I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with most of the opposition to Condi Rice wrt the illegal war, warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. On the other hand, I threw a hissy fit over the opposition to Eich based on his beliefs. I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency.
Anybody else feel conflicted and have some insight? I'm still probably going to cancel my Dropbox membership simply because I have free 100gigs google drive that I got when I bought my chromebook [1] and this gives me a great excuse to transfer over and save some money. But I don't know that I can go on the same kind of crusade for which I faulted the Eich lynch mob.
[1] Free 100 gigs google drive when you buy a chromebook, which if you install crouton makes for a cheap, decently powerful linux machine (great deal!). I recommend the hp chromebook 14 with 4 gigs ram since it comes with free 200mb 4G tmobile internet every month for life.
Unlike Eich, Rice went far beyond simply holding beliefs and making donations. She held real power and used it in unconscionable ways.
Given the current climate, I find it incredible that a cloud storage company would be involved with someone who actually wiretapped members of the UN Security Council. It's almost like they're saying "thanks for all the data, oh and f* you".
Dropbox provides a space to explain why you're leaving. I said Rice's actions resulted in the unnecessary death and injury of many thousands of innocent people, and I will not entrust my data or my money to a company with such a person on the board.
I'm sure my small action won't make any difference, but maybe by making this visible we achieve collectively what we can't achieve individually.
I am going to wait a week to see if Dropbox rescinds the offer to Rice. I like Dropbox as a product but Google Drive is reasonably competitive on features and less expensive.
This is the key point. The things she is being called out on are things that actually relate to her trustworthiness in the position she has entered, and as a cloud service provider trust should be very important to Dropbox.
Although I agree Rice's actions were much more direct, extensive, and much worse than Eich's by any measure, I don't agree that equal rights are necessarily less relevant to the leadership of Mozilla than neocon government overreach shenanigans is relevant to data privacy at Dropbox.
And one campaign was to deny a group the legal right to marry, while the other was to kill thousands of people. Neither is particularly wholesome, but I think there is a difference in scale.
If you don't believe every country in the world doesn't try to bug any country they have an investment in, rather it be ally or enemy, you're naive. I can't believe it even came as surprise that US bugged its allies, you don't believe our allies do the same thing, or at least try to, to us?
That's how it is in the spying world. You spy on everyone, including your allies. The caveat is that if you get caught, your ally gets to raise a public stink.
This being said, having a spymaster that previously worked towards questionable goals (on a scale rarely before seen) as your new director of a data storage company? Not a good idea.
You realize that is part of the reason we have the NSA, right? Only in a fantasy world do the other members not attempt to spy on the US. The reason why the NSA spying issue is wrong is because they were violating the consitutional rights of US Citizens. The German Chancellor is not a US Citizen and we have every reason to spy on her, the same goes for every other country in the world.
It's only right if you believe there's no cost to your spying being uncovered.
If you don't think there's any cost to being caught spying, I welcome you to try spying on someone, anyone. Then you can answer the question of "Is it worth it?" which leads directly into "Is it a good idea?"
No, today you learned it's only illegal for the US gov't to spy on US citizens. Spying isn't rape or murder. It's a thing that gov't does to know what's going on behind their backs. Do we have a problem with spying on Russia or China? No. Just France and Germany. Why?
What you're saying doesn't change the point that someone who promoted mass surveillance is now a director of a data storage and security company. These are directly opposite ideals.
I feel similarly, I'm just not sure where I draw the line because it makes me feel like a hypocrite. I see a lot of people on HN criticizing the Obama administration for drones, NSA, Guantanamo, etc., but how many of them have stopped using tech companies whose leadership contributed large amounts of money to Obama's campaigns? I can't help but feel like there is a something deeper resonating with people when it comes to this Condi issue. I'm guessing if Hilary Clinton quit tomorrow and joined DigitalOcean,the people up in arms about this wouldn't be outraged.
This is an overt support of someone that is highly controversial. The aftermath of the Iraq war isn't going way because the US isn't involved as much anymore. There is already a sense that accountability hasn't really been high with the Iraq war. Oops, we made a mistake doesn't cut it too much. With this appointment, it further amplifies the sentiment that there is absolutely no real accountability. I would say this is why a lot of people would feel strongly about this.
Well, it's actually quite simple some people want to turn Silicon Valley into an arm of their preferred political party. Oh, they don't want that outright, certainly, but they certainly want it and everyone in it to be aligned with the party's principles, especially at the leadership level.
Believing in legal tolerance (most people who are described as "tolerant"/socially liberal) is not the same as believing you cannot say anything negative about someone or make judgments based on their actions and beliefs.
I find it difficult to explain how it is permissible to fire someone for campaigning against gay marriage, but not permissible to fire them for being gay and married, or being from an opposing political party, or any other personal reason. Could you please explain the principled distinction for this dichotomy?
I fail to see how it's a black-list if the means of ejection is extremely public and based on pure market motivation? Conservatives with awful views tend to get "freedom of speech" and "freedom from social and business consequences" mixed up a lot.
I would contend that the Hollywood blacklist of the 1940s and 1950s is comparable with what is we see here; then as now, a group of people with certain political and social views are being excluded and ejected from jobs solely because of their activities outside of the job being denied to them.[1] Those blacklisted in the 1940s and 1950s had "freedom of speech", but not "freedom from social and business consequences". It is difficult to make a principled distinction between what we see happening now, and the 'McCarthy-ist' wave of the 20th century, which is oft described as ideological intolerance.
I'm baffled by this opinion. Comparing a voluntary boycott of Condi to the government blacklisting of the Hollywood Ten is so far off base that I honestly can't understand how you can compare the two.
A big difference is that Eich is a well-respected contributor to his organization who independently has an unpopular political viewpoint, and his actions only became notable in the context of Mozilla. Whereas Rice is known generally for her actions, has not been involved in creating Dropbox, and was most likely hired precisely for the skills that people despise.
But I also think this backlash comes from people being reminded about the fundamental reality of Dropbox. It's always been a centralized technology with a controller that's free to do whatever it pleases with your data, either for their own gain or simply out of expediency - any sane hacker should have been recommending avoiding Dropbox and its ilk this whole time. Appointing someone who's directly associated with facilitating and justifying hostile acts reminds everyone of this inconvenient truth, which makes those in denial uncomfortable.
> I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with most of the opposition to Condi Rice wrt the illegal war, warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. On the other hand, I threw a hissy fit over the opposition to Eich based on his beliefs. I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency.
