Hacker News Reader

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, politics gets in everywhere and seems impossible to avoid it. Even if you purposefully avoid it, you're making a political statement.

On one hand, what does it mean to have a "no politics at work" policy? If Hootsuite have contracts with ICE, it's already political at that point, as they are helping the organization be more efficient/valuable/whatever. If they don't take any contracts that might be political, they won't be able to do any business at all.

On the other hand, for-profit companies goal is to get profits. If they prioritize political stances in-front of that, they are bound to confuse people who are working there, who understands it's a business, not a political/non-profit organization.

View on HN

People aren't stupid. "We try to earn money. But if it costs us $1 to save someone, somewhere, we will always do so" is basic moral decency on a level that any five-year old will understand it.

Absolutely, most people are actually smart, at least in my experience. But I think it's important to realize that this "basic moral decency" you talk about, is something that we commonly use in a lot of industries, but no one is forcing us too, so it can quickly disappear or be forgotten. Especially when you're working in a for-profit company.

It starts being murky when the $1 changes to $10 or $100, as now you're trying to balance two values, profits and overall helpfulness. If you're asking the company to take a stance, you and others might feel differently about what's important.

Some industries simply look the other way and make the simple statement that it's all about money, nothing else. Sometimes I dream of taking that stance, just because everything would be simpler.

It's not just about 'looking the other way'; companies that take these stances are presenting a risk of discontinuation of services to customers. Any potentially politically controversial customer now has to discount Hootsuite's reliability; somewhat akin to how Google has a reputation for cancelling products.

Hootsuite has basically eroded every client's faith.

all good points. super confusing times we live in right now. Are we going to evolve where theres conservative companies and liberal companies who only support customers of that same belief system? I dont think so but who knows. I dont see how anyone can get think we are going down a path that wont lead to ugly, ugly times.

I think (and/or hope maybe) that eventually people will realize that corporations are just that, corporations. The purpose is to earn money. If you (also/more) care about something else, then you don't work for a corporation, you work for something else.

Thinking only about profit can and has lead corporations to some pretty dark places. Just because you work for a corporation does not absolve you basic human decency.

I agree! But, short-term profits are different than long-term profits as well.

I think the sooner people realize what capitalism does to our world and how focusing on profits, ownership and consumerism makes everything more shit, the better.

> I think (and/or hope maybe) that eventually people will realize that corporations are just that, corporations. The purpose is to earn money.

Even assuming that were true (Hootsuite is a B Corp, so it's not quite that simple), companies have to engage in reputation management as part of making money. The result of this is that even entirely profit-focused companies will often refuse to deal with certain suppliers and customers. This is effectively a cost of doing business for highly disreputable companies and organisations; certain suppliers simply won't deal with them. As I mentioned elsewhere, pornography is a particularly dramatic example, with its own (very expensive) supporting ecosystem of companies.

Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political. It's just mature attitude: you accept the process and respect whoever ends up in power and whatever policies that decide on. Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots is political activism though.

> Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political

But it is, and will always be, political to do anything. If you're accepting a contract with the government, you're saying that you agree that this government should exists, that governments are a good idea in general, and this one is the current rightful government for where you are, otherwise you wouldn't work with them.

It's a fruitless exercise in trying to remove politics from anything, because anything can and will be politicalized.

No. I am saying I respect the political process and the will of those people who voted for the current government. We argue, we vote and then we accept the consequences and work with each other not pack up and cry like 5 years old.

If the government needs gas chambers, the responsible thing to do is make gas chambers. Don't worry about what they're using them for, that's just process and policy. Click your heels and fall in line, that's the mature, responsible and profitable thing to do. Not like those damned political activists; the world would be a better place if they were in gas chambers anyway.

> Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots is political activism though.

Only, ICE was deplorable under Obama too.

But it's not gas chambers. What ICE does is not universally seen as morally bad unlike gas chambers. USA doesn't have a totalitarian government either. A good sanity check is this: if population is split on the issue it means it's not simple and claiming moral high ground is politicizing. Gas chambers are universally seen as morally deplorable. Deporting illegal immigrants isn't.

The German population was also split on the Nazi issue. That can't be your litmus test!

