Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
 [flagged] Ask HN: Is it ok that founders are taking to social media about politics?
32 points by vilified_throw on Jan 30, 2017 | hide | past | favorite | 44 comments
Is it fair that technology company founders are taking to social media and claiming that their entire company is against Trump's executive order? This feels like the definition of entitlement and quite honestly hypocrisy. As long as you prescribe to the founders political beliefs all good. Think if you're an employee of any of these company's and support Trump how'd you feel. Vilified... Alienated. Causing a stressful work environment. Aren't these the sort of things that social justice warriors claim to be fighting against?

The founders absolutely have the right to say what they believe, but saying their entire company takes a stance on a political issue rubs me the wrong way.



> As long as you prescribe to the founders political beliefs all good. Think if you're an employe of any of these company's and support Trump how'd you feel.

I must be missing the part where people are being forced to work for founders they disagree with. "Free market" and all that...

Like it or not, companies operate within a policy framework. The decisions and actions that are being undertaken absolutely are affecting companies in material ways and it's entirely appropriate for leadership to publicly advocate for / against policies according to its interests--whether it relates to trade, recruitment, culture / morale. Hell, even for pure PR reasons as is surely the case at times.


I think it helps to imagine the opposite, a founder being radically pro-trump. I still think it's ok, but it seems like a poor representation of the company.


I'd thank them for letting me know how they felt and find a new company to work for. Democrat or Republican, this is wrong. I'd work for a lot of people, but a cheerleader for facism is not one.


Exactly, pro Trump technology founders are very few and far between. Most of them are "closet" republicans, for fear of being alienated, chastised, and vilified, especially in the bay area.


Oh my god. Trump and his supporters are endlessly victims.

Hard to muster sympathy for a political movement based on fear and hatred of the eternal other.

Strange how the vast majority of highly intelligent, creative, entrepeneurial people hate Trump.


I think the point is (and the election may have shown) that in reality, it is the vast majority of the highly vocal, intelligent, creative, entrepreneurial people that hate Trump.


Families being torn apart. Doctors being stopped from healing the sick. The elderly and children being bullied, handcuffed, and imprisoned. A probable constitutional crisis.

And your concern is that your boss is tweeting something you that makes you feel bad?

This is your bed. Lie in it.

http://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/handful-still-detain...

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-executive-order-st...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-bord...


I honestly think liberals need to lie in the bed too. Liberals chose to reduce the required votes to effectively confirm cabinet members to prevent Republicans from opposing Obama's nominees... leaving us powerless now to oppose Trump's.

Do we have a worst case scenario? It kinda seems like it. But don't sit back and blame the other side when your side is pretty much equally to blame for gutting the checks and balances our government was based on when it was convenient.


First, Democrats changed the rules. I'm not sure what the point of saying 'liberals' is. Second, there was nothing to stop Republicans from making the same rule change, or unmaking it. Most importantly, there's no reason to assume two sides to this argument. The United States may have a largely two-party system, but it doesn't follow that there are two sides to every fight.


It is literally referred to as the 'nuclear option' because both parties basically knew not to touch it. But after the Democrats did it, the Republicans obviously aren't going to intentionally cripple their own use of it.

Mutually Assured Destruction, and Democrats fired first.


I agree. I think this is a very real wake up call for every American - democrat, republican or independent - about just how large the executive branch's powers have become.


I guess what matters most is whether or not it's "ok" with you, or whoever you may be referring to. There's no single answer that applies to all situations, to all founders, to all employees.

If it's not okay with you, then use your available options to determine how to act. I think it was tptacek yesterday that suggested the idea that more important than founders speaking out with their beliefs, the workers should band together and make their voices known - in agreement, or in dissent, or in whatever they believe in the absence of founders taking a stand.

If it's going to negatively effect you personally, then evaluate it the same way as you would any other negative work situation - a bad manager, harrassment, or similar. I just do not think you will find an answer by means of surveying people in different, or even similar, situations.