The issue here isn't just about someone's personal beliefs. Eich and Rice both operate at very high levels within their organizations and that means they both have a leadership role and are representatives of those companies to the larger public. When people have a problem with those people's actions and point of view, they most certainly have a right to voice that disagreement.
It is important to note that a personal belief which is discriminatory (Eich) does not make that belief legitimate. Why exactly should Eich be defended at all? Support of legalized discrimination against groups of people is morally reprehensible, even if you think marriage isn't that big of an issue. In the case of Rice, a track record of getting people tortured and killed is horrifying and this person should not be supported.
When a business selects someone to join a C-level position or its board of directors, they are endorsing that person completely, including the unseemly things they do or endorse that do not directly relate to the company. You can't separate the two, a company is empowering a person to a degree when they get that position and that is a form of direct support of that person.
Gay marriage really isn't such an obvious case. Marriage means subventions by the government. So I suppose you could argue that the subventions are really for promoting families with the ultimate goal of having children. Even though gay families can adopt, you could argue that promoting gay marriage does not bring more children into the world.
Not saying that is my opinion, or that marriage is currently perfectly designed for that goal (after all, childless couples can marry too and get some benefits). But I can understand if people feel "if I am paying for other people's marriage, I want to pay for more children being brought into the world in my country" - or something like that. Then I think it would be acceptable to oppose (gay) marriage on that ground.
Just an example - I am not big on the theory of gay marriage, just saying that there can be reasons to oppose it.
It's not a question of denying people the right to be together, but a question of what the community should pay for.
From my European perspective it seems much less ethical to deny people health care (talk about basic human rights), yet I am sure many who support gay marriage are opposed to public health care for a variety of reasons (they don't want to live in a socialist country or whatever).
Marriage is not a subvention. You are not granted a cash bonus for being married. You access differences in tax consideration, yes, but that is not the same as getting direct payment. Moreover, there are a variety of legal rights that are available to married couples vs. non-married couple and non straight couples deserve access to those rights just the same as anyone else.
> So I suppose you could argue that the subventions are really for promoting families with the ultimate goal of having children. Even though gay families can adopt, you could argue that promoting gay marriage does not bring more children into the world.
> Not saying that is my opinion, or that marriage is currently perfectly designed for that goal (after all, childless couples can marry too and get some benefits). But I can understand if people feel "if I am paying for other people's marriage, I want to pay for more children being brought into the world in my country" - or something like that. Then I think it would be acceptable to oppose (gay) marriage on that ground.
Marriage isn't granted or denied to straight people based on their ability to have or not have children, this argument does not hold water. Also, marriage is not strictly about reproducing anyway. Biology-based arguments of this kind is highly discriminatory in general and shouldn't be allowed as the basis for law.
> It's not a question of denying people the right to be together, but a question of what the community should pay for.
This is not a question of what the community should pay for, the community would pay less if more overall couples and families were stable, this is a question of discrimination of the most basic kind.
> From my European perspective it seems much less ethical to deny people health care (talk about basic human rights), yet I am sure many who support gay marriage are opposed to public health care for a variety of reasons (they don't want to live in a socialist country or whatever).
That there is a bigger problem compared to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that some people are still being denied the ability to marry and access the rights that come with that status.
"You access differences in tax consideration, yes, but that is not the same as getting direct payment."
Of course it is. The public pays money for it.
"Moreover, there are a variety of legal rights that are available to married couples vs. non-married couple and non straight couples deserve access to those rights just the same as anyone else."
As I said, I am not against it. I would argue that those rights are also a subvention.
"Marriage isn't granted or denied to straight people based on their ability to have or not have children, this argument does not hold water"
I'm aware of that - my point is that I can understand if people think about it that way. Also I think there have throughout history been special rules for marriage if a couple can't get children. For example it might have been legal to get another wife, things like that. I don't think you can argue that children have no bearing on marriage whatsoever.
Especially since presumably the "right to adopt" is the main issue people have with gay marriage. Don't know about the US, but where I live, the only other significant right married people get is bringing their spouses into the country (giving them citizenship). Things like "visit your spouse in hospital" or "split your income for tax reductions" can be arranged in other ways.
"this is a question of discrimination of the most basic kind."
That is just hate speech, not an argument.
"That there is a bigger problem compared to gay marriage doesn't negate the fact that some people are still being denied the ability to marry and access the rights that come with that status."
Of course not - my point is that many who now feel like "good people" because they support gay marriage at the same time fight for denying people health care. I just wanted to illustrate that things are not always as obvious as people think.
Let me say up front, my politics and Rice's are at odds.
But specifically to this issue, my views and Rice's views on privacy are diametrically opposed. When it comes down to it I simply do not trust her with my data. So it's not so much that I dislike her politics, it's that I think her decisions could have a direct impact on me as a customer.
I know dropbox has terms and conditions on what they will do with my data, but once again, my take is that Rice has a history of weaseling out of those kind of things.
So my first thought looking at this was, "Companies in modern times are forced to pay dues of this type as a cost of doing business and not having the government randomly shut them down." In other words, that Dropbox doesn't have much of a choice in the modern business environment.
Does anyone in a position to know, by which I mean that they've actually been in politics at the national level, care to tell me whether I'm right?
I'm not in a position to know anything, but your question reminds me of the situation when I worked at Lucent in Asia years ago. There were various middle-manager/jr. exec types one would meet occasionally who were obviously useless and non-contributing, in that they had no direct reports and hadn't ever been on a project or sales effort. I was young and stupid so I would ask other people what was up. One time, I got an honest reply, from someone who looked over his shoulder first: "That guy? His uncle is the chair of some Senate committee. AT&T had him on the payroll so now we do. If you know what's good for you, don't ask about him again."
It seems to me that there is a big difference between making a modest financial contribution to a bad cause, versus being a primary actor in furtherance of bad causes. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, it's like comparing a high ranking party member to someone who voted for the dictator and went to some rallies. Both are bad, but only one results in war crime tribunals.
I suppose everybody has to draw their own line. I feel differently about Eich because I think he just participated in a democratic process and he has an unpopular opinion. I can understand reasons to be against gay marriage (even though I am personally in favor of it). But it seems to me he always was honest and upfront. There is no reason for me to believe he would not accept a democratic vote pro gay marriage. I would have felt differently if I had seen any evidence of him being an actual homophobe.
Rice seems to have gone far far wider than that (beyond democracy). But of course you could argue that she nevertheless remained true to her beliefs or whatever. So at the end of the day, it's a personal decision...
