Tech firms are departing from their see-no-evil stance on society and politics(economist.com)
economist.com
Tech firms are departing from their see-no-evil stance on society and politics
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21716020-tech-firms-are-last-departing-their-see-no-evil-stance-society-and-politics
13 comments
I think tech firms are opening up pandora's box by introducing themselves into politics. What is next? Separate http protocols for liberal and conservative websites? No good will come of this.
That is bull. Everything about what tech is creating is political. Software cannot "eat the world" and not be political. Ignore it at your own peril.
"separate http protocols" sounds like a nonsequitur, but it's true that Silicon Valley has huge power over our lives, and it's only going to increase. SV is responsible for how you communicate, how you work, what information you're exposed to, and what you learn about the world. Tech companies can regulate your access to any of these; suspend your Twitter, ban or censor online communities, and more.
To this, add the fact that they collect so much data. The idea of a not only partisan, but partially mob-driven Silicon Valley is concerning.
Just think about psychometrics for a second. Facebook, based on your use of their site, can deduce enough about you to build a psychological profile of you. That was enough to correlate certain psychological profiles to political inclinations, and target marketing to potential Trump voters.
Those psychological profiles are only going to get more precise, as time goes on, to the point where you can predict someone's likelihood of getting addicted to alcohol, or becoming a serial killer, months before it happens. You think Facebook won't eventually make use of that, either forced by law enforcement, the mob, or of their own will? It's immoral not to do it, you'd be saving lives! But then, what else can be done with those profiles? Who gets to decide? Will the mob have been appeased by then? You better hope so.
To this, add the fact that they collect so much data. The idea of a not only partisan, but partially mob-driven Silicon Valley is concerning.
Just think about psychometrics for a second. Facebook, based on your use of their site, can deduce enough about you to build a psychological profile of you. That was enough to correlate certain psychological profiles to political inclinations, and target marketing to potential Trump voters.
Those psychological profiles are only going to get more precise, as time goes on, to the point where you can predict someone's likelihood of getting addicted to alcohol, or becoming a serial killer, months before it happens. You think Facebook won't eventually make use of that, either forced by law enforcement, the mob, or of their own will? It's immoral not to do it, you'd be saving lives! But then, what else can be done with those profiles? Who gets to decide? Will the mob have been appeased by then? You better hope so.
> What is next? Separate http protocols for liberal and conservative websites?
Isn't Net Neutrality a political issue now?
Isn't Net Neutrality a political issue now?
Other industries are politically involved. Why should tech steer clear? What makes this more of a Pandora's box?
Yes, they outcome of this "with us or against us" approach is two different parallel economies. I don't get why tech companies are being singled out either. Why is no one making grocery purchasing decisions based on their CEO's support for trump?
Pandora's Box opened on its own.
http://www.dbms2.com/2017/02/02/theres-no-escape-from-politi...
-- Privacy/surveillance issues are huge in tech.
-- Immigration issues are a big deal, at least in the US.
-- Censorship is huge in many countries.
-- The internet is a key enabler of globalism.
-- Automation of jobs is a big deal.
Etc.
http://www.dbms2.com/2017/02/02/theres-no-escape-from-politi...
-- Privacy/surveillance issues are huge in tech.
-- Immigration issues are a big deal, at least in the US.
-- Censorship is huge in many countries.
-- The internet is a key enabler of globalism.
-- Automation of jobs is a big deal.
Etc.
[deleted]
The Internet is already tightly controlled and Internet corporations are partly culpable. That's why supporting tor is so crucial, for example.
Silence is just tacit approval of the status quo. Acknowledging that tech companies have a political role is acknowledging responsibility.
Silence is just tacit approval of the status quo. Acknowledging that tech companies have a political role is acknowledging responsibility.
It's kind of a shame, one of the thing I value most about working in tech is the apolitical stance a lot of companies take.
There is no such thing as an apolitical stance. It doesn't exist. Banish the very concept from your mind. That is what I, and a lot of the people who have been complaining about the politics of SV, have been saying for some time now.
Typically, tech's stance is something like "socially conscious technolibertarianism". That's not inherently bad-- it's a philosophy with pros and cons like any other-- but it is a definite stance. You might be perceiving it as apolitical for one of two reasons:
1. because it aligns so closely with your view of how the world "should be" that it seems natural and obvious
2. because it doesn't map easily onto the usual Democrat/Republican camps of American politics, thus allowing it to avoid closely identifying with one of those parties and thus seem apolitical
So I don't think this is a shame - it's more that tech is now being more honest and open about what they were doing anyway.
Typically, tech's stance is something like "socially conscious technolibertarianism". That's not inherently bad-- it's a philosophy with pros and cons like any other-- but it is a definite stance. You might be perceiving it as apolitical for one of two reasons:
1. because it aligns so closely with your view of how the world "should be" that it seems natural and obvious
2. because it doesn't map easily onto the usual Democrat/Republican camps of American politics, thus allowing it to avoid closely identifying with one of those parties and thus seem apolitical
So I don't think this is a shame - it's more that tech is now being more honest and open about what they were doing anyway.
While it's not possible for Uber to have an apolitical stance on collective bargaining rights for independent contractors, it is totally possible for Uber to have an apolitical stance on the composition of the Micronesian parliament. In fact, most SV companies are probably apolitical in this respect.
