Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

I probably don't agree with Sandvik about Google's complicity, but that doesn't matter. Silencing her to accommodate a company sponsor is both unethical and counterproductive.

There are forms of criticism that are intrinsically not compatible with being a director. If Sandvik was criticizing Google's participation with "Code Club" or making claims directly relevant to the project, that would be germane to the board. But that's not what happened here.

Silencing project members also doesn't help Google. Instead, it contributes to a perception that any support Google has comes from the barrel of a financial gun.

If Sandvik was given an ultimatum to stop criticizing Google to avoid annoying a sponsor, that was a terrible mistake on the part of the project. They should do what they can to correct it.

View on HN

Agreed both on the fact that I think she is overplaying Google's complicity and that the reaction to it was counterproductive.

Basically this is a variant of the Streisand effect -- I previously had never even heard of the "Code Club" but now I have a negative opinion of it and my opinion of Google is now slightly more tarnished (though my opinion of Google is already complex and multilayed and so the relative damage to Google here is not nearly as great as the damage to "Code Club").

OTOH, had I just read what she said about Google in an interview or whatever my opinion of "Code Club" would be neutral and I would think she was being somewhat unfair to Google (but far less so than a lot of more damaging claims I've seen people make).

I think I agree with you. Your professional platform is not the same as your personal platform.

The courses of action should have been

1. Resign from company and then air personal views (as explicitly personal)

2. Air personal views separately but say explicitly these are personal views.

3. Discuss matter in the board and come up with company approved policy statement - we will no longer do business with Google etc. because ...

2 & 3 are essentially not realistic once the funding faucet is turned on. 1 is your only hope - and she did it. Good for her.

Well, she did it before resigning, which is pretty unprofessional imho.

I say this because, a Director position is a pretty "in-the-spotlight" position to hold, and therefore anything you say reflects on your company even if you state they are personal views.

I've left a similar comment below, but out of interest: in light of what you just said, what do you think about Mozilla-Eich debate?

I know and deeply respect people on both sides of that controversy and also believe that the tide of equality for LGBT people is one of the great civil liberties success stories of the last 25 years.

Without inadvertently casting aspersions on anyone who holds the opposing opinion, I think running someone out of a company because they hold a political opinion incompatible with your ethics is itself an unethical act. I wish I could be sticking up for someone with a more apparently ethical opinion (I don't really know the details of Eich's politics), but that's where I'm at.

During the Eich debate, it was helpful for me to remember that I am not --- contrary, I know, to all the signals I generate in public --- required to hold an express an opinion about every controversy.

That's probably a misstatement of your opinion: you almost certainly draw the line somewhere (or at least I would be quite surprised if you didn't), eg white power advocates, racism against blacks or jews, anti-women's equality, anti-disabled rights; but don't include gay rights as equally important.

I wrote an answer explaining how this attempt to summarize my beliefs was inaccurate but then decided that it was inappropriate to allow the thread to become a tangent about how I do or do not fully support gay rights. I stand by my previous answer.

Are there examples of the criticism Sandvik engaged in, so we'd know if they fit your "forms of criticism that are intrinsically not compatible with being a director" standard?

Wait, what do you mean by "complicity"?

Mass surveillance and the large scale violation of privacy is Google's core business model. I was assuming she was referring to that, and not any NSA-related conspiracy allegations. (And although this may be coincidental, Google recently announced they will be targeting children, circumventing the law by tempting parents into consenting.)

It doesn't matter that what she says is a lie?

It's interesting how you twist yourself into a pretzel (you "probably", maybe, a little bit, think that what she says about the sponsor is a lie) to end up with the conclusion that her actions are somehow justified and the board is committing some terrible crime of censorship.

The validity of her complains is very much the core of the issue.

She only gave one example (that Google is "involved in corporate mass surveillance") and presumably that is in context of NSA spying and the consensus around that is that it's a lie.

At her level badmouthing a partner is grossly nonprofessional. Spreading vicious lies - that's a no brainer reason to fire her.

Also, let's not be naive about the context of her complaints. When she says "when someone asks me..." she (or the board) doesn't mean "my college friend at a dinner party" but "a member of the press".

And given the state of journalism, "the member of the press" is not interested in Linda's perspective on Google's spying because she has literally nothing new to add.

In that context the only value for the press is to reduce her views to a click-baiting headline of "Code Club board member accuses sponsor Google of mass surveillance" which would damage Google precisely because they were nice enough to sponsor Code Club.

If she complained about AT&T (which actually did illegally spy on Americans in massive constitutional violation, for which they received a retroactive immunity), there would be no story because AT&T is not a Code Club sponsor or Linda doesn't feel like complaining about AT&T.

I'm not privy to the details but the simplest interpretation of what we know is that she was hell bent on spouting nonsense of the "Google mass surveillance" kind to the press and the board was very justified in worrying about a press creating a mountain out of a molehill to the point they felt they had to intervene.

So far there is 0 evidence that Linda had some novel complaints that are serious enough to risk damaging an organization that helps kids learn to code. So far all I see a selfish, self-righteous individual.

What you see as me "twisting myself into a pretzel" is actually just me acknowledging that while I have arrived at an opinion about something, I might not be right about it.

One of the terrifying things about how online mass communication works is how quickly it locks us into the most stridently delivered conclusions that are compatible with our worldview. This is a good example.

As someone who hasn't a clue about this whole situation, can you give an example of one of these "vicious lies" that she was spreading about Google?

I tried googling it, but couldn't even find any statements about Google.

   > It doesn't matter that what she says is a lie?

That statement makes it sound like you have additional information about this situation. If that is the case would you care to share it?

I have observed that there are at least two weighting components to an opinion, the person and the person's position. The same opinion uttered by a programmer at corporation X has different weight than when it is uttered by the CEO of the corporation. I have also observed that it can constrain the ability of highly opinionated people to achieve positions of higher authority.

So without an understanding of what the statements were, and what her basis was for making those statements, and even the context in which the statements were made. It is not possible to judge the appropriateness of her actions.

That said, I have spoken to many managers who have been chastised at some point in their career for expressing negative opinions about entities that were important to the organization (sponsors, customers, investors, Etc.) How folks internalize that feedback varies from individual to individual.

> That statement makes it sound like you have additional information about this situation. If that is the case would you care to share it?

With no additional information available, it is not logical to jump to extreme conclusions, in either direction. If anything, you should assume they don't rather than they do (you know, the entire not-guilty until proven thing)

If it is her opinion, how can it be a lie?

On the other side of it, she was asked to say As a member of the board I am completely aligned with that view which would in fact be a lie.

> and the consensus around that is that it's a lie.

Is it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com