> participated in a democratic process and he has an unpopular opinion
It may be unpopular in certain circles, but the majority of California first voted yes on Prop 22 and then again on Prop 8. Hard to get more mainstream than that.
But then again, Bush won a 2nd term as well. I guess we can only conclude that democracy doesn't work because the masses are stupid.
Clearly being an actual war criminal probably outweighs donating to prop 8, so there's that.
In any event, I think your problem is you took the wrong position on Eich -- first, there was no "lynch mob" -- being denied a high profile, well-paid job as head of a non-profit is not the same as being lynched. Second, no-one forced Eich to donate to prop 8, and the outcome was quite foreseeable. Isn't a bit of judgment an important job skill for the CEO of a non-profit?
I'm not sure It's the same thing. Eich was forced out on the grounds of his beliefs, yes, but people are condemning Dropbox because Rice is a filthy politician that was a part of a war mongering administration. Not the same.
I'm definitely switching over from Dropbox. I was planning to do it anyway. I know this sounds bad but - the fact that I can't store illegal files just bugs me to no end.
[1]MaidSafe is launching it's token sale (Safecoins) effort in 10 days and I will switch my business over to them completely. I know it's not as slick or developed as Dropbox but it's private, decentralized, anonymous and free(I know it sound ridiculous but that's what you get when you combine the concepts of a distributed systems network and Bitcoin)
Not to mention that I have the chance of participating in something great as the possible birth of a decentralized and anonymous internet with a built in payment network.
Eich's stance was (and is) personal, and I'm pretty sure it would have stayed that way. I would have kept using Firefox because of the Mozilla position on privacy and openness, and despite its CEO position.
On the other hand, Dropbox is a private company. They don't stand for you, they stand for themselves. They are their own first priority. Having someone as important as Mrs Rice on board is certainly not something that will be beneficial to the public. If she's not there for the public but for Dropbox, then yes, we must fear the worst.
Eich's stance was (and is) personal, and I'm pretty sure it would have stayed that way
I think that political contributions are (and should be) fundamentally public acts. You can think all the reprehensible things you want, but once you start materially supporting reprehensible campaigns, it's a different thing altogether.
Totally agree with you, I must have made myself unclear: Eich is gay-unfriendly, Mozilla is not, and having Eich as a CEO wouldn't have changed Mozilla on this particular topic. Mozilla would have stayed open to everyone without any distinction. This is all I care about.
(I also disagree with Eich's view on gays, but that's outside of the scope of this conversation)
One person wanted to rob people of their right to marry whom they wish; the other person helped lead the push to a war that has killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians.
You are inferring that being in a US administration while US sanctioned murder and torture occurs, means that the leader therefore murdered and tortured people.
Which puts Condi in a large group of people: nearly every member of a US administration in the last century.
Edit: Jesus. A lot of people missed the point of what I said. All I did was argue the issue is more nuanced than "[Condi Rice] tortured and murdered people"
My mistake for trying to broaden a Hacker News discussion.
Oh please, the role was much much bigger than being part of an administration. And this isn't some stupid conspiracy theory, these are the outcome of senate committee investigations.
>Role in authorizing use of controversial interrogation techniques
>A Senate Intelligence Committee reported that on July 17, 2002, Rice met with CIA director George Tenet to personally convey the Bush administration's approval of the proposed waterboarding of alleged Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. "Days after Dr Rice gave Mr Tenet her approval, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret August 1 memo."[62]
>Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[63][64][65][66] war veterans,[67][68] intelligence officials,[69] military judges,[70] human rights organizations,[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder,[79] and many senior politicians, including U.S. President Barack Obama.[80]
>In 2003 Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft met with the CIA again and were briefed on the use of waterboarding and other methods including week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity and the use of stress positions. The Senate report says that the Bush administration officials "reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy".[62]
>The Senate report also "suggests Miss Rice played a more significant role than she acknowledged in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee submitted in the autumn."[62] At that time, she had acknowledged attending meetings to discuss the CIA interrogations, but she claimed that she could not recall the details, and she "omitted her direct role in approving the programme in her written statement to the committee."[81]
Seems like a stretch to put the Secretary of State who "gave verbal approval to CIA Director George Tenet to continue using harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding and stress positions" and, say, the Special Assistant of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation, in the same bag.
You make it seem as if she had no way to stop it. As far as I'm concerned, if you can stop violence, you have a moral duty to do so. Otherwise, you are complicit in said violence.
At the very least she should have SAID something about it. But no, politicians stay quiet instead of rocking the boat so that they can keep all "buddy buddy" with their fellow ruling-class members.
Similar to the large group of bankers responsible for the housing crash in 2008....
"Well it's a BIG group and it would be REALLY hard to go after all of them so lets just fine them and parade that around as win while the criminals responsible go free"
"But I don't know that I can go on the same kind of crusade for which I faulted the Eich lynch mob."
This is so insanely hyperbolic I don't even know where to begin. We're now using the term "lynch mob" for a situation where people a) boycotted the product and b) wrote a lot of things about how what Brandon did was wrong and how he is the wrong choice for CEO. So, lynch mob, which means, "a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority" is used for a situation where there was zero violence, zero murder and everyone was perfectly within their legal rights. Want to reconsider?
Furthermore, your use of "crusade" makes no sense either. The thing you described was you deleting your dropbox account. How is this anything other than a normal rational thing. I'm really worried that people now seem to view "people opposing an idea in a nonviolent way" as a lynch mob and deleting your account for a web service is a crusade. Isn't this just you exercising the same freedom of expression that you believe Brandon deserves but his opponents don't?
That is a really serious grasp at straws. Its ironic to accuse someone using hyperbole of being hyperbolic while point out that a lynch mob is something completely, 100% different than what they said? Bizarre.
The literal meaning of 'lynch mob' is a group of people out to hang an individual. The colloquial meaning of 'lynch mob' is a group of people out to destroy an individual, either socially, professionally, financially; in some way causing a significant downfall.
The shrill mob attacking Eich could be characterised as a lynch mob - they were out for his downfall. It's abundantly clear, given that there has been very little in the way of pro-Mozilla followup to counter the extremely negative points made against them before Eich stepped down. The mob was specifically out for Eich's downfall, not for strengthening Mozilla against unpleasant ethics.