It's impossible to be completely apolitical, but it is possible for a company to be involved in politics to a greater or lesser degree.
It's impossible to be completely apolitical, but it is possible for a company to be involved in politics to a greater or lesser degree.
So build stuff that completely disrupts entire industries, and eliminates whole categories of jobs, but STFU about it's actual effect on people? Just cash the check, geek out about the tech, and get on with your life?
> So build stuff that completely disrupts entire industries, and eliminates whole categories of jobs, but STFU about it's actual effect on people?
Yes. The jobs weren't their responsibility when the existed and shouldn't be when they're gone. We have other entities to worry about things like that, governments.
Yes. The jobs weren't their responsibility when the existed and shouldn't be when they're gone. We have other entities to worry about things like that, governments.
Everyone has been doing that forever. The petrol engineer simply competes with the horse feed industry.
hate to break it to you,but https://www.fastcodesign.com/3066631/software-is-politics
Software is no more political that 2 + 2 = 4, it's just computation applied.
If we start dragging politics into it we will destroy things like open source that exist only because anyone can anonymously contribute without their race/religion/politics coming up.
If we start dragging politics into it we will destroy things like open source that exist only because anyone can anonymously contribute without their race/religion/politics coming up.
Sure there is politics directly related to the software, that's understandable.
But on other topics they should stay out of it.
But on other topics they should stay out of it.
The amorality on this thread is blowing my mind. Please watch something like this before perpetuating the delusion that tech doesn't affect people. http://www.structureevents.com/joyents-bryan-cantrill-on-tec...
No one said tech doesn't effect people.
I don't want any publicly owned companies to get involved in politics, no donations, no comments, no lobbying, nothing.
Just stay out of it.
If the CEO wants something that he feels is good for his company let him donate personally.
Privately held companies can do what they want.
The reason I'm opposed is that the CEO is putting his opinion into the mouth of his shareholders, who may or may not share his opinion. The shareholders hire the CEO to decide things related to the company, but not political things.
There are obviously gray areas like laws the impact the company directly, but I think people can handle those case by case, with the general policy of stay out of it.
Just stay out of it.
If the CEO wants something that he feels is good for his company let him donate personally.
Privately held companies can do what they want.
The reason I'm opposed is that the CEO is putting his opinion into the mouth of his shareholders, who may or may not share his opinion. The shareholders hire the CEO to decide things related to the company, but not political things.
There are obviously gray areas like laws the impact the company directly, but I think people can handle those case by case, with the general policy of stay out of it.
> The reason I'm opposed is that the CEO is putting his opinion into the mouth of his shareholders, who may or may not share his opinion.
How is intervention in politics differenr from anything else a corporations management does, all of which is notionally in the interest of the shareholders, which (through the board) delegate authority to the CEO, hire the CEO, provide feedback and direction to the CEO, and fire the CEO of he strays unacceptably from their preferences?
How is intervention in politics differenr from anything else a corporations management does, all of which is notionally in the interest of the shareholders, which (through the board) delegate authority to the CEO, hire the CEO, provide feedback and direction to the CEO, and fire the CEO of he strays unacceptably from their preferences?
There's something to this, but it's also possible for shareholders to divest from companies that don't share their political views (in the same way that you can refuse to work for or buy from a company whose views you hate.)
Not if you buy index funds you can't. And index funds are the best way to invest.
To be fair...
That's an opportunity for an ideology based index fund.
Of course, having said that...
I'm not sanguine about the relative performance of such an instrument.
That's an opportunity for an ideology based index fund.
Of course, having said that...
I'm not sanguine about the relative performance of such an instrument.
I would be surprised if it did as well monetarily standard index funds, though that would be rather beside the point. The set of companies in which a morally aligned index fund may invest is, by design, smaller than the set of companies in which an amoral index fund may invest, and so they may be intentionally passing over profitable companies.
One of my favorite quotations is from A Man for All Seasons, with Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More. "If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes."
One of my favorite quotations is from A Man for All Seasons, with Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More. "If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11743305
These already exist, they're just expensive.
These already exist, they're just expensive.
Then if you have a big enough problem, forego the benefits of index funds.
A liberal, globalist politics really IS best for Google, Apple, Microsoft and many others, and thus it is correct for their leaders to say so. If you on the other hand dislike liberal globalism, then you have the choice to divest from/not profit from those companies. (Alternatively, you could invest in them as a kind of personal diversification.)
A liberal, globalist politics really IS best for Google, Apple, Microsoft and many others, and thus it is correct for their leaders to say so. If you on the other hand dislike liberal globalism, then you have the choice to divest from/not profit from those companies. (Alternatively, you could invest in them as a kind of personal diversification.)
Yes, you can't optimally serve the interest of narrow financial profit while optimally serving other, conflicting interests.
You have to make choices, and those choices have costs.
You have to make choices, and those choices have costs.
Why not? It would just mean getting out of those funds, and taking a hit putting your money somewhere less friendly to your wallet but more friendly to your ideology.
A lot of corporate political posturing is just marketing. For example, Bud Light sponsors gay pride as marketing presuming that it's a positive ROI. Even if investors have anti-gay politics they don't object because they're in it for the money and they trust that management knows what it's doing.
As Tim Cook said, "if you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
If you don't like what the company leadership says or does, you always have the option to sell your ownership and start a new company with your values and opinions.
