Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeremyt | Hacker News Reader

Considering what recently happened at Mozilla, and other examples where we see protesters showing up at people's private homes, I oppose this effort.

I used to think that disclosure was the answer when it came to campaign-finance reform: let anybody give as much as they want as long as it's publicly disclosed.

But now that people can lose their job because of their political views, I'm much more reluctant to speak out in favor of or donate to causes I believe in. Hell, I'm afraid to even say what I'm saying right now because it'll put me on record publicly opposing Matt Cutts, who can basically make or break any future companies I participate in that rely on SEO as a strategy.

I think people should be able to donate to causes anonymously without worrying about retaliation..

View on HN

"I think people should be able to donate to causes anonymously without worrying about retaliation.."

But this has never been the case, it didn't start with Mozilla. Laborers used to be at risk of being murdered for attempting to unionize, here's a nice example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Little_(unionist). Even in less extreme cases, they could lose their jobs, and they still do, routinely (despite the fact that union activists have a small amount of legal protection today).

The relevant Supreme Court decision in this issue is NAACP vs. Alabama, in which the state of Alabama attempted to expose the donors and members of NAACP so that they could be targeted with social pressure to stop working in Alabama. The U.S. Supreme Court found that Alabama's state law was superceded by the right of free association.

A lot of people are going to balk at comparing American Crossroads to the NAACP. And I think they'd be right on the politics and policy. But since the law must treat everyone equally, there does not seem to be any way to force some organizations to reveal their donors and members without opening to door to forcing any or all organizations to do the same.

> now that people can lose their job because of their political views

I agree this is not fair nor beneficial, but from the Hollywood blacklist to Jim Crow to Martin Luther to "should we/shouldn't we build this golden calf", this has pretty much always been around.

Whether I agree with your point or not, I don't think that changes anything. My argument stands even if I change the words "now that" into "since"

Except people do have a right to associate or not associate with others on the basis of their respective views. In the case of Brendan Eich, a lot of people made it clear that they didn't want to associate with him, and he chose to resign.

That is, I believe, the definition of how a marketplace of ideas is supposed to work; you get to have your view, somebody else gets to have a different view, and if one of them "wins" then... it wins.

You call it a marketplace of ideas; I call it tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps you'd prefer the tyranny of the minority?

Majority rule is a feature (or bug) of democracy. If you disagree with the prevailing views of the, in your words, tyrannical, majority, then you need to be more vocal, not less, in order to foster change. Yes, there will be consequences, but depending on the strength of your conviction and the fundamental correctness of your (minority) views, change can be brought about. Cases in point: Gandhi, MLK and leaders of other social movements who did it. At great personal price, yes, but nonetheless, did create change.

TL;DR: Put up or Shut up. Change comes at a price.

Well, no, I'd really prefer the tyranny of no one. As in: if I have a political view that differs from the majority, I'd like to be able to hold that view and still keep my job based on how well I do my job.

What if I have a family, need my job, and don't have the luxury of being a Gandhi or an MLK?

I don't know what kind of dream world you live in, but most people are just trying to get by. If given the choice between speaking out and perhaps facing consequences or keeping quiet, I think most people will just say forget it and keep quiet.

You may see this as a feature, but this outcome is contrary to the stated goals of the founders of this nonprofit.

Seriously, I really don't want to live in a world where I have to be a Gandhi or a MLK on every issue on which I disagree with the majority.

What if I have a family, need my job, and don't have the luxury of being a Gandhi or an MLK?

For the record, both Gandhi and MLK had families. They were NOT some retro-day techno-nomad free-agent dude-bro single males, with no responsibilities and little to lose.

[A]. Well, no, I'd really prefer the tyranny of no one.

[B]. I don't know what kind of dream world you live in, but most people are just trying to get by.

To me [A] and [B] appear self-contradictory. You call me out on living in a dream world, but start your answer by describing your own. Wake up and smell the coffee. It is bitter and burnt.

My point about everything coming at a price still stands. Your refutations are beating around it, not on it.

> this has pretty much always been around.

Yep, the difference now is that it's less predictable. In the past if you were a part of the existing power structure you could expect to be safe, even if the political landscape changed under your feet. For example, plenty of powerful white men held pro-segregationist views in the 60's and recanted in the 80's without getting blacklisted.

In constrast, those outside the power structure were not safe. Any views or actions from the past could be resurrected to get them fired or worse when the landscape changed. The beginning of the Hollywood blacklist, for example, was as much about getting rid of Russian Jews as it was about finding communists.

Now it seems that nobody is safe and our political landscape is changing more quickly than ever. That makes it more frightening to step out, especially for those of us like myself (white guys) who had previously been protected implicitly.

> nobody is safe

Really? Why? If you're referring to Brendan Eich, keep in mind that he never recanted his contribution to Proposition 8. If he had, I'm pretty sure things would have turned out differently for him.

>Hell, I'm afraid to even say what I'm saying right now because it'll put me on record publicly opposing Matt Cutts, who can basically make or break any future companies I participate in that rely on SEO as a strategy.

You're basically making the claim that Google will manually take action on sites that they don't like, something which I've never seen any evidence for, and you haven't provided any.

No, I'm making the claim that if you get in trouble with SEO - even if it's an honest mistake - being on the good side of the Google team can mean the difference between your company surviving or dying.

I can point to rap genius as a public example (and that wasn't even an honest mistake), but I've seen this happen myself and I've talked to a number of people who have admitted that Matt Cutts or someone on the search team personally intervened in their issue.

To clarify: I'm not saying anyone is taking action against people they don't like, I'm saying that it's very easy to not take action to help people you don't like.

Rap Genius was actively gaming the system at the time so that isn't a worthy example.

Rap genius was penalized, but then the penalty was quietly lifted after a couple months. Tell me a less well-connected company would've gotten such a deal.

It's a tough balance, but I think most people disagree with you. Right now there's literally nothing stopping Russia or China from buying ads to sway elections. I don't think that's happening, but I think secrecy and corruption are a bigger threat to our democracy than a few protesters.

Even Ted Cruz thinks there should be full and immediate disclosure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrmUvAoPV1I&feature=youtu.be

With respect, I think it's a safe bet that this organization wasn't formed to prevent Russia or China from participating in domestic politics. It seems squarely focused on the David Kochs and Tom Steyers of the world.

And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways.

I know that my position isn't popular, but the Federalist papers talked about this issue, and took the position that for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? There are several recent examples illustrating that money doesn't buy elections. Maybe it's not a fact yet, but there's enough evidence behind it that I think it's a defensible position.

If this takes off, I think the end result will be less participation in the political process by average Americans, who fear retaliation down the road. Maybe it looks like a difficult balance to you, but I think I would always come down on the side of more speech rather than less.

> for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other?

I'd rather have small donors have a bigger share of voice.

> And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways.

We know Russia has done this successfully at least once.

According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_m...

And it's been awhile, but IIRC the Mitrokhin Archive has a number of other examples of the Soviet Union influencing US politics through donations to political organizations.

I would be surprised if governments weren't still attempting to influence each others' internal politics.

Fearing crimes being committed against you is a failure of the justice system. An angry mob outside your house harassing you is not legal. Also, you can lose your job for any reason, but only certain reasons can be disclosed publicly. A racist, sexist douche bag can fire anybody he/she wants as long as they say "Sorry, it's not working out" or whatever BS. If you are worried about what you say politically, you probably should find a better job.

Better job? Eich had a pretty good job methinks.

Maybe tolerance for differing political views will increase with disclosure becoming more prominent.

People should be willing to stand up for causes they believe in.

I will not live in fear of judgement, and neither should you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com