Silicon Valley's Ambivalence Towards Trump Turns to Anger(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Silicon Valley's Ambivalence Towards Trump Turns to Anger
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/technology/silicon-valleys-ambivalence-toward-trump-turns-to-anger.html
43 comments
Personally, I find this "turn to anger" a little hollow/self-serving. Nothing Trump has done so far is in any way out of line with what he was saying on the campaign trail - the only people who are surprised by his actions are the people who took a "he's not being serious, it's just talk" view when evaluating his speeches. I wish SV companies and executives could have had this "turn to anger" back when it mattered and helped avert this when it was easiest to do so - before the election.
What was the tech sector supposed to do? Go campaign in Wisconsin for Hillary?
Tech was already shoveling tons of money into her campaign. Bezos-owned Washington Post was about as Anti-Trump as a news organization can be.
Tech was already shoveling tons of money into her campaign. Bezos-owned Washington Post was about as Anti-Trump as a news organization can be.
People in Boulder were making calls to more contested states. Historically these personal calls have had a small but measurable effect.
They should have done whatever it is that qualifies as "turning to anger" now.
(Personally, I think the article is overstating the case.)
(Personally, I think the article is overstating the case.)
Google Facebook should support remote work from red states in republican counties.. maybe a few remote offices as well.
Twitter could have suspended his account.
Having the temporary immigration ban affect current temporary and permanent residents to the United States was pretty out of line with campaign promises. So was extending that ban if banned nations don't cooperate with United States (really Syria, Yemen and Iran are going to cooperate?) Kinda makes it a not so temporary ban.
I think they were disgusted but generally uncomfortable fighting against the power and the electorate that voted him in. Maybe the campaign was all talk like his locker room talk, who knows? And campaigns are often quite dirty affairs.
But now its week one, the policies are eggregious and the implementation is incompetent, and a groundswell is building. I suppose now industry leaders dont feel like they are sticking their necks out, or at least they have a lot of company.
But now its week one, the policies are eggregious and the implementation is incompetent, and a groundswell is building. I suppose now industry leaders dont feel like they are sticking their necks out, or at least they have a lot of company.
Though if we must have egregious politics, it's best if they're implemented incompetently.
Hollow, maybe. Too little too late, probably. Self-serving??
Now they jump in and intervene to play the role of hero, begging the question: why not sooner?
Rhetorically, the answer implied is that, had they made their voices and opinions known earlier, it might not have seemed as heroic as it does now. Letting circumstances become dire, when they could have been prevented altogether suggests performances are crafted and dishonest for the purpose of branding, marketing or personal fame.
Sort of like if John McAfee reared his head right about now, but with greater subtlety.
Rhetorically, the answer implied is that, had they made their voices and opinions known earlier, it might not have seemed as heroic as it does now. Letting circumstances become dire, when they could have been prevented altogether suggests performances are crafted and dishonest for the purpose of branding, marketing or personal fame.
Sort of like if John McAfee reared his head right about now, but with greater subtlety.
[deleted]
The biggest problem is that the Dems could only offer a hawk who had issues getting along with Putin. I would have held my breath if she entered office while Putin was still in power. That and her globalist outlook (even if later she tried to pretend to become anti-globalist.)
There was really no good choice and it became a choice of the least bad and the guy who won at least isn't afraid to say he's looking out for Americans whereas Hillary was more timid about looking out for the average Joe and Sue.
There was really no good choice and it became a choice of the least bad and the guy who won at least isn't afraid to say he's looking out for Americans whereas Hillary was more timid about looking out for the average Joe and Sue.
A lot of them did. Dustin Moskovitz publicly spent millions for Hillary, and Brin did as well, secretly.
"Ambivalence?" All I've been hearing on HN for the past year plus is comparisons to fascism, the Nazis and the Anti-Christ.
That said, at least Mussolini made the trains run on time and the Nazis were pretty efficient, which is more than can be said for the Trump administration's first week...
That said, at least Mussolini made the trains run on time and the Nazis were pretty efficient, which is more than can be said for the Trump administration's first week...
Ah, but it's a mistake to think of HN as representative of the Valley in any way and even if it were it's hard to gauge whether your perception of it matches what it really is.
What I've discovered (thanks to helpful nudging from /u/dang) is that this is a community with a variety of ideologies and geographies. We see in the community the things that we're primed to see.