If holding children in cages, subjecting them to deplorable conditions, separating families, and forcing/denying medical procedures aren't where someone draws the line, then... well... I don't really want to know where they draw the line.

Well it must be a litmus test for the universal moral judgement because otherwise it's not universal by definition. I would argue that German population didn't have as much information as we do today and gas chambers as well as other atrocities committed by the Nazis would still be universally rejected then.

As to "separating families" and "denying medical procedures" you seem to think it's somehow a God given right to come somewhere and be granted resources and time of others. In many people view it's not. The blame is on the immigrants and their countries not on US. The policy is clear: you can't come without having permission. It's entirely reasonable to not want to give resources to people who are not part of your group, didn't contribute to development of your country, don't help to fund your services and are actively breaking your rules in your own country. It's a difficult situation when someone comes anyway and with small children as well but the blame is not on ICE or your policies. Medical procedures don't grow on trees. Granting them means taking time and resources of others. It means someone will have less time for their families/personal life, that someone else will have to work more to get treatment or in some cases won't get treatment at all or get it later. You can't just hand stuff to all comers or then your policy is meaningless. It also means millions of others who want to immigrate to US legally but respect the procedure will wait for longer or never get in. There are many, many people in the world in a very shitty situation who would love to come to US if given a chance. Knowing that but letting in those who force their way is at best morally suspect.

It's nothing like actively pursuing people who live in your society, packing them on trains and killing them in camps. That's why one is universally seen as morally deplorable and the other is a hotly debated issue.

You're missing a couple key points here. The constitution treats all people as embued with human rights. If they're on American soil, they've got rights. So sure, tearing up the constitution is hotly contested. Right now, ICE is shitting all over the constitution and I don't like that one bit.

Second, many detainees are asylum seekers. The us has policies and processes by which people can lawfully seek asylum in the US. And they're being subject to inhumane treatments that we don't even tolerate in prisons.

> Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots

I really don't think that's what's happening here. It doesn't take long to read up on the activities ICE has been (very plausibly) accused of doing that would shock many people. Excusing that just because they're a government agency just seems strange to me.

Could you object if it was a private company doing it, but not object if it's a government agency? I don't get it.

The government represents the people and is created through established political process. By refusing to work with it you're showing disrespect to huge portion of the population which elected it. I mean it won't ever be a healthy environment if you pack your things and refuse to play if the other group won the vote.

Just because the government leaders are elected doesn't mean a majority of the population wants everything it does to happen.

And disagreeing with specific measures is not the same as "if the other group won the vote" either.

And even if an elected government does something it doesn't make it automatically ethical and worthy of support.

> Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political.

There's probably an argument to be made that the profit motive has the ability to strip all other political motivations from a decision, but the result of the decision can still be deeply political.

"I was just following purchase orders"

It's more gray than that.

Some governments and some agencies do enough evil that the decision to do business with them is a moral choice.

ICE may be one of those agencies. NSA likewise.

Arguably contacting with the US military falls in a similar bucket. I wouldn't call it evil, but it exists almost solely to enforce American interests abroad (vs a purely defensive force). I wouldn't fault somebody for seeing that business as immoral.

There's also a huge difference between selling a product to that agency, but is not specific to that agency (Word, Linux tech support) vs something that exists only to enable that organization to do bad (spying equipment, the cages used to imprison immigrants, etc).

You can always convince yourself something is evil enough. ICE has a lot of support which at least means it's not universally seen as evil. Making a decision to not work with someone who represents widely accepted views/policy is the definition of politicizing.

Same goes for military. If it should be a purely defensive force it one ensuring global interests is a polarizing political issue. It's not simply evil or good.

ICE may have support. But I don’t support forced sterilization. Or splitting families. And I’m sad that a substantial portion of my fellow citizens are ok with either.

They are not ok with it. They just understand the blame is not on ICE or US policies but on immigrants and their countries. If your policy is: "if you come illegally we will jail you and send you back when possible but we are also human enough to not keep children in the same adult jail as you" and then you come anyway the blame is on you.

I don't think anyone is ok with forced sterilization. I don't really know why you put it on ICE or the immigration policy. It has to be investigated and from the information we have that it doesn't seem to be either widespread nor as simple as you portray it. Sure, investigate it, punish the offenders. It doesn't mean you owe stuff to all comers and have to take care of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com