In the meantime, public or private companies that take stances on issues like this can empower their employees, gain new customers, and enjoy the freedom to express their values.
If you don't like what the company leadership says or does, you always have the option to sell your ownership and start a new company with your values and opinions.
In the meantime, public or private companies that take stances on issues like this can empower their employees, gain new customers, and enjoy the freedom to express their values.
So do immigration laws affect a company directly? Like the existence of a H1b program? How about requirements to cover same sex partners of your employees with your company health insurance? How about laws on maternity leave? How about proposals for public transit that your employees could take from SF to mountain View? What about data privacy laws that conflict between the EU and the US? What political topics are you thinking of that are irrelevant to most companies?
That's not how it works. Companies do lobbying at every level of government all the time.
It speaks more about you than anything else the fact that you find it awful when it's about a very vocal political cause, yet you probably don't consider that in order for companies to build infrastructure, modify the law for things that benefit them economically, and so on, there's indeed a high level of political participation.
It speaks more about you than anything else the fact that you find it awful when it's about a very vocal political cause, yet you probably don't consider that in order for companies to build infrastructure, modify the law for things that benefit them economically, and so on, there's indeed a high level of political participation.
> that you find it awful when it's about a very vocal political cause
No, I hate it in every situation. I didn't read the article so I don't know what political cause you are referring to, and I certainly was not referring to one.
No, I hate it in every situation. I didn't read the article so I don't know what political cause you are referring to, and I certainly was not referring to one.
I basically consider Trump the devil and his immigration EO to be evil by both it's motivations and by its effects, but the Snowden revelations should have already done this.
In fact these companies should have done this before they started secretly collaborating with the U.S. government and making Snowden revelations necessary.
In fact these companies should have done this before they started secretly collaborating with the U.S. government and making Snowden revelations necessary.
Sam Altman's anti-Trump blog posts are the main reasons I am not applying to YC this time, and won't do so in future. As a pro-Trump founder I don't want to have to face a political litmus test just to get into a fucking accelerator.
I appreciate and commend that you're willing to act on your convictions. I suspect your concerns of a political litmus test is unfounded. Your business ideas and their feasibility are likely much more important.
One of the things that concerns me is how we work together when there are differences of opinion or politics. I want to believe that we can, while still allowing us to express our opinions. You yourself have effectively tested Sam and YC in just this way and found him wanting. That's of course your perogative, and I respect whatever decision you make.
One of the things that concerns me is how we work together when there are differences of opinion or politics. I want to believe that we can, while still allowing us to express our opinions. You yourself have effectively tested Sam and YC in just this way and found him wanting. That's of course your perogative, and I respect whatever decision you make.
Your political posturing is considered by the gatekeepers of the industry to harm the industry. Fine by you, but I don't think you'll get nor deserve any sympathy.
And how does that apply to Peter Thiel? Or is he not part of "the industry"?
This really has to be put in perspective.
You never saw Ford or GM campaign against the Iraq War. You never saw Wall Street criticize the Patriot Act.
Some people call this activism, others would call it hysteria. Case in point: many people, mostly in the Silicon Valley subculture, are calling Trump an actual fascist, and saying that any CEO collaborating with him is just as evil as him. Textbook definition of hysteria. The grassroots left has been revitalized, but most Americans don't care much about Trump either way.
Now that's the big picture. Of course, immigration matters to people, and, in a minor way, to Silicon Valley. But discourse has become so tinged with emotion that corporations staying mum is now seen as evil, rather than business as usual. This mob-mentality may be productive now, but isn't an entirely positive development.
You never saw Ford or GM campaign against the Iraq War. You never saw Wall Street criticize the Patriot Act.
Some people call this activism, others would call it hysteria. Case in point: many people, mostly in the Silicon Valley subculture, are calling Trump an actual fascist, and saying that any CEO collaborating with him is just as evil as him. Textbook definition of hysteria. The grassroots left has been revitalized, but most Americans don't care much about Trump either way.
Now that's the big picture. Of course, immigration matters to people, and, in a minor way, to Silicon Valley. But discourse has become so tinged with emotion that corporations staying mum is now seen as evil, rather than business as usual. This mob-mentality may be productive now, but isn't an entirely positive development.
> many people, mostly in the Silicon Valley subculture, are calling Trump an actual fascist, and saying that any CEO collaborating with him is just as evil as him
I mean... how is Trump not an actual fascist? What definition of fascism does Trump not embody? I'm being serious--if he could actually wave a magic wand and create the government/world he wanted, how would this government not be a fascist government?
Consider this: Why are Hitler and Mussolini fascists, but not all dictators are fascists? That's the definition of fascism. Now please tell me how that doesn't fit the definition of the government Trump wants?
As far as CEO's collaborating with him being evil... Yeah, I would say working for the Trump administration at this point is basically like working with fascists in the 30s. Lots of people did. Many of those companies are still around. People are people. But they're--rightly--not congratulated by history for it. In fact, mostly history says, "They should have taken it more seriously at the time when they had the chance."
This is one of those cases where if you're not a fan of fascism, you should be fighting Trump every chance you get. It's not hysteria at all; calling it hysteria is in fact (mostly effective) propaganda.
I mean... how is Trump not an actual fascist? What definition of fascism does Trump not embody? I'm being serious--if he could actually wave a magic wand and create the government/world he wanted, how would this government not be a fascist government?