For example if you have strong feelings in either direction about the links between Trump and fascism, you're more likely to perceive that it is the dominant view even if it's only held by and discussed by a small group of people.
Link to /u/dang's comment where they explained this to me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13083111
What I've discovered (thanks to helpful nudging from /u/dang) is that this is a community with a variety of ideologies and geographies. We see in the community the things that we're primed to see.
For example if you have strong feelings in either direction about the links between Trump and fascism, you're more likely to perceive that it is the dominant view even if it's only held by and discussed by a small group of people.
Link to /u/dang's comment where they explained this to me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13083111
Point of trivia: Mussolini didn't even make the trains run on time.
Actually he "did" -- in quotes because he put out alternative facts -- propaganda -- to that effect.
Little known fact: the original word for the kinds of publicity companies use to grow demand for their product was "propaganda" (propagate the goods, get it?) coined by Edward L Bernays, Freud's nephew and the first formalizer of advertising.[1] After Germany appointed a minister of advertising ("Propaganda"), the industry decided it needed a new name.
Now we have a journalist/propagandist on the National Security Council. Should be interesting. Did you know Alan Kay was on Reagan's? He (Alan) has some hysterical stories of his time on the NSC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)
Little known fact: the original word for the kinds of publicity companies use to grow demand for their product was "propaganda" (propagate the goods, get it?) coined by Edward L Bernays, Freud's nephew and the first formalizer of advertising.[1] After Germany appointed a minister of advertising ("Propaganda"), the industry decided it needed a new name.
Now we have a journalist/propagandist on the National Security Council. Should be interesting. Did you know Alan Kay was on Reagan's? He (Alan) has some hysterical stories of his time on the NSC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)
Silicon Valley was too busy inventing the gig economy that has people turning towards trump.
I don't like Trump's policies any more than anyone else here, but I think that it's wrong for companies to play a role in politics. A company like Google was created by its shareholders with the purpose of making money by providing Internet search services. Taking political positions would subvert the goal for which Google was created.
If some of Google's shareholders want to pursue political goals instead of providing search services, they can take their money out of Google shares and start a PAC. This is precisely the reason why Sergey Brin said that he does not represent Google when he was at the protest at SFO yesterday.
If some of Google's shareholders want to pursue political goals instead of providing search services, they can take their money out of Google shares and start a PAC. This is precisely the reason why Sergey Brin said that he does not represent Google when he was at the protest at SFO yesterday.
Politics can impact revenue. Do you not think the oil companies strongly support and play politics with Republicans?
Companies are political, and politics affects them (eg regulation). Any time you have two humans disagreeing about a course of action, you have politics.
businesses don't operate in a vacuum.
Shareholders are not the only stakeholders in companies, employees and consumers usually have some stake in and influence over what they do.
But companies are people!
All talk no action. This is the definition of 'for show'. If they wanted, the ultra rich valley billionaires and companies could affect real change by leveraging their power.
But these are the same companies and people who tacitly approved of Trump and did nothing to stop his election, or even try to educate people.
I'm looking at Google, who are now trying to woo Republicans !
But these are the same companies and people who tacitly approved of Trump and did nothing to stop his election, or even try to educate people.
I'm looking at Google, who are now trying to woo Republicans !
It's not uncommon by any means for companies to support both parties. I haven't been reading the details on the "Google wooing Republicans" topic, though I wouldn't be surprised if Google hasn't been supporting Republican officials, at least in a quieter manner, for a long time.
twitter couldve banned trump months ago and his career would be over. but they know he brings them so much money/traffic they would never do it. as thiel said, they were working for him the entire time.
My post is about outrage combined with navel gazing, and perpetuation of human rights issues.
I have a serious question. While I am personally against a ban on immigration of the kind Trump is doing, 6 out of the 7 countries targeted - all except Somalia - have a permanent ban on Israelis. Not a 4 month ban "until they figure out" some aggressive vetting processes, and make themselves look like they kept a promise to their constituents. A permanent ban.
By the logic of "this is a ban on Muslims", that is a "ban on Jews".
My question is - where was the outrage all those years? Seriously think about it.
Chomsky (who I have met and later email-debated with extensively) says criticizing other countries is like criticizing the 19th century, and your duty is criticizing the crimes of your own, because you can do the most there. While I agree with that duty, I think it misses one crucial piece.