That you demand that 'lynch mob' only be referred to as a mob about to hang an individual is definitely hyperbole on your part. If your significant other says "Sorry about the mess in the kitchen, it's a bit of a disaster area", do you chide them because it's nothing of the sort - no property damage, no maimed or dead people, where are the aid personnel, so on and so forth? If someone describes their new sweater as "itchy as Hell", do you berate them because Hell is not depicted as being an itchy place, referring to the relevant religious dogma about the actualities of Hell?
No, of course not. It's a turn of phrase, not a literal statement, just like 'lynch mob' above. Suggesting that the OP meant in any way a literal lynch mob is your hyperbole.
So because people have been constantly misusing a word in an attempt to exaggerate the wrongs of their opponents, someone is being hyperbolic to even ask that we stick somewhere remotely close to the actual definition of the word?
It doesn't really accomplish anything more than calling your opponents "literally hitler". It means nothing, its an insane, irrational exaggeration and the only reason you would say it is to make your opponents look bad in lieu of having an actual, rational argument to make your opponents look bad.
One of the reasons I can't take your criticisms of debating seriously is that your debate style includes "you must have a mental illness, ha ha", seen below.
If you cancel your Dropbox membership now, you will affect their measurements as though you're doing it in response to this kerfuffle. I'm in exactly the same position you are — I've found a better service, so I'm backing up my Dropbox stuff to it and letting Dropbox idle until this blows over. I don't want to encourage political and moral witch-hunts in tech (or other) companies.
Others are reporting that there is a box to state your reason when you close your account. You may be able to do exactly what you want without having another item on your to-do list (and without paying, if that's what you're doing).
If you want to, that is. I'm not advocating anything.
Rice is much more evil then Eich, that's one reason for you. I just cant trust people running Dropbox anymore. Will they go in the board meeting, shake their hands with Rice and discuss business matters? That's not a kind of people I'd like to support. My 2c.
Consumer power is the only power most of us normal folks have. This is one of the best ways we can exercise it--by refusing to buy or use products that conflict with our moral or ethical codes.
Do I want to drink a beer with Eich? Looking at his donation record - no.
Will his contribution improve the Mozilla product? Looking at his history as a technologist with Mozilla and JavaScript - probably yes.
Do I want to drink a beer with Rice? Looking at her career history - no.
Will her contribution improve Dropbox? Looking at her career history - can't imagine any positive effect, probably negative, especially in the privacy area.
Definitely going to try some Dropbox alternatives now.
They can keep her on their board but it's our duty to react in ways that are consistent with our own personal values. My wife was recruited this morning for an HR position with Dropbox. We briefly imagined how exciting the opportunity might be but I quickly recoiled at the thought of her being so closely affiliated with a war criminal. It's their decision to have whomever they want on their board, it's our duty to respond appropriately.
Of course you're being hypocritical. It's because you feel a lot stronger about the Iraq War than you do about gay marriage.
Now put the shoe on the other foot. Think about all those people that feel as strongly about gay marriage as you do about the Iraq War. Their belief that they should protest against Mozilla doesn't feel that much different than your own protest, does it?
I'd like like to redirect you back to adnam's comment.
> Unlike Eich, Rice went far beyond simply holding beliefs and making donations. She held real power and used it in unconscionable ways.
All I can say is that personally I find Eich and Condoleezza to be worlds apart. Nor do I think it is hypocritical to feel stronger about the Iraq War than about gay marriage. People will have different priorities.
The argument could be made that she was mislead by the CIA, just like Colin Powell was. I do agree that the Iraq War was a crime against humanity. Personally, I admire Rice, and don't think I would personally boycott Dropbox because of that choice. But I understand why some/many people would boycott Dropbox, and I don't think they're wrong to want to do so.
The hypocrisy isn't in that the OP feels stronger about the Iraq War than gay marriage. The hypocrisy is because he thinks it's okay to boycott Dropbox because they chose someone for the Board of Directors that he disagrees with, but he thought it was wrong that people boycott Mozilla because they chose a CEO that they disagreed with.
Opposing gay marriages and killing people aren't the same, and the magnitude at which both of these events took place is also important. Prop 8 was a legal process, you could've successfully opposed it (and it was). But going to war isn't something the public could vote on.
Also Eich's donation was $1000, Rice's War was several billions and massively haemorrhaged US Economy.
The magnitude is absolutely irrelevant. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and the core issue here is whether or not people have the right to boycott a product over the beliefs or actions of the people who are associated with the product.
If I believe that cars are causing global warming, I have the right to boycott the uses of cars and to publicize it. If I believe that eating meat is wrong, I have the right to boycott meat and to publicize it. If the CEO of a company supports a campaign that I believe infringes on human rights, I have the right to boycott that product and to publicize it. If the company of a product I use adds a person who was involved with what I believe was an unjust war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, the I have the right to boycott them and to publicize it.
Rice is a director. Sure, it's not a CxO, but directors wield significant influence over the path of a company. It's why they're called directors. As a director, she can use her influence to open channels for external surveillance (of course, using nicer terms than that). I don't mean "open a port on the firewall", I mean saying "hey, it's okay if org Foo gets this kind of data". This is the kind of strategic stuff that directors do. It doesn't matter how solid your sysadmins are if your directors hand over the keys to the castle.
And I guess we'll just have to disagree that her past experience has nothing to do with maintaining private data security.
There's a big difference between Eich, who comes from a technological background (he created JS, for crying out loud) and just happens to support policies I don't agree with, and Condoleezza Rice who comes from a majorly political background.
I don't know, there's something that feels just wrong about having a political figurehead mixed in with a company that is (arguably) one of the success examples of Silicon Valley. It just... difficult to describe with words.
If there's verifiable facts that prove Rice has acted in an unethical way in her job, then it would be a bad decision to give her more power and responsibility. If, on the other hand, it's found only that she made decisions in good faith based on the information given to her, you can't really fault her in terms of her occupational duties.
But there's a separate question to that, which is the moral ethics of a person who would do things (even in good faith) that they know will result in hurting others. Will Rice make decisions at Dropbox that she knows will hurt people, even if it's the right "business" decision?
With regard to the warrantless wiretaps, it's clear that if there was an actual terrorist that she was trying to put in jail, a warrantless wiretap may help accomplish that goal. She would in effect be acting in good faith while trying to accomplish the goals of her job. But at the same time, she's violating someone's privacy and potentially violating the law. If a similar situation came up at Dropbox, where violating someone's privacy could help the business, would you still want that person employed?
People should put more effort into holding their politicians accountable while they are in office- not for settling idealogical scores after they reenter private life.