Consider this: Why are Hitler and Mussolini fascists, but not all dictators are fascists? That's the definition of fascism. Now please tell me how that doesn't fit the definition of the government Trump wants?
As far as CEO's collaborating with him being evil... Yeah, I would say working for the Trump administration at this point is basically like working with fascists in the 30s. Lots of people did. Many of those companies are still around. People are people. But they're--rightly--not congratulated by history for it. In fact, mostly history says, "They should have taken it more seriously at the time when they had the chance."
This is one of those cases where if you're not a fan of fascism, you should be fighting Trump every chance you get. It's not hysteria at all; calling it hysteria is in fact (mostly effective) propaganda.
> Consider this: Why are Hitler and Mussolini fascists, but not all dictators are fascists? That's the definition of fascism. Now please tell me how that doesn't fit the definition of the government Trump wants?
Here's what I can think of: Hitler and Mussolini wanted to create a "New Man", unlike Hussein, Assad, and... Trump.
Trump isn't even a dictator yet, and may never become one. The biggest charge you can make against him is that he's pro-oligarchy, and empowers nefarious radical grassroots movements on the right. It may get a lot worse, but we're not there yet, not even close. The real problem is in public opinion, i.e. how to convince people on the right to care more about facts, and make better voting decisions. But rejecting Trump wholesale isn't a solution to that problem.
> As far as CEO's collaborating with him being evil... Yeah, I would say working for the Trump administration at this point is basically like working with fascists in the 30s.
We're not talking IBM-participating-in-the-Holocaust. We're talking left-wing businessmen getting the president to listen to them about how to best create manufacturing jobs. There's miles of difference between the two.
Edit: this article, "Nationalism is Rising, Not Fascism" is a great read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is...
Here's what I can think of: Hitler and Mussolini wanted to create a "New Man", unlike Hussein, Assad, and... Trump.
Trump isn't even a dictator yet, and may never become one. The biggest charge you can make against him is that he's pro-oligarchy, and empowers nefarious radical grassroots movements on the right. It may get a lot worse, but we're not there yet, not even close. The real problem is in public opinion, i.e. how to convince people on the right to care more about facts, and make better voting decisions. But rejecting Trump wholesale isn't a solution to that problem.
> As far as CEO's collaborating with him being evil... Yeah, I would say working for the Trump administration at this point is basically like working with fascists in the 30s.
We're not talking IBM-participating-in-the-Holocaust. We're talking left-wing businessmen getting the president to listen to them about how to best create manufacturing jobs. There's miles of difference between the two.
Edit: this article, "Nationalism is Rising, Not Fascism" is a great read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is...
> Hitler and Mussolini wanted to create a "New Man", unlike Hussein, Assad, and... Trump.
Interesting that you hone in on that; it's true but their views on "men being more manly" do strangely reflect the alt-right and Trump. So yes, this is a fascist-like concept; Trump holds it in spades.
> Trump isn't even a dictator yet, and may never become one.
Don't quit smoking until you're riddled with cancer?
> The biggest charge you can make against him is that he's pro-oligarchy, and empowers nefarious radical grassroots movements on the right.
No, that's not the biggest charge, but those are themselves rather strong reasons to not want someone to be president. "He's a fascist" is the biggest charge in my mind.
> The real problem is in public opinion, i.e. how to convince people on the right to care more about facts, and make better voting decisions. But rejecting Trump wholesale isn't a solution to that problem.
That is A real problem, I agree. It's also a separate (but related) problem. The most acute problem is a fascist president (cancer), an uninformed public is more like "smoking" (the environment the cancer needs to form).
> Edit: this article, "Nationalism is Rising, Not Fascism" is a great read. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is....
Thanks! I disagree though; Trump is very very much a fascist, not merely a nationalist (we don't need any more of those either, btw)
Interesting that you hone in on that; it's true but their views on "men being more manly" do strangely reflect the alt-right and Trump. So yes, this is a fascist-like concept; Trump holds it in spades.
> Trump isn't even a dictator yet, and may never become one.
Don't quit smoking until you're riddled with cancer?
> The biggest charge you can make against him is that he's pro-oligarchy, and empowers nefarious radical grassroots movements on the right.
No, that's not the biggest charge, but those are themselves rather strong reasons to not want someone to be president. "He's a fascist" is the biggest charge in my mind.
> The real problem is in public opinion, i.e. how to convince people on the right to care more about facts, and make better voting decisions. But rejecting Trump wholesale isn't a solution to that problem.
That is A real problem, I agree. It's also a separate (but related) problem. The most acute problem is a fascist president (cancer), an uninformed public is more like "smoking" (the environment the cancer needs to form).
> Edit: this article, "Nationalism is Rising, Not Fascism" is a great read. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is....
Thanks! I disagree though; Trump is very very much a fascist, not merely a nationalist (we don't need any more of those either, btw)
There are clear differences between Trump and traditional Fascists. They favored physical violence and military-like discipline. (Mussolini's famous catchphrase was that he'd "Make the trains run on time".) Neither is true of Trump.
However, Trump seems like a modernized form. "Verbal" violence online seems more relevant in an era where people don't walk to work in ways that allow them to be physically hassled in the street anyway.
H/T David Frum in https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-... for that particular twist.