People from progressive and developed countries tend to "let things go" when other countries violate human rights because they are so far outside their local political reality. They end up navel gazing at their own sins, with dangerous consequences.
For example, feminists today in the USA spend much more energy on making sure default social network avatars are gender-neutral than they do on stopping human trafficking, honor killings and rape culture in patriarchal tribal / caste societies in other countries. That's what I mean by navel gazing.
Angel Merkel and EU bureaucrats let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe while not requiring Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states to even sign the UN convention on the rights of the refugee. These people speak Arabic but go to a country where their language and customs are out of place and retard their contributions to society. And why? Navel gazing.
Similarly Jews often help exacerbate criticism of Israel by failng to require people to apply the same standards to other countries. Care about the rights of refugees? Great. Let's have a solution that all the countries of the region implement: giving citizenship to those who were born in the country. Then after couple generations Palestinian refugees etc. would have long stopped being refugees. By having Israel alone give citizenship and a right of return, you practically force eg all Lebanese of Palestinian descent to try and flood Israel.
Instead, their pride in their country's achievements makes them acquiesce with those who use the words "Social Justice" to advocate a kind of double standard Marxist view that everything is a zero-sum game and there must be losers. Zionists must lose. White people must apologize and pay reparations. But these double standard Social Justice never lead to anything except perpetuation of misery for those that have to live without rights.
My point here is that pride in exceptionalism leads to complacency. We should have cared when these countries (and other Islamic countries) banned Israelis from entering. But we were focused too much on our Western world.
I have a serious question. While I am personally against a ban on immigration of the kind Trump is doing, 6 out of the 7 countries targeted - all except Somalia - have a permanent ban on Israelis. Not a 4 month ban "until they figure out" some aggressive vetting processes, and make themselves look like they kept a promise to their constituents. A permanent ban.
By the logic of "this is a ban on Muslims", that is a "ban on Jews".
My question is - where was the outrage all those years? Seriously think about it.
Chomsky (who I have met and later email-debated with extensively) says criticizing other countries is like criticizing the 19th century, and your duty is criticizing the crimes of your own, because you can do the most there. While I agree with that duty, I think it misses one crucial piece.
People from progressive and developed countries tend to "let things go" when other countries violate human rights because they are so far outside their local political reality. They end up navel gazing at their own sins, with dangerous consequences.
For example, feminists today in the USA spend much more energy on making sure default social network avatars are gender-neutral than they do on stopping human trafficking, honor killings and rape culture in patriarchal tribal / caste societies in other countries. That's what I mean by navel gazing.
Angel Merkel and EU bureaucrats let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe while not requiring Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states to even sign the UN convention on the rights of the refugee. These people speak Arabic but go to a country where their language and customs are out of place and retard their contributions to society. And why? Navel gazing.
Similarly Jews often help exacerbate criticism of Israel by failng to require people to apply the same standards to other countries. Care about the rights of refugees? Great. Let's have a solution that all the countries of the region implement: giving citizenship to those who were born in the country. Then after couple generations Palestinian refugees etc. would have long stopped being refugees. By having Israel alone give citizenship and a right of return, you practically force eg all Lebanese of Palestinian descent to try and flood Israel.
Instead, their pride in their country's achievements makes them acquiesce with those who use the words "Social Justice" to advocate a kind of double standard Marxist view that everything is a zero-sum game and there must be losers. Zionists must lose. White people must apologize and pay reparations. But these double standard Social Justice never lead to anything except perpetuation of misery for those that have to live without rights.
My point here is that pride in exceptionalism leads to complacency. We should have cared when these countries (and other Islamic countries) banned Israelis from entering. But we were focused too much on our Western world.
Silicon Valley tech billionaires who will be un-impacted personally by migration, complain when they no longer have a cheap source of labour.
The Valley isn't going to be hosting migrants and they aren't going to be competing against unskilled migrant labour.
Why is it walls are just fine around LAs mansion estates and in closed gated communities, but as soon as the general populace wants them they become bad?
The Valley isn't going to be hosting migrants and they aren't going to be competing against unskilled migrant labour.
Why is it walls are just fine around LAs mansion estates and in closed gated communities, but as soon as the general populace wants them they become bad?
I almost never post here but this "mansion walls" to "Mexico wall" false equivalence bothers me. They are totally different things.
Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but that's where the similarity ends.
Example 1: Mansion walls are unlikely to create diplomatic tensions with one of the US's major trading partners whereas a wall with Mexico would likely do that.