We the people have no one to blame but ourselves for this. It is the voter's fault that these people are able to flourish. If we don't take our civic responsibilities seriously, then these kinds of campaigns are petty and destructive.
Americans that act in these kind of thought police exercises instead of actually investing in the system should be ASHAMED of themselves. Is what she did illegal? Nominate politicians that will instill FBI leaders who will prosecute crimes. WORK FOR IT. Don't just talk. You need to do more than vote.
>Americans that act in these kind of thought police exercises instead of actually investing in the system should be ASHAMED of themselves. Is what she did illegal? Nominate politicians that will instill FBI leaders who will prosecute crimes. WORK FOR IT. Don't just talk. You need to do more than vote.
Yeah, many of us did exactly that back in 2007/2008. We nominated and worked hard to promote and to get elected a politician we believed -- based on our candidate's deeply-persuasive statements -- who would be "different". We did much more than vote. We built amazing software systems for our candidate, went door-to-door in places that almost got us shot, worked 80 hour weeks at the grass roots level, and in some cases estranged ourselves from our families. And of course we voted for him.
And look how things turned out.
So don't go fucking blaming the victims here. Our political system is deeply flawed and heading toward a cliff -- with both parties at the helm.
> Yeah, many of us did exactly that back in 2007/2008. We nominated and worked hard to promote and to get elected a politician we believed -- based on our candidate's deeply-persuasive statements -- who would be "different". We did much more than vote. We built amazing software systems for our candidate, went door-to-door in places that almost got us shot, worked 80 hour weeks at the grass roots level, and in some cases estranged ourselves from our families. And of course we voted for him.
I think the "more than vote" really means "more than getting a candidate elected". (Or, to use Obama's own campaign catchphrase, "Be the Change".)
There may have been people who didn't understand that a bottom-to-top transformation of society with constant engagement was going to be required to realize the vision presented by the campaign evenif Obama was entirely truthful on every point (a point on which I do not wish to comment either way at the moment, since its irrelevant to the point I'm making), but anyone that wasn't aware of that wasn't paying much attention to the campaign itself.
Are you trying to imply that you are a victim, just because you naively believed that investing a great deal of power in another politician, who you thought was 'your man in Washington' would lead to better results? It is hard to be sympathetic to someone who pursued such poorly thought-out objectives. It is not the political system that was at fault; in fact, if anyone is to blame, it is all the conceited individuals who believed that the politician they picked would be 'better' than the 'opponents'.
Oh, I heartily agree that I was a total moron to fall for Obama's sweet talk. Glad you had the smarts and life experience to avoid that trap. To exculpate myself a tad, I didn't vote for him in 2012 (or anyone else).
But back to the question at hand: if we, the people, are somehow supposed to right out ship by doing more than just voting, how exactly do we choose our candidates? In Obama's case, we went on his statements, biography (community organizer, law professor) and (admittedly limited) past voting record. Do you have any recommendations for those us us who don't have your finely-attuned bullshit detector on how we can pick a good candidate?
I certainly don't trust my own political judgment anymore. So I no longer vote in national elections.
I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of victimhood, however. Am I understanding correctly your assertion, which is that if a target of a conman or aggressor is sufficiently naive, that person is no longer a victim?
I commend your intellectual rigor for examining your previous belief system in what I am certain was a painful lesson (as changing beliefs is always painful[1]). My point was not that I was any sort of clairvoyant, or had a brilliant insight into the president's soul; it is only that all the politicians are acting under the same incentive system, and unless you have good reason to believe that one acts differently under the same incentives, real substantive change is unlikely. Even if you do believe that you can 'pick' better than most other people, investing large amounts of power in a system which will be run by your opponents/enemies about half the time is not a particularly good strategy.
I invest my energies in divesting the government of power, to reduce the impact of abuse and poor decisions; but you may find a different way to change the system for the better, and I hope you do.
>I commend your intellectual rigor for examining your previous belief system in what I am certain was a painful lesson (as changing beliefs is always painful[1]).
It was.
Coincidentally, I read Koestler's essays when I was a teenager, along with some of Orwell's writings with the same theme (Homage to Catalonia for one). Wish I'd paid a bit more attention to the underlying message.
But I think some things you have to experience to learn.
>I invest my energies in divesting the government of power, to reduce the impact of abuse and poor decisions;
I do the same now. I'm a very different person politically than I was back in 2007. And lack of trust in my own political instincts is only one of the reasons why I no longer vote in national elections. As proof, I'd show you all my commits to open source projects that at least partially aim to reduce government power by promoting privacy and peer-to-peer interactions, but I wish to remain at least somewhat anonymous.
Is any realistic alternative to violence against the system if you are going to disengage?
I think this whole thing has to come to a head at some point- and I just see too many americans who don't even put a fraction of the effort into politics that you have.
Unfortunately, back in 2007, I wrote off any libertarians as wacky, selfish geeks with very little political sophistication.
Since then, I've come to meet some of the least selfish and most politically sophisticated individuals I've ever met, who are also libertarians. And none of them are particularly fond of Ayn Rand (to name another one of my 2007 biases).
I like these philosophies, but I disagree that they're realistic. American history doesn't have a lot of examples of engagement for this kind of approach.
We basically only flip tables when we feel really oppressed.
People who live in cities seem to feel oppressed, but they also seem to really believe in bureacracy as a concept, so they instead blame the bad guys in the other party, rather than seeing the system as failed. If the bad guys are basically in both parties, you pick your team based on marketing.
Long story short- I don't see these options as viable alternatives to violence, unfortuntately. I'm glad you're practicing them over the alternative- but I'm going to hang on to engaging more instead.
Not to mention major wins in healthcare, Iraq, and avoiding the major impending economic collapse that was in place when he took office.
He's no saint, and I'm as pissed as anyone about the illegal wiretapping that happened under his administration. But keep in mind that no major politician will agree 100% with your views. And no president can or will keep 100% of his promises considering this shifting political climate and his limited powers in our government.
>Ok, not saying that Obama has been 100% perfect in his presidency so far, but are you really implying that he's been an awful president?
Yes, yes I am. And if I thought I had any chance of convincing someone who still promotes Obama's "wins" at this point in his presidency, I'd argue it with you. But I don't.
I will leave you with one thought, which is that it's not even the blanket surveillance of the American people that's been Obama's most horrific failure, it's this:
"...are you really implying that he's been an awful president?"
Every president in the modern context has been and will be awful, even if to somewhat varying degrees. The problem is not the people in office, it's the office itself. It's important that the media emphasize personalities and the infinitesimal differences between them, so the average citizen can make-believe that some presidents are better than others.