However, Trump seems like a modernized form. "Verbal" violence online seems more relevant in an era where people don't walk to work in ways that allow them to be physically hassled in the street anyway.
H/T David Frum in https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-... for that particular twist.
Clear difference in the literal sense, yes (Trump will never pull off a mask and turn out to be ah ha! literally Hitler this whole time)
He does favor violence and has said so. He also favors military-like discipline (but not for himself). He doesn't wear a military uniform (that would be very weird) but he's made no secret throughout his career of his appreciation for military discipline and loyalty in his subordinates.
I agree, Trump's fascism is a modern incarnation.
He does favor violence and has said so. He also favors military-like discipline (but not for himself). He doesn't wear a military uniform (that would be very weird) but he's made no secret throughout his career of his appreciation for military discipline and loyalty in his subordinates.
I agree, Trump's fascism is a modern incarnation.
how is Trump an actual fascist? What definition of fascism does Trump embody? I'm being serious.
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
I don't see how he is an authoritarian. He's been operating in the frame of the constitution so far, he's not in favor of the government managing everybody's life.
Real fascist governments usually don't believe in free market, in capitalism or in small government in general. He's also very isolationist, clearly not a trait of fascism.
We can find a lot of issues with Trump and what he's doing, but calling it "fascist" or "literally Hitler" doesn't help. When we call everything "fascist" the word loses its meaning. The Left has been calling every single Republican president/candidate a "fascist" for the past 2 decades.
Real fascist governments usually don't believe in free market, in capitalism or in small government in general. He's also very isolationist, clearly not a trait of fascism.
We can find a lot of issues with Trump and what he's doing, but calling it "fascist" or "literally Hitler" doesn't help. When we call everything "fascist" the word loses its meaning. The Left has been calling every single Republican president/candidate a "fascist" for the past 2 decades.
> I don't see how he is an authoritarian.
I can't get past this, we must be talking about different things.
I can't get past this, we must be talking about different things.
That would also include George W. Bush.
Consider this, written by a prominent geopolitical expert:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is...
Consider this, written by a prominent geopolitical expert:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is...
I am going to get flamed to oblivion for this, but nonetheless:
You are not looking far enough in the past. The very textbook definition[0] of fascism (or to be precise - one of the basic definitions) is that it is a political movement that was directly linked with corporatism. Or in other words, a form of government where the major political power is wielded by powerful corporations and furthers primarily their interests.[1]
Quoting from [0]: "fascism, especially once in power, [attracts] support primarily from what in a classical sense is called the 'far right' or 'extreme right'." Authoritarianism and police state mentality are both drivers, but also the results of this mentality.
Considering how the politics in the western world, US included, have been going for at least the recent half a century... I am going to say that fascism didn't go away with the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini. It has been a dark undercurrent in the US politics (as well as UK and the Scandinavian countries, at least) all this time.
We have ALL been on the road back to fascism for decades. It didn't start with G.W. Bush in the US, or with Thatcher in the UK, or with True Finns in Finland, or with whatever the French populist party happens to be called this week. Each one of these is just a manifestation of a more generic right-wing, very much misandry-fuelled swing in public opinion.
US has been on its way to fascism for a long time. But you are not alone, your country has just been the most powerful and visible charioteer.
If you are willing to accept the link between corporatism and fascism, just think what Lawrence Lessig was not saying in his TED talk, "Country of Lesters".[2] (That's not the official title of the talk but the one it is easiest to find with.)
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
2a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
2b: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
You are not looking far enough in the past. The very textbook definition[0] of fascism (or to be precise - one of the basic definitions) is that it is a political movement that was directly linked with corporatism. Or in other words, a form of government where the major political power is wielded by powerful corporations and furthers primarily their interests.[1]
Quoting from [0]: "fascism, especially once in power, [attracts] support primarily from what in a classical sense is called the 'far right' or 'extreme right'." Authoritarianism and police state mentality are both drivers, but also the results of this mentality.
Considering how the politics in the western world, US included, have been going for at least the recent half a century... I am going to say that fascism didn't go away with the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini. It has been a dark undercurrent in the US politics (as well as UK and the Scandinavian countries, at least) all this time.
We have ALL been on the road back to fascism for decades. It didn't start with G.W. Bush in the US, or with Thatcher in the UK, or with True Finns in Finland, or with whatever the French populist party happens to be called this week. Each one of these is just a manifestation of a more generic right-wing, very much misandry-fuelled swing in public opinion.
US has been on its way to fascism for a long time. But you are not alone, your country has just been the most powerful and visible charioteer.
If you are willing to accept the link between corporatism and fascism, just think what Lawrence Lessig was not saying in his TED talk, "Country of Lesters".[2] (That's not the official title of the talk but the one it is easiest to find with.)
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
2a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
2b: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
> the many people calling Trump an actual fascist
The Holocaust statement, which was pitch-perfect Holocaust denial of the modern weaselly style, should genuinely terrify everyone.
People are still desperately trying to act like everything is basically normal when it's incredibly not. Every idea you had about political engagement and norms, throw it in the garbage and start from scratch.
The Holocaust statement, which was pitch-perfect Holocaust denial of the modern weaselly style, should genuinely terrify everyone.
People are still desperately trying to act like everything is basically normal when it's incredibly not. Every idea you had about political engagement and norms, throw it in the garbage and start from scratch.