People choose to stay with an employer for personal reasons, and leave employers for personal reasons. This is no different.


Not to pick on you, but when did the definition of hypocrisy change from 'saying one thing and doing the opposite' to 'saying something I don't like' or even 'saying something is untrue.' Unless it's a company that is highlighting differences of politics among employees of companies, I don't see the hypocrisy.

Founders certainly can speak for their company, although saying that they're speaking for the entire company can be a stretch. Immigration is an area that is commonly discussed by company leaders. Given that many companies have employees who are directly affected because they are out of the country and unable to return as scheduled as well as those who have had to change plans so that they don't leave and become unable to come back, I'm not surprised company leaders are upset and making statements.


Tearing apart families and banning large groups of Muslims from entering or returning to the USA also rubs me the wrong way.


Of course you're completely entitled to voice your opinion personally. However, these founders using their company as a political soapbox is the issue.


You don't need to abstract this to that extent. You might be able to say in most cases it's a bad idea to use your company to express a political opinion, which I agree with, but this is going beyond that – this is a human rights issue.

In terms of "tearing apart groups of people", like you might do by voicing a political comment that your company partly disagrees with, I think that this particular ruling tears people apart to a much larger degree.


Please provide a link to all the outraged posts you made condemning Trump speaking for all his employees, will ya?


As they are entitled to do :)


Arguably providing visas for only a part of a family (say the breadwinner) and having that person move halfway across the world tears up families. By that logic not having that option is "keeping families together".


It's a matter of agency - in one case, the breadwinner can choose to move here, in another, there is no choice, and (what's really got most people in arms) is that it was not future-dated, like most impactful legislation is.

It feels like the summary judgement of a dictator or king, not a republic or democracy. Tell me again, which one do we live in?


For decades, companies have practiced political speech by paying lobbyists and donating to industry groups who support friendly candidates -- these actions may be less obvious to you but they wield a powerful influence on public policy. Why aren't you complaining about that?

These companies are speaking up for their own employees who are now systematically targeted for discrimination because of where they were born. This transcends everyday politics and impacts human decency.


Maybe I'm mistaken, but it appears these founders are decrying Trump's heavy handed ban that has actual human cost.

I suggest anyone who does support such heavy handed actions with such dubious benefit to examine their views. It's easy to be lost in rhetoric, but there are people separated from families who have played by the rules. Who have done nothing provably wrong. People who are put in this situation ... why?

If you have a good answer to why, then you should totally muster up some backbone to tell your CEO they don't speak for you.

This is the United States of America, after all.

If people speak out against Trump, and you don't agree, you should speak up for yourself/Trump.


You're assuming that silence on an issue is not taking a stance. But silence is a stance.


This (faulty) line of logic presumes that everyone has the information, time, ability, and interest to analyze obscure and complex topics which are often, at best, tertiary to their daily lives. In addition, political issues can be quite frustrating, not to mention socially divisive. Not everyone needs an opinion or stance on everything. It's divisive enough to demonize your opponents, but to demonize the silence of the undecided is really reaching, IMHO.


> Not everyone needs an opinion or stance on everything.

Absolutely. But what you prioritize, what you view as important enough to establish an opinion on, and what you view as beneath your concern, says a lot about who you are as a person.


I think this argument is nothing more than a dirty tactic to guilt people into supporting a cause. People are allowed to be ambivalent about things. People are allowed to recognize that they don't have enough information to form an opinion. People are even allowed not to care.


People are definitely allowed to not care, but not caring is still a stance.


And they are allowed to be vilified for their ambivalence. Saying "I don't care" doesn't absolve you of any guilt.


Ambivalence and apathy are two very different things. Ambivalence is having mixed or contradictory ideas about something. Apathy is disinterest or lack of concern. For a lot of difficult issues, it's reasonable to be ambivalent. Sometimes it's hard not to be able to see multiple sides of an issue and understand the appeal of more than one.


Yes, it is OK. There are more important things at stake here than Trump supporters' feelings.

