Please keep in mind that "apoliticism" is in itself a political position: wanting to preserve the status quo and opposing change is still support for the status quo which, in itself, is a set of political beliefs.
Re:Enable Pages access control
by Skunkleton on Saturday October 19, 2019 @03:32PM
(#21300267)
It's not. If corporations were people I would agree, but they aren't. Politics should be democratic. I don't want to live in a corporatocracy.
It's impossible to be completely apolitical. Take your own example - blizzard - and tell me how they could stay moral without taking a political stance.
Re:Enable Pages access control
by Skunkleton on Saturday October 19, 2019 @04:30PM
(#21300602)
Morality is for people. Companies should just follow the laws of the country they are operating in. If we decide that isn't morally acceptable, then we can 1) stop using their services, and 2) push for change through our political representatives.
I agree that if Blizzard were to respond to the loss of customers by pulling out of the Chinese market, then that would be not entirely apolitical. Still, it is far less political than they are presently.
As a society, I think we need to decide what is best. In my opinion, companies should be entirely apolitical, both internationally and domestically. Further companies should not assert any influence _at all_ over political speech by their employees. In return, employees should not imply corporate support for a particular political view.
From my perspective, gitlab is doing the right thing. I don't think corporations have _any right_ to involve themselves in politics, even if the majority supports that position.
Edit: if popular sentiment is that American corporations shouldn't have a dependent relationship with China, then the _elected_ government should enforce sanctions. I don't need corporations enforcing moral policy.