I'm anti-Trump, and think the activism against his admin is justified. But consider these two points:
1) After Trump, will the mob go away? It may be justified here, but crowds are rarely rational, and when they are, not for long.
2) Again, there's this new, distinct idea that any tech company that does not strongly oppose Trump is just as evil as Hitler. You see mobs forming against Musk and the Uber CEO, when in my opinion all the Uber CEO did wrong was make PR mistakes, rather than harming anyone.
Remember when, after Kalanick defended himself by citing the others who were cooperating with Trump (Musk and the others), thousands on Twitter were calling him a "snitch", in the top trending hashtag? When it was obviously publicly-available info that Musk et al were part of Trump's council?
1) After Trump, will the mob go away? It may be justified here, but crowds are rarely rational, and when they are, not for long.
2) Again, there's this new, distinct idea that any tech company that does not strongly oppose Trump is just as evil as Hitler. You see mobs forming against Musk and the Uber CEO, when in my opinion all the Uber CEO did wrong was make PR mistakes, rather than harming anyone.
Remember when, after Kalanick defended himself by citing the others who were cooperating with Trump (Musk and the others), thousands on Twitter were calling him a "snitch", in the top trending hashtag? When it was obviously publicly-available info that Musk et al were part of Trump's council?
> “It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”
> “Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest. As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent,” he continued, again referring only to “the innocent.”
> “In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good,” he concluded. “Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”
Is this the statement? How on earth do you get holocaust denial out of this? This is what OP meant by hysteria.
> “Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest. As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent,” he continued, again referring only to “the innocent.”
> “In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good,” he concluded. “Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”
Is this the statement? How on earth do you get holocaust denial out of this? This is what OP meant by hysteria.
That was obscene. It's sadly true that the nazis committed acts of genocide against many peoples. The holocaust specifically refers to the genocide of Jews specifically.
I thought that it specifically referred to the industrial murder of the Nazi regime, although mostly of Jews, but also of gypsies, and other people deemed "undesirables" by the state.
That's not true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
He "all lives mattered" the holocaust and white nationalists celebrated.
He "all lives mattered" the holocaust and white nationalists celebrated.
Did you read the link? The first paragraph says:
> Some definitions of the Holocaust include the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to about 11 million
> Some definitions of the Holocaust include the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to about 11 million
I don't see why you get to define the widespread civic unrest as hysteria. There have now been two consecutive weekends of thousands of normal people mobilizing mass protests. What is the difference between people legitimately concerned and hysteria?
In any protest, you'll probably have 80% of people protesting because they're too emotionally invested in something (admittedly that's subjective), and 20% protesting because they thought things through, and made a rational decision.
This isn't specific to any political movement or ideology. If you want to check, go to an anti-Trump protest wearing a Trump hat (or an Occupy Wall Street protest when you're the top 1%). Some will directly assault you or steal the hat, some will yell obscenities, and a minority will actually talk with you calmly and see if they can change your mind.
This doesn't make their aims less legitimate, since it's a characteristic of any mass movement, but you can't brush it away. We're in an era where Twitter mobs can make stocks drop and get people fired.
This isn't specific to any political movement or ideology. If you want to check, go to an anti-Trump protest wearing a Trump hat (or an Occupy Wall Street protest when you're the top 1%). Some will directly assault you or steal the hat, some will yell obscenities, and a minority will actually talk with you calmly and see if they can change your mind.
This doesn't make their aims less legitimate, since it's a characteristic of any mass movement, but you can't brush it away. We're in an era where Twitter mobs can make stocks drop and get people fired.
You've identified the point of the phrasing "Some people call this activism, others would call it hysteria.".
> What is the difference between people legitimately concerned and hysteria?
Whether or not the person making the characterization agrees with the people in question, mostly.
Whether or not the person making the characterization agrees with the people in question, mostly.
Disagree, see my reply above. Every movement has both.
Every movement has an ebb and flow. They become stronger and weaker. But keep in mind that when empowering the rational activists, you are by necessity also empowering the shrill mob. I want people to be mindful of this. Have convictions, but breathe, meditate, do whatever you need. If you feel angry, let yourself be, but then let the anger and everything else go, and rely only on your principles. No emotions.
Every movement has an ebb and flow. They become stronger and weaker. But keep in mind that when empowering the rational activists, you are by necessity also empowering the shrill mob. I want people to be mindful of this. Have convictions, but breathe, meditate, do whatever you need. If you feel angry, let yourself be, but then let the anger and everything else go, and rely only on your principles. No emotions.
Use of terms like "hysteria" and "freaking out" to dismiss the opposition is itself just a political tactic.
I don't think I agree with your sentiment. It's not hysteria. It's just waking up slightly from your slumber. American politics is in dire need of course correction and has been for some time. The way it is going sooner or later the masses will elect an actual dictator to run the country, because the various chilling effects on activism and the lack of reform and looking out for the needs of the public. If anything the hysteria against Trump is a warning sign. As was electing Trump in the first place. It means politics is not working, and course correction in politics is not working as well.
>I don't think I agree with your sentiment. It's not hysteria. It's just waking up slightly from your slumber.
Waking up from a slumber and then panicking and launching protests about most of the things you see sounds a bit like hysteria to me. The world turned before you woke up, it'll turn after you go to sleep.
