[tuna-piano]

This is a somewhat tough problem for companies at this point in time. To executives focused on customers, sales, product - this is an even more interesting issue because it has really nothing to do directly with the company itself.

Most customer segmentation problems can be solved with an optional feature or a new product line - make both chunky marinara sauce and a smooth variety.

Most employee problems can be solved similarly - optional programs, different roles for different folks, etc.

But this problem is unique because a certain segment of the employee+customer base is asking the complete company to take their side in certain matters. Of course the company taking that stand alienates the other segment of the population.

However, rationally, it becomes much easier to deal with this than what Coinbase did.

It seems though that the vocal side (liberal) is vocal because they care about companies stances on these matters, while the silent (conservatives) are silent because they don't seem to care as much.

Therefore, rationally, companies generally take the liberal position or no position at all.

When conservatives listen to politically-left company seminars, see liberal company statements, etc - they mostly just ignore and move on with their day. I don't think many conservatives would be motivated to quit or boycott a company due to a liberal company seminar that they disagree with. I get the feeling (due to the walkouts, etc) that liberals are much more likely to sever relationships due to differences in political beliefs.

[hnracer]

"conservatives are silent because they don't seem to care as much."

It's certainly the case that they don't seem to care as much, given that they're less outspoken, but is there any evidence that they actually don't care as much?

Another explanation for being less outspoken is that they're a small minority in these companies, so they lack the confidence to go against the grain, perhaps out of fear (whether valid or not) of alienation. Or conversely liberals are more confident to voice their opinion because they know they're in the majority opinion group and doing so isn't likely to stymie their career or cause stressful backlash.

Paul Graham tweeted out some survey evidence yesterday that supports the idea that conservatives are simply more afraid to speak their mind in these companies.

[Kye]

Is it that they're conservative, or that they know how their ideas will be received?

I've seen conservatives support things like trans rights, marriage equality, antifascism/antifa, and Black Lives Matter from conservative first principles. They would say the same about not feeling like they can share their views in places where a certain kind of conservatism is rampant.

Bigotry is not something inherent to conservative values.

[philwelch]

This is an instance of "The Most Intolerant Wins" (https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...).

Also, like most exercises of power, one has to have power in order to exercise it. Conservatives are usually more worried about not being fired for their views.

[geofft]

There's an interesting asymmetry between the liberal and conservative sides that isn't captured just by left/right: the liberals generally have some active change they want to make, and the conservatives don't - they just want to "conserve" what's currently being done. That means that if a company just takes the default position on things, it's already siding with the conservatives. So it's unsurprising, in that sense, that the liberals are more vocal: there's no real point in a conservative organizing a protest for "We should not extend our anti-discrimination provisions beyond what is legally required" or "We should be willing to sell to all customers that we can legally sell to" or whatever.

One example of that latter bit: Google rank-and-file protested against the executives' plan to run censored search in China, even though if you listen to the media, Google is "left" and it's the "right" who's worried about China and their authoritarianism and censorship and all that. The more elucidating explanation is that the disagreement was between the people who wanted to make money wherever legally permitted vs. the people who felt a sense of broader social responsibility regarding what they worked on, which is why you see the same fault lines (rank-and-file vs. execs) protesting against Google selling cloud services to ICE, even though that's a concern of the "left."

More generally, about which side finds itself being vocal, I recently ran across this passage from a Wikipedia article about a video game released in 2013:

> Following the announcement of a worldwide release, controversy arose concerning the impossibility of same-sex relationships. Nintendo stated, "The ability for same-sex relationships to occur in the game was not part of the original game that launched in Japan, and that game is made up of the same code that was used to localise it for other regions outside Japan." [...] Despite various campaigns from users, Nintendo stated that it would not be possible to add same-sex relationships to the game, as they "never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of the game", and because it would require significant development alterations which would not be able to be released as a post-game patch.

This game (Tomodachi Life) is in the same approximate genre as The Sims, i.e., the complaint wasn't about pre-programed characters with stories, it was that user-generated characters couldn't be in same-sex relationships. If a game like that launched today - in Japan or anywhere else - it would certainly not manage to avoid "any form of social commentary" by not having an option for same-sex relationships. It's just that at the time, that genuinely was the default, conservative option. If you were a conservative in Nintendo at the time, you hardly had to argue for this position. It only became controversial because public opinion had just started to shift. (And there are much fewer conservatives / right-leaning folks today who would feel the need to argue the same position against the new status quo.)

So I don't think it's true that companies "take the liberal position or no position at all." They start out taking the conservative position, and it's only through specific action - either the desire of management, or pressure from either the product's market or the labor market - that they end up with the liberal one.

[SamReidHughes]

This is just not true at all. Conservatives aren't looking at the status quo and saying, "Yes, more of this, please." I don't think you could find anybody who'd look at the current state of affairs, decide it should continue, and describe them as conservative.

