Hacker News Reader

Comment by lhnz | Hacker News Reader

I continue to use Dropbox and I'm pro the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as for the sake of our industry it is wise for us to have better political links to the US government.

(Politics is irrelevant to me, but power is not. The government can already twist your arm; being on first name's basis with somebody important will be invaluable.)

Edit: I thought we could openly state our opinions, but it seems I am getting punished with downvotes. Editing again because it's now going the other direction, but my point still stands: don't downvote or upvote just to normalise your own political beliefs.

View on HN

"Politics" is discrete from ethics. Condi is a pariah, ethically speaking-- a war criminal walking free.

Political links to the US govt are also a bit of a hazard-- the more you willingly approach them and enable them, the more they will take from your pocket and the more they will push you around. The Snowden leaks have painted a bad picture of the US companies as a result of their compliance with ridiculous government policy, and these companies are being scrutinized fiercely as a result.

The question is whether it is possible to run a significant business in the United States without interacting with the federal government. I don't think that it is.

It's not like ISPs and tech companies went to the NSA and offered up their data--there is no proof at all of that. What the evidence shows is that the government used its force of law to compel cooperation from these companies.

The people's tool for controlling the force of law is politics. So, being politically connected is an important part of playing defense against government action.

Whether Condoleeza Rice is the correct person to fulfill that role is in the eye of beholder. I certainly don't fault people for opposing any connection to her. But I would fault anyone who thinks that that is a universal sentiment. There are quite a few people (in government and out) who still respect and perhaps even like her.

"The question is whether it is possible to run a significant business in the United States without interacting with the federal government. I don't think that it is."

That may be true. It probably is true once you reach the numbers-beginning-in-B level.

Nevertheless, there are lots of political operatives, former officials, and other contacts you could find without stooping as low as a former member of the Bush administration.

I'm certainly no fan of hers but "war criminal" is a label that's thrown around way too often with no basis or grounding. It's too often used to describe someone who engaged in some kind of war someone else doesn't like, so they're labeled as such. The actual term stems from The Hague conventions, which were not violated by her or the U.S. in this case.

From Condi's Wikipedia article: A Senate Intelligence Committee reported that on July 17, 2002, Rice met with CIA director George Tenet to personally convey the Bush administration's approval of the proposed waterboarding of alleged Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.

Direct approval of torture.

From Wikipedia's page on war crimes:

A war crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes such as:[1]

    murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps

    murdering or mistreating prisoners of war or civilian internees

Condi seems to fit the bill perfectly.

Well, "war crime" is actually quite hard to apply to actions of the US, because they refuse to recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court in the Hague who decides whether these conventions were violated or not.

War crimes exist independently from the ICC. Plenty of Nazis were convicted of war crimes despite the ICC not existing and their government at the time of their actions not agreeing that genocide was a crime.

You make a claim that,

  it is wise for us to have more political links to the US government.

but you fail to explain why. Perhaps that's the source of some downvotes.

You also write,

  Politics is irrelevant to me

which demostrates that your 'opinion' comes from a place of indifference, perhaps another reason for downvotes.

  > You make a claim that [...] but fail to explain why

Actually I did: "The government can already twist your arm; being on first name's basis with somebody important will be invaluable." I think it will create more opportunities for the tech industry to influence big politics.

  > demostrates that your 'opinion' comes from a place of indifference,
  > perhaps another reason for downvotes.

No, and in the next four words I very clearly explained to you what I am not indifferent about.

> us to have better political links to the US government.

Us? Are you on Dropbox's board? Why is wedding corporate power to political influence wise for this industry? Astonishing naiveté.

> don't downvote or upvote just to normalise your own political beliefs.

What a meaningless statement. Post on your blog if you don't want your opinion torn apart like a piece of meat. All the comments I've seen thus far are civil.

EDIT: It's too bad OP is unwilling to engage in any real dialogue on this issue. Other comments make excellent points which lhnz also ignores and dismisses.

Yes - if you work in the tech industry you are affected by policies which affect the industry as a whole.

Wedding corporate power to political influence is wise for the industry because that is exactly what we are up against already: corporate power has been wedded to political influence for a very long time and one can easily point out attempts that have already been made to protect previously established industries.

See, it's easy, I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling.

> exactly what we are up against already

There's that pesky collective noun again. Again, you labor under a delusion of a shared struggle.

> one can easily point out attempts that have already been made to protect previously established industries.

Such as a company that's raised over a billion dollars seeking to protect its position in a lucrative market by appointing politically well-connected board members? No way!

> I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling.

And so was I. What's your point?

  > I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling.
  And so was I. What's your point?

You use words like "naiveté", "delusion", "meaningless" which are clearly derogatory so you are wrong again.

Hilariously your comment "all the comments I've seen thus far are civil" completely rung true until you got involved.

Then perhaps we misunderstand each other. I used those terms to describe (accurately, in my opinion) your opinions, they have nothing to do with you as a person.

Nonsense. The things you say about a persons opinions are still things you say against that person. It just becomes more acceptable in some circles to describe someone as having naive opinions than describing the person as naive.

The best course of action is to leave the emotive language out of the discussion.

"Astonishing naiveté." "delusion of a shared struggle" "What a meaningless statement." "Post on your blog if you don't want your opinion torn apart like a piece of meat"

You have not been "civil". Quit being an ass.

