[oxylibrium]

I think those are particularly choice words coming from Basecamp, who have been particularly active in calling out Apple's treatment of iOS and the App Store, which is in at least some sense political advocacy. Life is necessarily political; and they should be more aware of it than most others.

I'm not endorsing Apple's behavior with the App Store, but seriously, this is very out-of-character and I don't like the tone or the content of the messaging here.

[DogOnTheWeb]

They also say, "We're in the business of making software, and a few tangential things that touch that edge."

Advocacy on the policies of one of the world's foremost software distribution gatekeeper seems well within how they define "their business". I don't think it takes much squinting to see how they can view this sort of advocacy as in their lane, while the popular political discussions of the day are not.

[derex]

In other words, “some political advocacies are good for our business and some are not. As a result, let’s ban all of them.”

[yerwhat01010]

DHH's follow-up post says this:

> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.

[sylens]

I think some (not all) of the changes outlined in the post make some degree of sense, but the overall tone of the blog post just comes off as incredibly condescending

[ZephyrBlu]

DHH specified that advocating for things on personal accounts is fine.