>Cosgrave, the Irish entrepreneur who is also founder of Web Summit, said in a statement Saturday that his personal comments “have become a distraction from the event, and our team, our sponsors, our startups and the people who attend.”
Translation: I give in to the blackmail and cancelling, as apparently I can't afford to make a critique on geopolitics AND keep my business. Or rather, I perfectly could do both, but only if I parroted the established view.
Rather nobody should be bullied through an mob campaign out of their job or business because of their political opinions.
People were already free to do or not do business with him on the merits of their company and services/prodcuts.
Except if you'd like angry letters to your boss and a summarily dismissal anytime you express (in an unrelated to your job outlet) some unpopular political opinion.
It wasn't OK when Bush followers where doing it to people and businesses during the Iraq war, it's still not ok in 2023.
Many people have stopped doing business with him. It could be anything from public backlash on social media and old media to the CEO wanting to cut ties and avoid negativity. Websummit has been losing steam for years, so a lot of companies might just see this as a convenient way to bow out.
At the end of the day, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. This holds true for companies as well, especially since they're treated as "legal persons" under the law.
>At the end of the day, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else.
In the end of the day people shouldn't punish people for their political opinions in unrelated domains like their jobs. In fact, in the end of the day, diverting political opinions should be tolerated and cherished.
The rest is noise, as if anybody held a gun to their head before to do business with him...
> In the end of the day people shouldn't punish people for their political opinions in unrelated domains like their jobs. In fact, in the end of the day, diverting political opinions should be tolerated and cherished.
Sounds lovely; I would happily and eagerly support any politician who proposed ensconcing such protections in law. Until then, game theory dictates that choosing not to push your own views via "cancel culture" is a losing proposition.
It's not yours to decide what other people do. It's insane that you are trying to make an argument against forcing someones will on one another by offering a solution that is basically forcing your will on others.
Boggling that he rolled over, given how rare it is for such apologies to do anything other than cement the public opinion of guilt and get the speaker flogged out even with the apology.
We'd all want to face the firing squad with a cigarette and our heads held high rather than begging for our lives, but groveling is by far the empirically more common outcome.
I wonder if he regrets the apologies more or the original statements.
Should public technology business leaders refrain from all opinions related to social issues, or just those that are not popular? Given the number of public figures that have expressed unconditional support for one side of an ongoing violent conflict, it appears that it is just unpopular views that are not welcome in the technology business community.
> Should public technology business leaders refrain from all opinions related to social issues, or just those that are not popular
If you're the leader of an organization, yes, your public statements on political issues are tied to the organization. Most people in leadership roles shouldn't be commenting on this war, period.
12 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 51.2 ms ] threadTranslation: I give in to the blackmail and cancelling, as apparently I can't afford to make a critique on geopolitics AND keep my business. Or rather, I perfectly could do both, but only if I parroted the established view.
Listen to the...
People were already free to do or not do business with him on the merits of their company and services/prodcuts.
Except if you'd like angry letters to your boss and a summarily dismissal anytime you express (in an unrelated to your job outlet) some unpopular political opinion.
It wasn't OK when Bush followers where doing it to people and businesses during the Iraq war, it's still not ok in 2023.
At the end of the day, no one should be forced to do business with anyone else. This holds true for companies as well, especially since they're treated as "legal persons" under the law.
In the end of the day people shouldn't punish people for their political opinions in unrelated domains like their jobs. In fact, in the end of the day, diverting political opinions should be tolerated and cherished.
The rest is noise, as if anybody held a gun to their head before to do business with him...
Sounds lovely; I would happily and eagerly support any politician who proposed ensconcing such protections in law. Until then, game theory dictates that choosing not to push your own views via "cancel culture" is a losing proposition.
We'd all want to face the firing squad with a cigarette and our heads held high rather than begging for our lives, but groveling is by far the empirically more common outcome.
I wonder if he regrets the apologies more or the original statements.
Should public technology business leaders refrain from all opinions related to social issues, or just those that are not popular? Given the number of public figures that have expressed unconditional support for one side of an ongoing violent conflict, it appears that it is just unpopular views that are not welcome in the technology business community.
If you're the leader of an organization, yes, your public statements on political issues are tied to the organization. Most people in leadership roles shouldn't be commenting on this war, period.