[CyberRabbi]

Yes, the current order is a liberal order. Authentic conservatives want to undo all the damage that neoliberalism has inflicted upon the various so-called liberal democracies in which we live. Many (most?) republicans are actually liberals from a policy standpoint just to be clear, including Reagan and Trump.

[AnthonyMouse]

By this logic someone who wants to change an existing game that allows same sex marriage to be one that doesn't is a "liberal" because they're advocating a change to the status quo.

But if we take this as a given then the original claim doesn't make sense anymore, because in the original claim "conservative" essentially means Republican, but the Republicans would be the "liberals" in many cases under your framework. And yet we don't really see employees pressuring companies to implement mandatory drug testing or to refuse to hire H1B workers or stop offering healthcare plans that cover abortion, even though those would all be divergences from the status quo in many companies.

[geofft]

No, they're a reactionary instead of a conservative. It's just that there are very few reactionaries in the world (or at least employed reactionaries), for some reason.

[evan_]

> When conservatives listen to politically-left company seminars, see liberal company statements, etc - they mostly just ignore and move on with their day.

Trump signed an executive order banning the government from doing business with vendors that do racial sensitivity training.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/22/915843471/trump-expands-ban-o...

[john_moscow]

If you actually look into the text of the executive order, it bans very specific and very divisive behavior [0]:

>(a) “Divisive concepts” means the concepts that

>(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;

>(2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;

>(3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

>(4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;

>(5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;

>(6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;

>(7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;

>(8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or

>(9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

It is worth noting that the media trying to portray Trump's EO as fight against anti-racism is the same media that profits from creating divisive content in the first place.

[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...

[Clubber]

>It is worth noting that the media trying to portray Trump's EO as fight against anti-racism is the same media that profits from creating divisive content in the first place.

I cannot agree with this more. Most of the bickering isn't bickering about a particular issue, it's bickering about a gross misrepresentation of an issue. Misrepresented for those sweet, sweet ad dollars.

[john_moscow]

I think, it's worse. I think, it's a deliberate distraction from a bigger problem that affects much more people.

The problem is that if you entered the workforce after 2008, and wasn't born into financial independence, you have no clear path to achieve a few important milestones that the previous generation had: property ownership, family (and passing your quality of life to your kids), savings and retirement.

These things have been taken away from the whole generation because we chose to not enforce antitrust laws, and bail out inefficient and corrupt behemoths. So the economic leverage that would normally go into the hands of new-wave founders, remained in the hands of big players. And now they want us to feel guilty for wanting all those things the previous generations had for granted.

[Clubber]

Absolutely. We bicker about the topics that the powers that be wants us to bicker about. There are much larger issues that politicians don't want to touch for various reasons (paid not to, too hard, etc).

>The problem is ... entered the workforce after 2008 ... you have no clear path to achieve a few important milestones that the previous generation had: property ownership, family (and passing your quality of life to your kids), savings and retirement.

It goes back even further than that. It's been going on since companies decided to offshore manufacturing in the 70s. Rural America's small towns used to flourish and was absolutely devastated economically. Families used to get by on a single income, now it takes two full time parents to work just to make ends meet. The middle class and the lower class has been constantly choked out except for a select few occupations for the last 50 years.

[theplague42]

Conservatives burned their Nikes because Colin Kaepernick was in an ad.

Not to mention the months-long propaganda campaign claiming that Big Tech was silencing conservatives on social media.

Also, conservatism is basically supporting the status quo. Why would conservatives have labor protests against the status quo?

[gnusty_gnurc]

> conservatism is basically supporting the status quo

what’s more status quo than Joe Biden?

[theplague42]

There's a reason progressives don't like him.

[gnusty_gnurc]

But clearly just being status-quo isn't conservatism, at least if you think limited government is a fundamental aspect of conservatism, in which case that doesn't qualify really anyone in recent history.

Biden's spending plan of trillions of dollars isn't progressive? Give me a break.

[john_moscow]

>while the silent (conservatives) are silent because they don't seem to care as much.

Most of the conservatives I know are silent because they are busy. Busy raising and teaching their kids. Busy taking care of their property. Busy making their own life better. It doesn't mean that they don't care. They just believe that each person should be first and foremost responsible for their own well-being. If someone asks for help with a specific quantifiable problem, they will gladly help.

Most vocal liberals, on the contrary, are priced out of having a large enough property to take care of, or a large family that takes a lot of energy. Because they have extra time and energy, they tend to spend it on the causes that the media presents to them as important. Note that their salary expectations will be lower, compared to conservatives, since family, property and retirement plans are one's biggest expenses. I would dare say many of them feel jealous towards the conservatives and believe they got an unfair advantage.

In short-term, it's beneficial for companies to support political activism, because it keeps the employees busy with projects that don't increase their monetary demands. In long term, this ends up with tribalism, where people spend most of their energy attacking their peers over growing number of differences.

[neves]

Well the article points the question: "The shift has grown partly out of a realization that no tech platform is completely neutral"

Not taking a political stand IS political stand. And it is on the side of the status quo.