JimmieMcnulty

Uh, what? White males have been speaking freely (and continue to do so) for as long as the concept of racial hierarchy has existed.

The American tech industry is run by (straight) white men, we're doing most of the speaking, highly disproportionate to our representation globally (where the impact of our decision are felt).

Well, it may be possible for you to simply not talk about politics, but for folks who have their rights stripped away, their water made undrinkable, their loved ones ripped from them or shunned for simply existing, should they also not talk about that with others?

I doubt most folks who talk about politics really "want" to, as much as they feel a responsibility or need to do so out of compassion or even desperation. Nearly everyone would prefer if we all could just get along, but we don't get along, and pretending we do seems like a great way to just allow the majority to steamroll the minority.

What's funny is that none of the big tech firms would need to change their policies or behaviors, should this actually become the law of the land, as there are currently no policies that prohibit political speech from any of their platforms.

Everything here seems pretty fine (if basic), So often I see engineers screw this up, usually by forgetting a few things:

* They only have some of the information, and don’t account for that fact.

* Their goals aren’t the same as a leader’s goals.

* The leader has ownership of the larger outcome, and may want to make tradeoffs that are suboptimal for an individual person or team, but may ultimately be good for the overall outcome.

* Being technically correct isn’t a “trump” card, it doesn’t mean everything.

If I were a better writer I’d explain this better, but often you can tell who is used to thinking at a high level and who is used to hammering out details, based on these kind of conversations. Either you recognize your visibility and responsibility or you don’t.

(One of) the largest retailers in the world also does this, I believe.

What annoys me is your continued refusal to acknowledge the unfair lack of recourse available for someone who disagrees with a decision you’ve made, and your flippant attitude around making those decisions when it comes to people you don’t seem to respect.

You’re hiding your behavior behind the mob mentality that punishes dissent, claiming that a shallow dismissal response is valid because the HN mob has attacked with downvotes, so violating your own policies is acceptable.

The fact that I was able to find so many examples in just the past week should concern you. It won’t, because it’s clear you don’t “count” those issues as legitimate, but it should and you should.

“I’m interested in what people think I’m doing wrong.” doesn’t mean you’re interested in improving, however. There are easy, concrete steps you could take; simple rewordings, a policy change or two, that would vastly improve how you interact with the “fringe” of HN.

Contradiction?

The fact that you equate "privacy" with "warrants as a concept" is kind of sad, but I doubt you're capable of learning better, given your pretty terrible attitude thusfar.

That's your opinion, and fortunately not one that nearly anyone shares.

You're doing a common Internet Thing by twisting a conversation into the topic you actually want to talk about, even though it's wholly unrelated.

Just because something bad happened to your family doesn't mean the entire planet should adjust fundamental aspects of how humans interact. That's just your trauma speaking, and not a rational thought.