Could you be more specific? It doesn't help to berate me for not doing more without actually telling me what I can do. Because I feel pretty helpless here and I have no idea what I can do besides vote and talk to people.
I think we need to actively engage. So that means we actually do need to volunteer. We do need to donate. We even need to run for office. I don't know if my experience is a corner case- but every politician I've ever met has been weird. They don't seem like normal americans.
We need to recognize that the world runs on PACs and that if we don't have a PAC to advocate our position, we're not going to get the outcomes we want.
I think we've been raised to believe there's some holy power in our vote- but this is a distraction. Unless we fund our efforts & win in politics, this is all for naught.
I also think that we have to accept when we lose in politics. This campaign is absolutely the opposite of that value. I share many of the opinions about this woman, but I find the campaign to be shameful in light of my previous opinions.
If you claim to value democracy and then execute this kind of witch hunt when democracy doesn't deliver the outcome you hoped for, there is a problem.
Who do I volunteer with and donate to? There are no political parties I can stomach. Even if you go beyond the two big ones and posit that it's useful to contribute to a third party (and I'm already skeptical of that), they're all completely bonkers.
Run for office? That's too much of a sacrifice to ask. It's not a job I want, by far. If I ever managed to get nominated, I'd do my best to sabotage my own campaign so as not to get elected. No wonder politicians are all weird, no normal person could ever want to be one.
Is not "accept when we lose" completely contradictory to the rest of what you're saying? You say that we should get out and do things to fight for what we believe, and then you turn around and say we should just let it go. This isn't some pointless notion of vengeance, it's a real concern over what her involvement with Dropbox could mean for the company and our data in the future.
Personally, if you claim to value democracy and then call it anti-democratic when there's a completely non-violent grassroots campaign against a political figure, then you're completely off your rocker. Nothing could possibly be more democratic. Even if you disagree with the campaign, how can you call the very idea a bad thing? What could possibly be a better way to exercise your political views than to vote with your wallet and encourage others to do the same? Are we supposed to just shut up and ignore it all? Are we supposed to vote with our own wallet but never talk to other people about it? How does that fit in with "volunteer, donate, run for office, the world runs on PACs"?
"Is not "accept when we lose" completely contradictory to the rest of what you're saying?"
This is the price of democracy. Not everyone disagrees with you for malignant reasons. They can have legitimate, ethical reasons for disagreeing with you.
"You say that we should get out and do things to fight for what we believe, and then you turn around and say we should just let it go."
I appologize if that's what it sounded like. I'm saying we have to accept democracy's outcomes if the democracy is actually functioning (i.e. no ballot stuffing). If you don't like the outcome of a vote, continue to work within the democratic process. Lobby for an idea through Publicity. Lobby your congress critters. Keep working within the political system.
Keeping tallies of the thought-infractions of citizens in the private sector is not healthy though. I see no difference between that and the assassination of the jesuit priest in Syria last week.
A healthy society should be supportive of and accepting of diversity of opinions and lifestyle. That means more than just being nice to LGBT folks. Even people with religious beliefs you find abhorent have the right to prosper to the best of their ability, as long as they are not violating our laws.
"I see no difference between that and the assassination of the jesuit priest in Syria last week."
OK, seriously, what the fuck. You see no difference between a public campaign to switch away from Dropbox because of someone on their board of directors and an assassination?
This conversation started out bad and has now become complete shit. I'm not going to continue. I don't understand why, but something about this topic has turned half of the HN commenters into drooling morons.
(I know that this sort of language is not supposed to be used, but personally I think it's justified in the exceptional situation where someone declares a nonviolent internet campaign to an assassination. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.)
I see it from a different perspective: You are trying to rob someone of their ability to work because you think their politics should have been prosecuted.
And thank you for the wonderfully engaging insults. Enjoy your bigotry.
Ironically, the one tactic that might be more effective than the ballot in deterring bad leadership is hitting bad leaders in the pocket by.... making them into pariahs that corporations don't want to associated with.
Indeed, making it a common think that a company suffers when they donate to causes that their customers disagree with would be a great way to curb the huge increase in the influence of money in politics.
Would you apply this standard for encouraging suffering to your local pizza place? Your neighbors? Your kid's teachers? They're probably the political actors over which you have the most leverage.
i usually don't jump into these debates, but your comment strikes me as at best impossibly naive and at worst inexcusably ignorant. take a look at the various laws being passed to disenfranchise minority/elderly voters. look at the misinformation being spread via special interest-controlled media. read up on Edward Snowden. "victim blaming" is 100% what you're doing here.
i agree with your stance that action needs to be taken, but completely disagree that we have "no one to blame but ourselves".
If the situation is as bad as my interpretation o your comment then I don't think there are any realistic alternatives to violence. I don't want to put my eggs in that basket, so I'm going to blame the victims.
This is because it's a matter of looking at whether there's a conflict between their stated beliefs and the way I'd like their companies to be run.
In Eich's case, he was opposed to marriage equality. While I disagree with him, this does not affect his work because (thankfully) private corporations don't issue marriage licenses.
In Rice's case, she supports warrantless wiretaps. This attitude (that government requests can and should be responded to even if they lack warrants) is directly applicable to the decisions and policies she'll guide for Dropbox. My privacy will be directly compromised.
It's a matter of applicability and impact, not politics.
I'm in the same boat. Other people have pointed out how she's done things far worse than Eich. But here is my reasoning.
If you disagree with the board of a company and you want to stop using them, thats fine. Doesn't matter if it's Eich or Rice. Don't like them, stop using their products/services.
What isn't right is personally attacking either of them. Don't like Rice, that fine, you can post a blog or say whatever you want. Crossing the line is harassing them and sending death threats.
If the whole Eich thing would have stayed with people talking about how they don't like him, I wouldn't have a problem. When people started harassing him and it became popular to harass him it crossed the line. So far I haven't heard of anyone harassing Rice. (Maybe people do and they "disappear", I don't know.)
It's one thing to express and/or support a political view that others may disagree with, within the accepted bounds of our democratic process. (You can disagree with the viewpoint, but the act of making the donatio itself isn't illegal or immoral.)
It's another thing to subvert our system of government via deception, surveillance and/or intimidation, either by taking action outside the bounds of legal limits, or working to redefine those limits to suit your own purposes. There's a fair argument that these two situations are not comparable, regardless of how you feel about Eich's donation.
