I applaud the initiative but it’s naive to think this’ll change anything. And when push comes to shove these people wont quit their comfy job in this economic climate.
One other issue I've had when I have tried to do this is that largely the "big" horrible issues with things are systematic rather than interpersonal- it doesn't matter who is operating the "baby seal blender", its operation is both the harm being done and the reason why "baby-seal-smoothies-r-us" operates so unless you cease the very profitable baby-seal-smoothy business the harm isn't going to stop.
Not to say that those issues are universally applicable, but rather to note that when you dance with the devil you need to observe how the devil is dancing with you; if you're going to go that way you need to be really careful in ways you don't need to be careful if you, say, just go work in a situation where the harm you create is less obvious and immediate.
> 900 former Google employees
I can't believe Google chose the 1 billion dollar IDF contract over the wishes of 50 (ex-)employees.
They could be nationalized in times of war, but that hasn't happened since WW2 I think.
The antitrust case and other regulatory arm twisting is more to worry about.
This era is evidence for why we cannot continue allowing individuals or mega corps to accumulate the kind of money and power they have. It is too easy to corrupt them.
This seems like a very white-centric categorization to assume that a Tamil Brahmin should necessarily see himself as in the same racial solidarity group as a Somali, Haitian, or Venezuelan as opposed to a European.
What tech companies actually have is rapacious sociopaths for leaders. They have purposely brought about the current state of affairs through intensive lobbying, spending, and direct action.
For the most part, they don't believe that they should be held accountable for their behavior. They don't fundamentally believe in democracy, and many of them don't really believe humans and human life are more important than some other abstract concept that they have in their heads. At root, they all believe in rule by the elite.
This may seem like an argumentative distinction, but I would counter that it's crucial to understanding what we have to do next, which is not to try to convince them, but rather to take back the power that they've accumulated over us, against their best efforts to stop us.
When the political environment becomes unstable, people need to reach out to communities that they trust. For some people, here is where they are comfortable, and where they meet people whose character is legible enough to them that they can place trust. By saying "no politics here" you're denying the people who find this their safe space the ability to share their fears about the situation.
IMO the main difference between the current US administration and those usually considered authoritarian, is that it does not yet use violence to discipline it's own side. But if it remains, that is an unavoidable step on the roadmap. It's supporters are acting like democracy and the rule of law can be denied to some people, while they retain them; that is not a sustainable state of affairs. "Business as usual" is short-sighted.
These aren’t opt-in issues.
I get that you are upset but they should certainly be opt-in issues, here.
If people from Kyiv, Gaza, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Venezuela or Rwanda can come here and contribute to topics of tech and curiosity without making it about their situation, then so can anyone else.
There is value in having sanctuaries. Their existence doesn't mean you have given up.
> only vaguely HN related
This story is entirely under HN's remit. HN’s purpose is explicit. It is not “keep things comfortable.” It is “curious, informed discussion of what matters in and around tech.”
When a top tech firm is materially enabling coercion or violence, and even dodging the press over it, that is a tech story first and foremost. And it matters.
Besides which: Your argument is very old, and has been rejected many, many, many times.
> there are so many communities that have fallen, and I don't want to lose another
What killed r/technology wasn't 'politics'. It was mass censorship, shit mods, brigading, clickbait farming, and allowing the toxic elements to spread bs unchecked. You know, like when you let any users flag stories and then unaccountable mods with no logs very selectively unflag the ones they like.
Censoring 'political' topics just makes the smartest and coolest people leave. And our tech companies have been complicit collaborators in far too many serious crimes lately to trust things to work themselves out without even looking at them.
Tech companies have been deeply entangled with states and coercive institutions for decades, now up to the point of genocide, concentration camps, and masked thugs with "total federal immunity". Pretending that’s off-limits isn't community preservation. It's wilful ignorance and must be firmly rejected.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."
I also think it's a dumb rule.
It is supremely naive to think you can excise political discussion, and if you're wondering why people are so upset at techies these days, this is a hint at the reason. Techies are people who think they can just say "no politics" and they did something good or got rid of politics.
Your opinion.
> endless low-effort, kneejerk commentary by people spouting their side's talking points.
Straw man. And also a low-effort, kneejerk comment spouting your side's talking point. I see a lot of irony there.
A matter of opinion.
It’s also the law of this place, and that is not a matter of opinion.