Am I a tool or an ass? Do you have anything of substance to add?

yeah, I reconsidered the wording since 'tool' has a certain connotation that I didn't intend.

I was hoping to be part of the several voices that were telling you you were wrong, because maybe hearing it from lots of people would make it more convincing.

I believe the idea is that, given the choice between

- Nobody in the entire tech industry has influence over government

- A few key players like Apple and Google have influence over government

Your parent is saying, the latter is better, because Apple & Google (being tech companies) have shared interests with other tech companies.

Certainly there is risk that the big companies would use their influence in government to trample smaller tech companies, but could it be that risk is smaller than the risks of the whole tech sector having zero say/influence in government at all?

Without support, governments have no power.

In the past, it may have been rational to overlook deeds, such as war crime, to reach a Nash equilibrium which results in a net positive outcome. And it may still be the rational move to cuddle up with a metaphorical Hitler.

However, there's a strong argument to be made in changing the dynamic, and spurning people/companies who think it's justifiable to optimise for power, regardless of the human cost!

The costs are lost lives, devastated lives, and the tearing apart of 'other' nations.

Don't care? That's for each person to decide. It's not like anyone can 'legitimately' come and rip Dropbox from your devices... other than your government, of course.

I'm a little lost. Are you suggesting Dropbox, perhaps through new-found political might, is going to end lives and destroy nations?

What makes you think down/upvotes are related to political beliefs? It could be that people think you are making a good/bullshit argument, regardless of their political inclination.

  1. The poll was framed in a way that did not make my opinion
  available.
  2. Nobody else had expressed my position so I thought that it 
  was uncommon.
  3. I assumed the poll was meant to try to force Dropbox to drop 
  her from the board.
  4. I expressed a position that wasn't that political but that 
  I knew would anger or confuse political witchhunters.
  5. It is quite common for people to downvote information that 
  does not agree with their ethical aesthetics.

I think those are good reasons and I think they're quite common. However if you think you can argue beyond a mouse-click go ahead.

Your "argument" wasn't that good to begin with, since you don't say why political links to the US government would be a good thing nor why she in particular would be a good choice for making/maintaining those links.

Well I didn't have long to type it so sorry if it wasn't great, but I would say that with regards to principles like Net Neutrality your idea that the tech industry doesn't need better political links to the US government is not well-grounded.

I couldn't possibly speculate on who the best people to make or maintain political links are, but my speculation is that the more connected to government you are the more you will be able to affect policies affecting the tech industry.

"with regards to principles like Net Neutrality your idea that the tech industry doesn't need better political links to the US government is not well-grounded."

I said no such thing. Seems like you're the confused one now.

I suppose the OP thought, like I do too, that it is obvious what positive effects come from fraternal relations with politicians.

Have you read the newspapers lately from ANY part of the world? Does it still need to be explained why, in general, being cosy with the politicos is usually a good thing?

I like your reasoning; it's always nice to encounter someone who doesn't confuse "ought" with "is".

(Also, anent voting patterns, anecdotal but perhaps still of interest: I've noticed, when expressing on HN political opinions which don't accord with the local consensus, that there will generally be a few slow downvotes early, followed by a quick spike of upvotes bringing the comment up to a net positive score, followed eventually by a few more scattered downvotes, with the net result being usually positive but not as much so as the initial spike would suggest.)

>when expressing on HN political opinions which don't accord with the local consensus

This is the case not only with unpopular political opinions, but anything mildly or even vaguely controversial. I'm convinced that it's mostly the same few individuals who sit on HN all day and downvote away.

I've also wondered about the possible existence of a bot or bots that downvote comments with certain keywords, in a misguided effort to avoid any Reddit-like dilution of HN's usual quality. What makes me think it might be bots is the consistent speed with which mildly controversial posts get downvoted once or twice. It seems too regular to be human-mediated (and if it is, then I worry for the mental state of said human).

I am certain I've seen Communist sentiments scattered around HN but with actual discussion. The same goes for Libertarian sentiment, however I think OP's comment seems flippant at least and reddit flair flippant at most. He contributed nothing by stating his opinion and seemed to be asking for a retort.

If power is not irrelevant to you, then politics either.

I meant political persuasion as-in this isn't about right/left or good/bad for me.

At least for me, that's why you don't get an upvote (you'd get a downvote if I could give one).

You keep painting this as a political issue, when it isn't. The point is not that Rice is controversial, or a republican.

The point is that by international standards, she's a WAR CRIMINAL.

So you're not interested in politics. Fantastic. In 1930's Germany you'd be the idiot with his head in the sand, talking about how the Nazi party is really energizing the manufacturing sector and how great that is for the economy.

I am so sick of hearing people like you taking pride in how ignorant they are of the world around them.

She's in a board position at Dropbox which has nothing to do with Nazi Germany. She's probably not going to commit war crimes from this position...

And in all honesty I don't think you have any clue what my perspective would be if I had been there in the 1930s. I think it's quite likely that I'd be anti-genocide, anti-authoritarian and quite willing to stand in front of the persecutory masses and tell them what I believe. What I'm trying to say quite nicely to you, is can you quit slandering me?

> but power is not

It should be. Irrelevant, that is.

I'm against Condi because she is partially responsible for the deaths of at least 100,000 (that 100 thousand) Iraqis. It was her job as NSA to temper Dubya's intransigence, but she did not. Such a person should be shunned and not given positions of status.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com