[katet]

Now, I actually find this a reasonable way to phrase their position:

> "We respect the fact that for those of us in the United States, we live in a democratic republic in which the public elects our officials and they decide, pursuant to the rule of law, the policies the government will pursue."

(They do go on to say they disapprove, in the interests of quoting fairly)

But to clarify, as a Brit, I feel this way about our own government and Brexit. I disagree with brexit. I disagree with many of our government's actions.

But.

They were voted in. People voted for Boris, they voted for Trump. Even now, the Conservative party is 15 points ahead in some polls.

A small, unlikable part of me says we shall "reap what we sow", but at some point, I'm going to have to reconcile the fact that a large segment of my fellow citizens like what they're sowing.

I don't really have a point to this. It's a shame that as a democracy we vote in individuals who pursue policies that some of us personally find reprehensible. However, I am getting a unique and unasked-for insight into how it must have felt for those individuals with non-PC viewpoints for all those years.

I guess that might be the point: this is the world we live in. Some people find this OK, even preferable. We can't pretend otherwise any more. And that's rather sobering.

[jlokier]

> People voted for Boris

Actually no.

The people have never voted for Boris to lead, and they have never voted for the present government either.

Boris was voted into his position by 0.13% of the population.

...

As for Brexit. Well, people do like to say it was a democratic referendum 3 years ago (while saying more votes would be undemocratic).

But to believe that, you have to be happy to ignore the 4 million adults (5.5 million if you include 16+ year olds) who weren't allowed to vote but whose lives are most directly and severely affected by it. Include Brit pensioners abroad who are now talking about losing access to essential medical care but unable to move back (because they own homes in the EU at prices that don't work for moving to the UK), and non-Brit EU citizens, some of whom are expected to be deported in due course, breaking up families. (Forget about the non-EU families of EU citizens, who always had shitty treatment, so they're used to having no say.)

That does not fit any true definition of democracy that I could call decent. "No taxation without representation" and all that.

This article (which I only just stumbled across while searching for something else) sets it out as a violation of several types of human rights, and I basically agree since I was thinking the same thing for a while now:

"In some respects the Brexit referendum was a violation of human rights" https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/09/brexit-referen...

[geofft]

I think that's also a reasonable and consistent position, but,

1) Did the same analysis apply to Dehomag? Was it okay to provide big data analytics to power the Holocaust because the Holocaust was entirely legal under domestic law too, because it was enacted by a party that gained power democratically?

2) Why is GitHub donating over 100% of the revenue from this contract to charity, instead of either canceling it or just accepting the revenue if they are really okay with letting democracy do its thing?

3) How should GitHub management reconcile their views with those of employees who disagree?

[toasterlovin]

ICE is not exterminating people in death camps. Working for ICE is not even remotely comparable to supporting the Holocaust.

[geofft]

That is not the question I'm asking. The question is what ethical principles distinguish these cases. How do we get a consistent decision process out of this?

One consistent answer is, Dehomag did nothing wrong, if the legitimate German government wants to commit genocide, that's a matter for perhaps international law, and local companies should cooperate. (I think that's a horrid moral position, but it is, at least, a well-defined one.)

One answer is simply that extermination camps are beyond the pale but all other activities are fine. But then there's a weird case-by-case problem: if a government treats slavery as legal, is it okay to power their slave-catching program? If they run electroshock therapy for gay deconversion, is it okay to support that infrastructure? Basically, when we say "Never again," is it tautological—are we defining the Holocaust as unique to ensure it never again could happen?

Or is there a common ethical principle that Dehomag could have applied before the Holocaust, when the programs were merely deportation/relocation and not genocide, to say "Wait, we don't need to make money from this," and if so, is it relevant today?

As I said, we can always reach the conclusion that ICE is not perpetuating crimes against humanity, that their work is morally acceptable. But if we believe that, why try to purchase morality offsets for it?

[toasterlovin]

I guess if you think people have an inalienable right to cross whatever national border they want, then ICE is perpetuating crimes against humanity. If you believe otherwise (which I think is the generally accepted reasonable stance), then ICE is engaged in the difficult task of dealing with an influx of illegal border crossers whose identity and nationality is not known, with a subset of those illegal border crossers being children for whom it is not easy or straightforward to determine their legal guardians. To most people, that is not at all comparable to any of the abhorrent crimes you mentioned.

So why even mention them?

[geofft]

Because clearly GitHub thinks there's something wrong with what ICE is doing: they're donating more than the revenue of the contract to anti-ICE organizations, they're suing ICE, etc. Why should they do any of that, if ICE is simply doing an important and difficult job?

Again, I am not asking about your opinion of ICE, or mine - I am asking about ethical frameworks in general, and GitHub's opinion. What is the ethical framework under which GitHub decided to offset the value of their contract?

[toasterlovin]

I get your point now. Thanks for clarifying.

[Craighead]

I mean, you're factual incorrect about much of your statements.

[toasterlovin]

I am open to changing my mind, but you haven't provided any kind of argument or evidence that I am factually incorrect.

[katet]

Ah, crikey. It's always tricky to defend a position against a well-reasoned critique, but I'll try ;)

1) I typed a few answers to this, but I'll simplify. No, it isn't OK. But (please, please understand this is sort of a devils advocate position) clearly it was OK for someone. That was my original point, although probably poorly made..I'm not a master armchair debater, but I think it's roughly about moral absolutism whereas Wikipedia tells me I was describing moral relativism. I subscribe to the view that the holocaust was intrinsically wrong, but if we had lost WWII, then clearly there would be nobody around to argue that case any more.

It's wrong. Supporting or enacting parent-child separation at the border is wrong. But somebody - a percentage of somebodys - find it an acceptable trade off for border control. We are (I think, I pray, I hope) the majority for that opinion. We need to ensure we keep voicing it to keep it that way - that's all we've got right now.

2) I qualified this with the statement that - as I read the article - GitHub is fairly clear that this is not in accord with their values. I think their position in balancing their support of many policies they agree with (counter-terrorism, etc.) with a specific instance in which they don't reasonable. I find donating the profit from that deal to charities reasonable. I don't take that as an indicator that they are OK with this just because it's "democratic". Imagine a hypothetical alternative headline: "GitHub refuses to provide services to counterterrorism agency" (again, I'm not American) - despite what we as commentators think, the choice they face isn't 100% black and white. They can voice their disapproval; if ICE's actions become clearly, majorly more harmful than the value they provide, I hope they revisit this decision. If they have decided - for themselves - that they wish to not censure a government agency for a single (or couple) disagreeable policy, I can understand that. I might not do the same. But such is individual freedom.

3) Again, crikey. I don't know. Only once in my career have I been asked to do something I believed to be a violation of local laws. It never remotely approached the need to resign - Legal issued a clear edict on my side. But I would hope GitHub take the approach I would have wanted: if you choose to resign in good conscience, you serve the full notice period, with pay, and with goodwill. I understand this view is somewhat unpopular, but a company is a legal entity. It is entitled to its own view. That an individual might disagree is a serious issue, not to be belittled, but they cannot reasonably continue to work for a company with whose values they disagree with vehemently. Any issues about an individual's personal life position I find orthogonal to this: if that individual cannot leave because its their own livelihood at stake, I would personally judge that an understandably unpleasant compromise. But I honestly don't think it's the company's responsibility to cater for multiple - conflicting - political or ethical or moral views.

:frustrated_shrug_emoji: everyone must take a stand on their moral positions, unless they reasonably can't. The rest of it seems to be a case of hoping that your particular moral view prevails during the march into the future with another few billion people to compare and contrast with.