Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Some tech workers. Not all, not most. This is more or less an editorial trying to get tech workers to think about implications, presumably to make them susceptible to politization so they can be more manipulated by news.

China presents a quandary, no doubt. On the one hand we have self determination and sovereignty, on the other hand we have “western values” and so forth. Not long ago “internationalists” argued for the former, but given that that would result in something contra, they now prefer “western values” which they used to argue against (i.e. relativism).

View on HN

>This is more or less an editorial trying to get tech workers to think about implications, presumably to make them susceptible to politization so they can be more manipulated by news.

So you'd rather have an uninformed tech job force with no opinions, just walk into a private government every day which strips every right you have along with having absolutely no morals or ethics so you can live in a 34th story downtown penthouse with a mini australian shepherd and a Tesla?

You realize the tech workers literally do all of the tech work, which actually makes the company run and function, right? Why should they just be drones with no say?

This is exactly the problem. Do we just do this solely for money? Maybe the world would be a better place if workers had a say instead of shareholders and executives who are only in their positions to make extraordinary amounts of money in absolutely any way, morals & ethics often aside.

I’m not for tech workers becoming drones. I'm for them being informed. I’m not for them to be moulded by mass media who see them as a tool to carry out their vision or idea if what’s right or wrong.

You see, if informed tech workers were to make contrarian decisions, let’s say with regard to domestic issues in the US and while informed they made a Libertarian decision, this decision would be derided never the less because it would deviate from mass media concensus.

Who decides and should decide about, for example produce?

Should the produce lady at the supermarket make the decision to stock conventional or organic, or consumer denand, of the owner/cooperative?

The produce lady gets paid to put whatever the buyer gets. The burger flipper doesn't decide ti buy frizen or from this or that ranch.

We get paid to do a job.

I don't see any "mass media" effecting tech workers. A lot of us are pretty smart & can critically think. I see employee's not aligning morally with drone & censorship projects which is absolutely 100% not a bad thing.

I am fortunate to work for a company that I know of does nothing immoral or unethical, but refuse to work for Amazon, Google, or Facebook regardless of their recruiting efforts because I know I don't align with them morally or ethically.

Fair enough. At this point I would not work for either as well. But that’s how to make decisions, not by politicizing the work environment.

>not by politicizing the work environment.

What type of politics should be allowed at work? What about talks about workers rights, wages? What about conversation on ethics & morals behind projects they themselves are contributing to?

Do Libertarians believe authoritarian private governments akin to communist dictatorships (employers) can strip your rights when you clock in?

Are Chinese companies in China under duress? Are they protesting? Whats the consensus of the Chinese hoi polloi?

China is not “the west”, their foundational philosophy is very different than ours. We can’t expect their decisions to be exactly like ours.

Would I want to live under their confitions? No. Do Chinese on the other hand object? It’s still playing itself out.

Personally I'd rather just have a workforce that doesn't see themselves as some sort of techno-messiahs that are going to make some profound impact on the world.

The companies that often command the most of my respect are ones that are at peace with the fact that they're providing a product or service to meet a certain demand. They don't paint themselves as some sort of profound agent of change; they are honest that they exist to build a good product that people want to buy. I'd take that over a company that roots it's identity in high flung ideals.

I also agree with the notion that tech companies' need to have some sort of profound social mission is a big reason why tech (at least SV tech) has become so politically charged these days. Because SV companies often see themselves as agents of social change, they often only attract people that are enthusiastic for that kind of social change. In more extreme cases, these companies can become outright hostile towards employees that area skeptical of that change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com