Example 2: The Mexican wall will likely require lots of eminent domain seizures of private land. Mansions walls require none.
Example 3: The mexican wall will impact net flows of illegal migrants between the US and Mexico. Private walls do not.
Sane arguments for or against this wall are inapplicable to private walls. This equivalency is pointless. Your argument is spurious.
Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but that's where the similarity ends.
Example 1: Mansion walls are unlikely to create diplomatic tensions with one of the US's major trading partners whereas a wall with Mexico would likely do that.
Example 2: The Mexican wall will likely require lots of eminent domain seizures of private land. Mansions walls require none.
Example 3: The mexican wall will impact net flows of illegal migrants between the US and Mexico. Private walls do not.
Sane arguments for or against this wall are inapplicable to private walls. This equivalency is pointless. Your argument is spurious.
My biggest concern is a group of people who will be unimpacted are dictating terms to the rest of us. I feel there is a strong comparison between private gated communities and strong borders (not necessarily walls).
Gated communities mean they are unimpacted? What is it you think the impact of the wall is? Most of it the justification for the wall I'm hearing is based on economic ("they're taking our jobs") or fairness ("they are stressing our social safety net") arguments. Gated communities don't shield you from those things.
Basically gated communities shield you from some kinds of crime. If you think Mexican immigrants are causing lots of crime then you should also think people in Maine or Michigan shouldn't have much say because of the lower concentrations of immigrants there.
Basically gated communities shield you from some kinds of crime. If you think Mexican immigrants are causing lots of crime then you should also think people in Maine or Michigan shouldn't have much say because of the lower concentrations of immigrants there.
I'm so tired of seeing all the blog posts and comments that think our problems are due to Trump and Republicans instead of taking a look at our own "progressive" party. Sure, Trump and the GOP are fucked up, but so are the Dems and the tech community seemed perfectly fine fawning over our "tech president" when he was bailing out the billionaires, expanding state surveillance powers, and ordering the murder of thousands with drones.
Whenever I mention how the corporate Dems have been selling us out for years and we need to light a fire under their ass to work for our interests, I'm immediately ostracized from my fellow "progressives."
Whenever I mention how the corporate Dems have been selling us out for years and we need to light a fire under their ass to work for our interests, I'm immediately ostracized from my fellow "progressives."
I can see what you're against. What are you for? What do you support? In particular now? For example, are you happy with the Executive Order regarding immigration?
The biggest thing against Hillary, geopolitically, was her hawkishness and the posture against a nuclear Russia. Obama-Putin was very rocky. Hillary-Putin would have been an abysmal and possibly dangerous relationship.
Avoiding a hot war in Eastern Europe is worth the people affected by the new immigration bans.
Avoiding a hot war in Eastern Europe is worth the people affected by the new immigration bans.
In the past there was also people willing to deal with Germany when it tried to invade parts of Czechoslovakia. We can see how it was successful.[0]
I am in favor of peace as it is the best state for humanity to strive. But to maintain peace, we must have a good strategy, not a call to people like Putin such as "Please do anything you like".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
I am in favor of peace as it is the best state for humanity to strive. But to maintain peace, we must have a good strategy, not a call to people like Putin such as "Please do anything you like".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
It's about striking a balance and it looks like some of Putin's actions were due to his thinking he was "provoked" by Nato expansion into his backyard and his being an authoritarian could not allow himself to look like a supplicant or submissive to Us action in the area so he goes about and dusts things up a bit.
I think Obama and his advisers sorely missed someone like a Condoleezza or a Cohen, etc. people who would give him some good insight into Putin's thinking and why he acts the way he does.
I mean, at the end of the Obama presidency US-Russia relations were hotting up beyond my comfort.
I think Obama and his advisers sorely missed someone like a Condoleezza or a Cohen, etc. people who would give him some good insight into Putin's thinking and why he acts the way he does.
I mean, at the end of the Obama presidency US-Russia relations were hotting up beyond my comfort.
Google said this impacts ~180 employees total. is that really enough to impact salaries?
Maybe, just maybe, these sons and daughters of immigrants and refugees are just as disgusted by the actions of Trump (and Bannon) as the millions of others.
Maybe, just maybe, these sons and daughters of immigrants and refugees are just as disgusted by the actions of Trump (and Bannon) as the millions of others.