law enforcement one way or the other though handled not in your favor is more likely. Call Google or Microsoft or Apple and your moral outrage is treated with standardized customer service protocols.

The NSA is not a proper target for expressions of moral outrage, the individual elected officials who allow, facilitate, or collaborate with its behaviors are as are those who are just following orders. The people responsible are responsible whether the context is some three letter agency or a publicly traded company. A corporation doesn't shield one from moral liability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com