It seems like a new version of this story, "[Big tech] workers protest their employer taking [federal agency] contracts" shows up at least once a year. I guess the steel man of this is that people think they can take jobs at these corps and push reform from within, but this seems powerfully naive to me. Fact of the matter is that a large portion of the compensation these companies provide is for buying off your better judgement. You're taking a deal with the devil when you sign on. There are a lot of better, smaller, companies you could be working for, but you chose the evil ones because it pays better.
Insanity 3 hours ago [-]
They forgot the “don’t be evil” era ended a long time ago.
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.
startupsfail 1 hours ago [-]
Right way of resisting is not to quit your job, but to observe, be friendly, and gradually push away toxic people.
scarecrowbob 44 minutes ago [-]
An issue with this approach is that engaging in this way can start to reset your standards for "toxic people", and not in the cheerful "I'd like to buy the world a coke" manner.
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.
That is what they did to those protesting Google’s complicity in Israel actions in Gaza. But it is unclear if they hold Palestinian sympathy in the same contempt as sympathy for fellow Americans but we will see.
joe_mamba 1 hours ago [-]
>That is what they did to those protesting Google’s complicity in Israel actions in Gaza.
I can't believe Google chose the 1 billion dollar IDF contract over the wishes of 50 (ex-)employees.
enterprisetalk 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tiffanyh 2 hours ago [-]
Dumb question: Can a US company even refuse service to a US Federal Government agency?
hahajk 2 hours ago [-]
The government is bound by acquisition processes for these large contracts: they put out RFPs and companies compete for the contract. All Google has to do is not bid for the next contract.
NewJazz 2 hours ago [-]
Yes.
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.
comboy 2 hours ago [-]
I think it's kind of past the point of wondering what somebody can and cannot do according to the law? There used to be the constitution and stuff.
SilverElfin 2 hours ago [-]
Yes they absolutely can. Providing services to the government is strictly a choice made by the business.
wizzwizz4 2 hours ago [-]
Pretty sure the 13th Amendment guarantees this, in theory. (Corporations aren't natural persons, but forcing a corporation to provide a service boils down to forcing people to provide a service.)
vondur 1 hours ago [-]
Didn’t they fire some people from google who were protesting US military contracts a while back?
OutOfHere 2 hours ago [-]
Being that ICE has also been kidnapping some US citizens, this is par for the course. Beyond ICE, Google however needs to go further and also cut ties with Palantir which otherwise will become stronger by continuing to serve as a proxy cloud for ICE.
SilverElfin 1 hours ago [-]
All these tech companies have cowards for leaders, and Sundar Pichai is no different. And he’s a non white immigrant! The CEOs fear being attacked by the administration through regulations or anti trust or not being given contracts. They are some of the most powerful people and yet they bend the knee so easily. Andy Jassy of Amazon is the worst though - funding the Melania documentary is so blatantly corrupt.
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.
kleton 25 minutes ago [-]
> he’s a non white immigrant!
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.
CPLX 1 hours ago [-]
Cowardice is the wrong word here. It implies that these people have a desired action that they're not taking because of fear, weakness, or hesitation.
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.
enterprisetalk 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
SilverElfin 3 hours ago [-]
Great. Also need Amazon and Microsoft to cut ties. Not just with ICE but the administration as a whole. Unfortunately this is also a time when employees have low leverage given all the layoffs. Better to fight for a union first.
enterprisetalk 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
know-how 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
senadir 3 hours ago [-]
Google couldn’t cut ties to genocide let alone local police.
gpt5 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ajb 1 hours ago [-]
The "hide" button is on every article. Most articles don't have political discussion.
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.
trinsic2 1 hours ago [-]
These are special circumstances. There is a point that if we do nothing in a year or two authoritarianism will be normalized. As it stands now, we are disappearing people without warrants and so much more. Resist and Unsubscribe[0]
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.
asveikau 2 hours ago [-]
I always thought it was ridiculous that HN had a "no politics" rule. It is arrogance to think you can segment "politics" and confine it and then be above it somehow by using this as an excuse to not have discussions that make you uncomfortable. Everything is political.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2 hours ago [-]
It doesn't have a "no politics" rule.
BugsJustFindMe 2 hours ago [-]
It kinda does. Not completely, but close enough that it leads to certain people complaining about the wrong things being on their hacker news.
"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.
SoftTalker 1 hours ago [-]
It's not a dumb rule, you can go to reddit or facebook or a dozen other places if you want to read endless low-effort, kneejerk commentary by people spouting their side's talking points.
asveikau 1 hours ago [-]
You're doing politics right now in your attempt to shut down political discussion you don't like.
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.
BugsJustFindMe 1 hours ago [-]
> It's not a dumb rule
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.
DenisM 52 minutes ago [-]
> Your opinion.
A matter of opinion.
It’s also the law of this place, and that is not a matter of opinion.
1 hours ago [-]
browningstreet 2 hours ago [-]
Some things we can’t just ignore.
These aren’t opt-in issues.
Kon5ole 37 minutes ago [-]
>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.
Neil44 2 hours ago [-]
They really are
Herring 1 hours ago [-]
Nope, which is why people generally live longer and are happier in Europe compared to the US. The newest iphone doesn't make up for lack of health/friends/free time/education/sane leaders etc.
3 hours ago [-]
2 hours ago [-]
Rendered at 18:26:01 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
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.
[1]: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184
> 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.
[0]: https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/
> 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.
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.