>If anything the hysteria against Trump is a warning sign
I would tend to believe you if the country hadn't been gripped in a similar hysteria a few years ago under George W. Bush's presidency. Seems many people on the left were convinced he was going to declare martial law and that Cheney was his vice president as insurance against assassination. People said the same things they say now, like how a racist, or a fascist, or an actual Nazi is now in the White House. It was hysterical then, it's hysterical now.
The problem with the hysteria is that when there's actually a threat, no one will listen because every time a Republican gets elected, anyone who leans a little bit liberal starts shouting "Nazi," and people are sick of it.
Waking up from a slumber and then panicking and launching protests about most of the things you see sounds a bit like hysteria to me. The world turned before you woke up, it'll turn after you go to sleep.
>If anything the hysteria against Trump is a warning sign
I would tend to believe you if the country hadn't been gripped in a similar hysteria a few years ago under George W. Bush's presidency. Seems many people on the left were convinced he was going to declare martial law and that Cheney was his vice president as insurance against assassination. People said the same things they say now, like how a racist, or a fascist, or an actual Nazi is now in the White House. It was hysterical then, it's hysterical now.
The problem with the hysteria is that when there's actually a threat, no one will listen because every time a Republican gets elected, anyone who leans a little bit liberal starts shouting "Nazi," and people are sick of it.
Tech firms are already heavily involved in politics. It's just that now that the government is no longer doing what they want, they are going to get more involved. News at 10. Has nothing to do with ethics or evil or any of that, has to do with the fact that their profit is built on the backs of immigrants. They don't want to lose that gravy train.
I don't like the fact that American society is becoming so heavily politicized. I have family members, cousins who are brother and sister, refusing to talk to each other because of this nonsense.
This needs to end.
This needs to end.
I agree. This is a primary concern for me as well. What are your ideas on how this can be addressed and improved?
Cultural change is hard. Like really hard. It's easier to join a culture you like than it is to change a culture you don't like. Cultures form a part of someone's identity and when you mess with someones identity they get defensive and sometimes violent.
I'm not sure that there is a fix for this that isn't a local long term commitment to finding common ground with those around you.
I'm not sure that there is a fix for this that isn't a local long term commitment to finding common ground with those around you.
Is there anything you are personally doing?
I'm doing exactly what I said in my last sentence. I'm committing to a local long term effort to find common ground with those around me. I'm also under no illusions that it will happen quickly.
I think that's a great idea, and I'm of the same opinion that it needs to be done locally and personally. Do you have specific strategies or tactics you're using? The status quo doesn't appear to be enough.
The thing about local and personal is that the strategies tend to be pretty specific to your particular situation. But there are some general things that will help.
1. Listen first. And don't just passively listen actively listen. Ask questions which leads into the second thing.
2. Try to genuinely understand why someone believes as they do. What is motivating their actions and reactions.
3. Once you are able to empathize with someone that should inform the tactics and strategies you use.
1. Listen first. And don't just passively listen actively listen. Ask questions which leads into the second thing.
2. Try to genuinely understand why someone believes as they do. What is motivating their actions and reactions.
3. Once you are able to empathize with someone that should inform the tactics and strategies you use.
Agreed on all points. Even though actions may be specific to the local situation, I think it can still be useful to share, as it can provide a starting point for ideas, even if it's not directly applicable.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
[deleted]
The new requests for startups, particularly concerning news and democracy are good long-term solutions to help solve the problem.
In the short to medium term, I'm not sure.
In the short to medium term, I'm not sure.
I'd like to think those will help. I'm skeptical because people need to be able to trust them, in particular those around news, and given the current state of affairs I don't know how they can build or justify that trust.
Are there any steps you're taking personally?
Are there any steps you're taking personally?
[deleted]
Technology just means applying what we know (science) to making tools or systems for solving our problems. Ultimately we cannot avoid using technology in that broad sense to solve societal and political problems.
I must once again challenge readers of Hacker News to consider the possibility that the popular news feeds do not provide an accurate view of the global political situation. This is because information control is a critical aspect of warfare, and that comes in the form of propaganda. And, whether you believe it or not, the United States maintains its position in the world through deadly force that requires projection. This projection comes in the form of extensive, connected military campaigns that have been ongoing for decades. This warfare makes it important to shape information around it -- hence American propaganda.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Critic... as a criticism (I suggest that America is _not_ an exception to history, but much confusion comes from the belief that it is).
In the context that I am trying to make accessible, my own worldview, the fact that these countries are largely Muslim is in a way a distraction from the real issue, which is: the US and overall current geopolitical order is dependent upon control over distribution of fossil fuels (with much, much more resources allocated to US and closest allies), that (unequal) resource control requires military force to protect key areas for extraction and transport, military control over much of the territory of the affected countries is unavailable/not secure, and those areas are all critical in relation to maintaining the resource control and current order.
Look at a map https://www.google.com/maps/place/Somalia/@21.0767185,36.995..., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consu..., compare to map of affected countries of recent immigration action https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ba...
In my opinion, religion is not the real issue, and although (obviously) immigration actions against these countries is likely to mainly inflame the situation more, the problems are much more severe than people want to believe. Its not just that we have some people who are prejudice against other religions, however nice it would be to believe that is the whole problem. The root of the problem is really the unequal resource distribution, unresolved military security issues (or in some cases, undeclared war against) (with) those countries, and the reality that the global order is maintained by deadly force and propaganda.