I think it's really great how you're grappling with an internal political inconsistency. Most people (of all political stripes) aren't intellectually honest enough to do that.
Are those free 100 gigs permanent or only for X amount of time? Microsoft has a similar program when you get a Surface 2, but the extra space only lasts for 2 years :\
> I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency
Politics vs Ethics. "I think marriage equality is politically correct" vs "I think someone who violated their own country's privacy law and had a hand invading a foreign country which resulted in the deaths of thousands shouldn't own my data".
One is inherently a political issue - state-issue marriage licenses. States can say "yes this marriage is valid." The other is non-political, a bigger question of human-kind and what is always correct.
Funny I feel the opposite way. I (barely) decided the opposition to Eich was okay because of the nature of Mozilla as a company, and the progressive culture around it. (I'm not a progressive myself, which is why I was iffy about it). But if it's any other organization, I decided, it actually starts to become bullying.
That's the perfect meme to consolidate power at the top. First we get the Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC rulings, making money "free expression" for the rich. And now we associate the Little Guy's "free expression" with their meager consumer dollars with "bullying", "witch hunts", etc...
If there's Machiavellian here it's not me. I'm just a dude trying to keep things in perspective in a sea of passion and fanaticism. I'm not a conservative either, in case that's what you inferred; I'm a libertarian. I don't care much for the Bush administration either. Perhaps I just didn't pay enough attention to what Condi had to do with the war to have the same negative passion about her.
I'm quite fond of boycotts. I'm just afraid that the passions will get to the point where boycotts are used to imply that a difference in opinion is unacceptable. I don't have a huge problem with boycotting Condi per se, that's just fine. I'm just afraid of the swell of power of the mob mentality over people's thinking.
If this is really about the big guy vs the little guy (or gal, here), are you ready to protest if Eric Holder joins the board of Dropbox? If you are, then I can get behind it.
EDIT: I would cite Jon Stewart, I suppose, at the big speech at the end of his rally a few years back. His point is that we all get things done outside of Washington. Sure, we may disagree a lot and our disagreements may be a fundamental threat to each other. However if we let that decide who we engage in commerce with, we lose out on a lot of the benefits of commerce, and it doesn't really solve our differences anyway. I rather prefer boycotts over actions. Chick Fil A was a boycott (iirc) over a policy of the company. Even if it was in response to something that the president said, he's an acting president as he's saying it, a boycott there makes some sense.
But it's not cut and dry. If Hitler joined the board of Dropbox I could probably get behind a boycott.
I hated the Eich thing and I hate this too. Even if she has been wrong about basically everything she was ever put in charge of, this is not how we settle political disputes in a civil society. If you want to stop using Dropbox, fine. If you're a stakeholder in Dropbox, then you have a legitimate interest here. But no one else does.
Excuse me? Not doing business with companies who do things we dislike is exactly how we settle political disputes in a civil society.
Seriously, what the hell is with all these idiots lately saying that we're not supposed to even vote with our wallets anymore? I apologize for my harsh language but I'm just so flabbergasted, and it's such a stupid thing to say that I think "idiots" is justified. Do you really think that we should limit the expression of our dissatisfaction to the ballot box and the internet comment box? Why shouldn't we change how we do business to make a point?
The way some people react to this stuff, you'd think we were talking about assassinating political opponents, rather than criticizing them and taking our business elsewhere.
They'd rather have you believe that voting with your wallet doesn't work. They would prefer that you think the only way to enact change is through coercive governmental power. It fits their world-view and pocket-book quite nicely.
What's the "critical distinction" between voting with your own wallet and trying to convince other people to vote with theirs too? Seems like it's just "vote with your wallet" plus "free speech".
To be clear, I'm not trying to say this sort of action should be illegal. Just that I think it's tasteless, shortsighted, and somewhat hypocritical to do anonymously, given that it specifically targets an individual. Which is the other element of this that I find so abhorrent: it's one thing to target an idea, or campaign against someone running for public office. It's another to follow a private citizen around for the rest of his or her life, making demands of anyone who attempts to hire that person. It seems, well, vindictive.
I think I mentioned above that I disagree with basically every decision Dr. Rice ever made while acting as a public official. The Iraq war was a huge disaster, and that was obvious before it even started. But there's a reason we have legal doctrines like qualified immunity: it's detrimental to a public official's ability to perform his or her duties if he or she has to view every decision as a question of personal liability.
Upon further reflection, this isn't nearly as bad as last week's Mozilla witch hunt. You could probably make a legitimate argument in the context of privacy and government surveillance. But given the "success" of that purge, I'm worried that we'll be seeing three more of these campaigns every week. The fact that I've taken a karma beating for (completely earnest) posts I've made in this thread just reinforces my fear that we're becoming a community that finds it harder and harder to brook dissent. And I really thought the kind of person that reads HN was smart enough to see the inherent dangers in that.
Thanks for not calling me an idiot this time. Really made my day.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to do it again, though. You're arguing that it's a bad thing to hold a public figure accountable for what they do, in a democracy, through purely nonviolent means. You are, in fact, arguing that in a democracy, it's detrimental to an official's ability to perform their job to be held accountable, even something minor like an internet boycott. Does that not imply that things like Congressional oversight and journalistic investigation while they're still in office is even worse? So I need to say it again: idiotic.
Is it tasteless? Maybe. Shortsighted? I don't see how, but I won't argue it strenuously. Hypocritical? Maybe, but I don't really find hypocrisy objectionable in general. Even if I grant all of those, that is a far far far cry from "this is not how we settle political disputes in a civil society." "Civil society" does not mean that we must go around being absolutely and completely polite to each other at all times. It means that we solve our disputes nonviolently. Far from being an abrogation of civil society, this action is a shining example of it.
I'm honestly puzzled at what you're saying because it just doesn't make sense to me. I assume you're not against things like public street protests against a sitting president, but the only difference I can see is purely quantitative. Is it that you think it should stop once they leave office, or what?
It's pretty smooth of you to call me an idiot, double down on that, and _then_ say you don't understand my position.
This sort of intimidation (of Dr. Rice and anyone who associates with her) may not be violent, but it _is_ coercive. That sort of climate is anathema to "civil society," no matter how narrowly you attempt to define the term. (You didn't need to provide a working definition, by the way; it's obvious you don't think it has anything to do with decorum.)
And yes, there is absolutely a distinction between Congressional, journalistic, judicial or even private oversight of a sitting public official, and public hounding of that person once he or she returns to private life. There's also a difference between airing one's grievances (i.e. protest) and making threats if your demands aren't met. Maybe if you disagree with something I've said, you should try to get me fired, too.
