[dcposch]

Political debate on HN has become unavoidable because tech itself has been politicized.

Of course on some level it always was, "everything is political" etc, but a decade ago most participants saw tech as broadly neutral. What was the political valence of Etherpad or Foursquare?

Today, engineers are asked to implement things like the "inclusivity warnings" that just shipped in Google Docs. The scope of "content moderation" has expanded dramatically. Founders are often explicitly partisan in one direction or another.

And the new engagement goes in both directions. The five most valuable companies on earth are all West Coast tech cos now. Political actors of all types are watching and trying to harness or control tech to a much greater extent than last decade.

[einpoklum]

> most participants saw tech as broadly neutral. ... What was the political valence of Etherpad or Foursquare?

While it's quite probably that most participants _saw_ it as mostly-neutral, I would claim that was obviously a mis-conception. In 2012, the popularity of smartphones was already having significant cultural effects, effects on alienation and isolation vs interaction of people in public spaces, etc. And that's just one of innumerable examples. FOSS vs. commercial software - definitely a political question, already 40 years ago and even earlier. Energy production and conversion technology - lots of geopolitics depends on who needs how much fossil fuel energy. etc. etc. And when a tech issue has significant political ramifications, you also have interest-holders involved in promoting or trying to block it, making an effort to inculcate the public with certain ideological views on the issue etc.

[xupybd]

Politics is also more tribal and emotive than it's ever been. I'm terrible at not getting upset and replying emotionally to perceived injustices when someone frames facts with a bent towards the other side.

Tech is a big part of the escalation. It was much harder and weirder to yell at strangers before social media existed.

I honestly don't know how we get back to normal. I hope we do because I prefer being able to have discussions not heated arguments about politics.

[midasuni]

Political viewpoints seem more polarised than they were 20 years ago, in America is probably started with the rise of the tea party and Palin’s 2008 bid.

[eevilspock]

> get back to normal

There are billions of people who do not want to "get back to normal".

The contention between those who support and preserve the status quo and those who want to evolve or overturn it is the essence of politics.

[FollowingTheDao]

> There are billions of people who do not want to "get back to normal".

Agreed. And I am one of them. People are here thinking this is about "politics", but really it is about economics. And it is probably why they see more "politics" on Hacker News, because it is a VC organization.

There is tribalism because people are suffering. The fact that someone does not see these people in their day to day life conflicts with a reality that billions of others live with everyday. And the people who are starting to feel it more are an ever growing number of people who thought they were well off.

The idea that we should compartmentalize things is really a human malady, a disorder stemming from our discomfort when we see this truth. That somehow we can separate tech from politics from money is delusional.

[iamacyborg]

> The five most valuable companies on earth are all West Coast tech cos now

You’re forgetting saudi aramco.

[Kye]

It's at least on the west coast of the Persian Gulf.

[dcposch]

I skipped Aramco on purpose. It's a vanity valuation.

The true top five each created valuables businesses based on 0-to-1 products.

Aramco didn't create much, certainly nothing worth close to $2T. The Saudi autocrats just list their country's oil reserves (preexisting value, created by nobody) on this state-owned enterprise's balance sheet in order to flex on most-valuable lists.

[ok123456]

It's a consequence of stakeholder capitalism. When companies were publicly okay with just being amoral profit maximizing entities, they only engaged in politics for a near-term, transactional benefit. Now that it's fashionable for them to publicly take positions on political and societal issues, politics must be discussed along side business.

[sgt]

To a degree yes, but you don't have to (or shouldn't debate) specific political parties, or whether Trump is better than Biden, etc.