I must once again challenge readers of Hacker News to consider the possibility that the popular news feeds do not provide an accurate view of the global political situation. This is because information control is a critical aspect of warfare, and that comes in the form of propaganda. And, whether you believe it or not, the United States maintains its position in the world through deadly force that requires projection. This projection comes in the form of extensive, connected military campaigns that have been ongoing for decades. This warfare makes it important to shape information around it -- hence American propaganda.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Critic... as a criticism (I suggest that America is _not_ an exception to history, but much confusion comes from the belief that it is).
In the context that I am trying to make accessible, my own worldview, the fact that these countries are largely Muslim is in a way a distraction from the real issue, which is: the US and overall current geopolitical order is dependent upon control over distribution of fossil fuels (with much, much more resources allocated to US and closest allies), that (unequal) resource control requires military force to protect key areas for extraction and transport, military control over much of the territory of the affected countries is unavailable/not secure, and those areas are all critical in relation to maintaining the resource control and current order.
Look at a map https://www.google.com/maps/place/Somalia/@21.0767185,36.995..., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consu..., compare to map of affected countries of recent immigration action https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ba...
In my opinion, religion is not the real issue, and although (obviously) immigration actions against these countries is likely to mainly inflame the situation more, the problems are much more severe than people want to believe. Its not just that we have some people who are prejudice against other religions, however nice it would be to believe that is the whole problem. The root of the problem is really the unequal resource distribution, unresolved military security issues (or in some cases, undeclared war against) (with) those countries, and the reality that the global order is maintained by deadly force and propaganda.
"I must once again challenge readers of Hacker News to consider the possibility that the popular news feeds do not provide an accurate view of the global political situation. This is because information control is a critical aspect of warfare, and that comes in the form of propaganda. And, whether you believe it or not, the United States maintains its position in the world through deadly force that requires projection. This projection comes in the form of extensive, connected military campaigns that have been ongoing for decades. This warfare makes it important to shape information around it -- hence American propaganda."
Yep. And let's not forget Steve Piecnizk
"The counter coup saying, we will convict and indite the president of the united states" ... "we are going to stop you from making hilary the president of the united states"
this guy was Psychological Warfare !!!!! for US State Department
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik#Professional_l... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM&t=95s
Yep. And let's not forget Steve Piecnizk
"The counter coup saying, we will convict and indite the president of the united states" ... "we are going to stop you from making hilary the president of the united states"
this guy was Psychological Warfare !!!!! for US State Department
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik#Professional_l... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM&t=95s
What they're missing is that by speaking (and acting) as moral arbitrars, they're stepping into a position they may not want to be long term.
If Facebook and/or Twitter are people's primary source of information and they're moderating content that is annoying (but not illegal), do those actions start to fall under FEC rules? What about Google's tweaking of Page Rank? How does that affect their valuations?
Since these processes are opaque, it's easy to imply and accuse them of all kinds of things.
We may see a situation where they have to open up processes, procedures, and potentially algorithms. And I suspect they don't want that.
If Facebook and/or Twitter are people's primary source of information and they're moderating content that is annoying (but not illegal), do those actions start to fall under FEC rules? What about Google's tweaking of Page Rank? How does that affect their valuations?
Since these processes are opaque, it's easy to imply and accuse them of all kinds of things.
We may see a situation where they have to open up processes, procedures, and potentially algorithms. And I suspect they don't want that.
Tech firms over-value their own tech by only tweeting, posting or emailing saying they are "concerned" or "upset".
Should be more actions. They can expand/setup offices in foreign countries for developers (not just manufacturing), in effect moving jobs out of the US (and the expensive SF area).
Some good would come of it. They can pay less because cost of living would be cheaper. They would have less visa constraints in recruiting. They would be spending their offshore cash (less cash to repatriate and pay tax on, less currency risk). They would have better visibility into local/international trends and preferences to create growth. Countries would give tax breaks.
They can do this loudly and publicly to get Trump's attention. Imagine the headlines of jobs moving out of US because of Trump's actions.
EDIT: and this would be more business, less politics.
Should be more actions. They can expand/setup offices in foreign countries for developers (not just manufacturing), in effect moving jobs out of the US (and the expensive SF area).
Some good would come of it. They can pay less because cost of living would be cheaper. They would have less visa constraints in recruiting. They would be spending their offshore cash (less cash to repatriate and pay tax on, less currency risk). They would have better visibility into local/international trends and preferences to create growth. Countries would give tax breaks.
They can do this loudly and publicly to get Trump's attention. Imagine the headlines of jobs moving out of US because of Trump's actions.
EDIT: and this would be more business, less politics.
I think tech firms were thrown into politics more so than other industries. Tech has had to fight for privacy: PRISM/SOPA/PIPA; Apple vs FBI; Google in China; even Blackberry vs middle eastern countries (if i recall correctly).
I bet they don't want to be involved, but have been thrown into it. It's almost expected of them to say something to protect their brand.
If they made coffee like Starbucks, sure... no politics, no problem.
I bet they don't want to be involved, but have been thrown into it. It's almost expected of them to say something to protect their brand.
If they made coffee like Starbucks, sure... no politics, no problem.