And anyway, criticizing this executive order doesn't mean you think Trump supporters are bad people. I'm sure at least a few of his supporters agree that the order goes too far.


It's important to distinguish speaking officially on behalf of a corporate entity, as opposed to speaking individually or on behalf of a group of people. I don't think there's any problem with a corporate entity having an official stance on an issue; some issues directly impact the running of companies.

I feel it's crucial that if founders want to voice some form of political / social / religious / divisive opinion, they choose their language very carefully as to avoid misrepresenting others.


I would not do this even if I were a Trump supporter, but If I were a braver person, for the sake of politics, I would try being the Trump guy/gal get flak for it, maybe even harassed and sue for political discrimination or just making you all around "uncomfortable" or "threatened". If I were really brave, I'd wear one of those red hats but also keep a the phone on loop audio record just in case conversations get uncomfortable.


At the end of the day, it's their company and they can do whatever they like with it, including using it as a political soap box. It may turn away some investors and VCs but I don't think these founders really care. The only exception is if they are a part of a corporation and that's all dependent on what sorts of limitations the corporation puts on their officers and directors.


> it's their company and they can do whatever they like with it, including using it as a political soap box. It may turn away some investors and VCs

By definition, if they have investors and VCs already, it's no longer their company to do as they please.

Perhaps it's useful to go public with such opinions in some markets/environments. Perhaps it's unwise in general to alienate at least some people while trying to grow. Most often, it's not particularly useful to add to the social media chaos by posting "me too" opinions. It's more useful to join a demonstration, talk to friends (if they can bear you still) or vote accordingly.


I very much prefer companies to stay out of politics. If I like your company but hate your political view, it makes it harder to buy from. If I am forced to use your product and hate your political views, it makes it very uncomfortable. Personally, I hate how much everything is involved in politics now. The US President is not the global emperor and no one should think he is.


In what way are you forced to use their product?


Work, school, life, monopoly. Many times when you must use a certain product.


I see it as more of a problem of the current era that the mode and content of discourse in the US has devolved to a point where everyone has such extreme and polarised views that one is bound to be completely politically incompatible with... what, ~40% of the population? And espousing any sort of political opinion is likely to completely alienate anyone who disagrees.

So if one's employer leans towards Republican politics and you're a Democrat, or vice versa -- even though it's purely for reasons of profit (e.g. restricting visas reduces ability to hire skilled employees from overseas) -- it's basically as if your employer is literally Hitler because the supported policies on the whole are bound to be wayyyy over on the other end of the scale.

In other countries with a less.. binary political system, disagreement is more nuanced. It's not either-or. And companies publicly supporting extreme politics are in the minority, and it's safer to have political discussions with friends without having to disown people.


All the comments in here so far implying you should speak up seem to me to misunderstand the power dynamic at work.

Individuals, even in the tech industry (and perhaps especially in the startup world) can very easily be fired, blacklisted, or otherwise made to have a difficult time practicing his or her career if he crosses the wrong founder in the wrong way.


You can post your opinion on social media to state you are not in line with your founder and he/she doesn't represent you.

If your company would fire you for this, then it means you and your company doesn't fit, in a mutual manner.


> Is it fair that technology company founders are taking to social media and claiming that their entire company is against Trump's executive order? This feels like the definition of entitlement and quite honestly hypocrisy. As long as you prescribe to the founders political beliefs all good. Think if you're an employee of any of these company's and support Trump how'd you feel. Vilified... Alienated. Causing a stressful work environment...

https://literarydevices.net/hyperbole/


Can you please share the posts where you find founders claiming that their entire company is against Trump's executive order? I've seen "we" used, but that's a far cry from claiming the entire company is against Trumps orders.

So, please share the posts you are referring to.


Please provide a link to all the outraged posts you made condemning Trump speaking for all his employees, will ya?


When a company lobbies the government, or makes a donation to a PAC, is that not speaking for the company? Even if you disagree with what's being done?




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: