[Veelox]

> When I see that it always seems to me that the real issue is the CEO has made a conscious choice to pick profit over doing the right thing

Just going to toss my hat in the ring and say that I think selling data to ICE falls on the right half of the right/wrong spectrum. Not everyone agrees with your specific take on right and wrong. Sometimes those discussions shouldn't happen in the workplace.

[sigmar]

You think people shouldn't discuss this topic (whether to sell data to ICE) at work, but that they should end up on your side of the decision magically? Am I understanding this comment right?

[camdat]

Can you expand on why you think this is a good thing?

[kasey_junk]

Not the OP and don’t agree at all but “a strong border is central to a strong state, which is central to a functioning state” is a logical argument.

Belief that statehood is evil or that free immigration is a natural right are fairly out of the mainstream. Given that tools that support enforcing the opposite is mainstream.

[weq]

This a stupid statement thats NEVER been TRUE. No one state has ever existed in utopia its own vacume without immigrants. its a complete falasy without any basis in reality, much like religion, its pushed by the conservatives as a way to maintain repression.

ICE is just a continuation of slavery. If Central/South Americans didnt continue to be leveraged by EVERYONE in the economy then there would be no american dream for them quest over the boarder for.

[brippalcharrid]

Countries are defined by their borders, and governments are perfectly justified in using force to control access to their territory. The fact that there is a pathological unwillingness in some industries to comply with immigration law (in collaboration with some politicians and administrators) and a willingness to externalise the costs of their "cheap" labor might have given you the impression that this state of affairs was inevitable or necessary, but it is just a mechanism for corrupt businessmen and opportunistic politicians to gain monetary and political advantage at the expense of citizens, as well as technological progress (an endless supply of unskilled and semi-skilled labor below the market rate removes the incentive to invest and innovate). Factors like birthright citizenship and chain migration further exacerbate these problems.

[archagon]

It would be the height of irony for a crypto company to adopt this stance.

[zdragnar]

Crypto deals with digital transactions. There's essentially no geographically relevant scarcity.

Migration impacts all kinds of things which are intertwined with physical scarcities and order- community service funding, housing needs and so forth. Having an orderly process for migration isn't at all related to cryptocurrency; many aren't actually private at all, and for the most part merely allow control over the supply to not be controlled by a central agency like the federal reserve.

Being opposed to unlawful migration would be the equivalent of opposing people generating coins off the chain then forcing them in, creating more than were actually generated by mining. (I may have butchered the analogy, hopefully it at least makes some sense as to why they may not see it as an ironic or hypocritical stance).