I don't understand your overall position. I understand that one aspect of it well enough to call it idiotic. I stand by that.
If refraining from doing business with a company and encouraging other people to do the same is "coercive" then you've redefined the word to the point where it has essentially no meaning.
Boycotts, strikes, protests, and other non-violent actions have long and proud histories as part of "civil society".
Given that the "threats" being made here are merely that of switching services, I see no difference between this and a peaceful protest, where the implied threat is "we will vote for somebody else".
Seriously, what do you think people should do here? I assume we can rule out violence. Stopping your use of Dropbox just because you disagree with them is apparently not allowed. Talking about it with other people doesn't seem to be OK with you. You seem to basically be saying that you can disagree as long as you shut up about it and don't do anything with your opinion. Is that not true?
> I don't understand your overall position. I understand that one aspect of it well enough to call it idiotic.
This assertion ('I admittedly don't understand the context, but I'll gladly render judgment on a single tenet of it!') may seriously have just given me an aneurysm.
Can you cite one boycott or strike that history looks fondly upon that centered around calling for a specific person's head? These tools have traditionally been used to advance policy changes and improve living conditions for whole groups of people, not exact revenge on someone you don't like.
There's nothing wrong with voicing dissatisfaction in, well, basically anything. There's also nothing wrong with terminating a business relationship with an entity who has done something you don't like. Or even tweeting form letters at a company's CEO. That's all beside the point.
I think sometimes, the appropriate recourse is to realize that you're overreacting to something, calm the hell down, and go on with your life.
My problems with this specific situation:
- Trying to organize a popular campaign targeting a specific person's reputation and/or livelihood while refusing to divulge your own identity is incredibly gutless. If you're sure enough of your convictions to take that kind of action, why are you not sure enough to sign your name to it?
- Social tools like boycotts and protests become less effective the more frequently they're used. In isolation, this doesn't really apply. In light of the Brendan Eich mess, it seems like the start of a dangerous (and frankly annoying) trend. Are we going to see boycotts every time an organization makes a decision that someone with basic HTML skills disagrees with?
- When waging any kind of social crusade, there's a line of conduct that you can't cross without abandoning any claim to the moral high ground. You seem to agree with me that violence is on the wrong side of that line. I'd argue that trying to get specific people fired from private industry for essentially unrelated conduct (during their time as a public official, no less) is, as well. Especially when the whole thing really seems to be more about punishment than effecting future change.
- You're still trying to equate declining to vote someone into public office with trying to organize a movement to get someone fired. Those things aren't even close to equivalent.
- You're missing something about the nature of boycotts. They're not designed to demonstrate your disagreement. They're designed to coerce their target to accede to your demands, lest they suffer financial harm. I'm not saying they're innately bad, but they are much more coercive in nature than protests, whose nature I also think you're mischaracterizing. By your definition, there would be no point in protesting any action carried out by any politician in the last term of a term-limited office, right?
- Editing to add one more. The reason we have qualified immunity is that, in theory, you want the best possible people occupying important public positions. (Obviously, things don't often work out this way, but I think it's still important for the incentives to align properly.) When it becomes clear that anyone who holds one of these offices may have to fend off angry mobs for the remainder of his or her professional life, you're making public office less attractive for anyone else who might ever be considering accepting an appointment to it. Which will probably, in the aggregate, make these positions less attractive to the people most qualified for them.
I think one thing you're missing is the extreme power imbalance in this situation: Rice is so successful and well-connected that it's inconceivable that this campaign could deprive her of her livelihood or materially change her historical reputation. At best, she'll lose a board position, which is just a lucrative side-gig, not a full-time job. I would argue that that well-known power imbalance makes it acceptable to "over-reach" slightly past your line (though still far short of violence) and call for things like removal from a specific position.
You're also mischaracterizing the nature of the boycott: the target whose behavior it's trying to change isn't Rice, it's Dropbox. And the goal is their policies around privacy, surveillance, and government cooperation. Rice is a seed that these issues can crystallize around, but anything that happens to her personally is sort of collateral damage.
At least that describes some principled support for this campaign. There may also be some that want her to personally suffer and don't care about Dropbox's policies.
You make some good points, but her contributions to the US's surveillance program are barely more than a footnote on the campaign page. Most are about past economic or geopolitical misdeeds. I think reading the page in toto makes it pretty clear that the authors object to her hiring mainly on the basis of her perceived character flaws.
I was still fairly outraged over the Eich lynching when I wrote all these posts. I still don't think it's a great precedent to set, boycotting a company over appointing someone to a mostly ceremonial position. (Something that I still think is terribly gutless to do anonymously, no matter who you're targeting.) But I do actually buy the privacy argument. And I have to admit, it's really disconcerting to be put in the position of defending the actions of Condoleezza Rice (or any other prominent Bush 43 official).
Also, there are calls for boycotts every time an organization makes a decision that someone with basic HTML skills disagrees with. We just don't hear about most of them, because they don't gain traction. We hear about the ones that strike a nerve in the community (whichever community we happen to be a part of: there are probably plenty of calls to boycott Mozilla for forcing Eich out). I wouldn't read very much into the fact that these two incidents happened close together. This sort of thing is self-regulating: people have limited capacity for outrage, that slowly recharges over time.
I'd love to stay and continue talking, but I can't take this thread in general anymore. In another reply the person I was talking to just compared this campaign to an assassination of a priest. Something about this topic is shutting down people's brains.
What? Is it really tasteless and hypocritical to target anonymously an insanely well-connected individual that was at some point a #4 in the USG chain of command?
How would you settle political disputes like this in a civil manner? Doesn't get much better than withdrawing support for a product, at least for regular people.
Do you even know who the stakeholders are?
Anyone who finished Entrepreneurship 101 will tell you the stakeholders include users, general public and various advocate groups. So yeah, stakeholders are making their voice heard.
Anybody else feel conflicted and have some insight? I'm still probably going to cancel my Dropbox membership simply because I have free 100gigs google drive that I got when I bought my chromebook [1] and this gives me a great excuse to transfer over and save some money. But I don't know that I can go on the same kind of crusade for which I faulted the Eich lynch mob.
[1] Free 100 gigs google drive when you buy a chromebook, which if you install crouton makes for a cheap, decently powerful linux machine (great deal!). I recommend the hp chromebook 14 with 4 gigs ram since it comes with free 200mb 4G tmobile internet every month for life.