This has nothing to do with so-called SJWs. Please think twice before using politically toxic language in a thread that isn't even about politics. I guess it pleases you to tell a story about how this trivial UI design decision is actually the result of the machinations of your political enemies. But there is absolutely zero evidence for that. Do you really find it so hard to imagine that the decision was made with good intentions?

Four comments from "hiding a URL is bad" to "Nazis". Well done everyone. You've made me take the time to flag every single comment that uses SJW as a pejorative, and the thread as a whole for off-topic flamebait.

Good intentions never had a role in decision making in hierarchical organizations, there is no known history of that. Plenty of the opposite, with subordinates only caring what their bosses think, giving up on moral principles they had, etc. Imagining good intentions is just bullshit, basically a way to avoid dissent, to trick or force obedience. Which seems to be exactly what are you trying to do here. Even if the post is wrong in details and uses terminology not the way you'd like, it's still way more right than this "good intentions" idea.

> Look for the SJWs pulling on the strings

The use of the word "SJW" is the same kind of social singalling that you attempted to criticize. It's a cheap insult, counter-productive to the discussion, and trivializes the real work on social justice that is necessary for humanity to grow up and become a mature civilization.

I actually agree with the main point you're making, that there are people who superficially attach themselves to social causes for selfish reasons. I am also skeptical when I hear about "serving the public", it's become a meaningless catch phrase by for those who seek to gain a leadership position in society.

And it may be tangentially relevant, that Google hiding the full URL in their brower was done in the name of "improving user experiece", when in fact it's more likely for a self-serving purpose. But that's not "SJW", it's a dark pattern used by corporations and political groups, on whichever side of the artificial divide.

So, I just want to point out that the word has been defined by the media you consume, that there are strings being pulled by the "anti-SJW" side also. It's best to not use that word, otherwise you risk discrediting any valid points you're making.

Your point about strings being pulled on the anti-SJW side is something I find really interesting. In fact, the strings are being pulled on 'division' itself. People without much of a side in the matter stoking the divide.

The most obvious example of this recently must be the 'SJW' that went round on the underground spraying bleach on men who were 'man-spreading' that turned out to very probably be fake.

I feel like everyone needs to learn the 'sniff test' - for things that both agree and disagree with our world view.

There never has there been such a large and sophisticated effort to manipulate the the population by shaping the information that gets to us.

SJW was (once more) popularized and turned into a pejorative by the sexist, anti-feminist crowd during gamergate and it is still primarily used by similar people trying to discredit liberal activism. So it's best to only use it when you're objectively confident a sociopolitical contribution is primarily agenda-driven and by itself counterproductive.

Alternatively, people can contribute to turn back that term into something neutral or complimentary. Protests, for instance, are a good opportunity to find people who can serve as role models.

This is not a common usage of the term SJW. The term SJW was already used to dismiss issues of race or gender; this feels like a drive-by version, dismissing those concerns when they're not even relevant to the topic.

It's definitely a more marginal usage but I think I follow. After virtue signaling, the other major critique or qualifier for so called SJW positions/tactics way back before it became an alt right catchphrase was that they were often infantilizing to the advocated, often devaluing/ignoring the agency of the advocated. It's like a stronger/stricter flavour of you don't speak for me/them or don't speak/advocate for me/them without permission, the contention often being who speaks or decides membership for said group/label. That goes along with the theory the fundamental disagreement between SJW and Anti-SJW arises out of a broader cultural disagreement/conflict over the balance between individualist vs collectivist rights and concepts of fairness/justice.

In that context, I think the connection implied above might be that those pushing for this are infantilizing the end-users by choosing to hide the URL from/for them because they think the end-users can't/aren't good enough at deciding for themselves.

This talk of “SJWs” in connection with hiding the URL is nonsense. You’re arguing with yourself, not with progressives.

Social justice work definitely includes accessibility. If hiding the URL was about making the web more accessible to the visibly impaired or whatever, you’d have a point worth discussion. A tradeoff between making the web available to everyone and reducing friction for those who don’t need accessibility is a worthy topic to debate.

But this isn’t the case. Nobody is demanding that URLs be hidden for the benefit of inclusion.

Likewise, social justice work involves removing exclusionary and stereotyped language. But hiding the URL bar isn’t about that, either. Nobody is arguing that “http” has racist, classist, or sexist implications.

And if you’re trying to argue that “SJWs” is a blanket term for anyone you dislike, then you are falling into a terrible hole when it comes to both reasoning and constructive debate. Hanging baggage on other people for actions and objectives they do not pursue is deeply broken thinking.

Now to the good point in your comment:

What you speak to about “thought leadership” and “making a name for themselves” is something you find in every organization, and if I had to conjecture, I’d say that progressive people in tech are no more likely to be ambitious than conservatives, libertarians, or just plain people-trying-to-make-a-living.

Your argument, at its core, is about people who do things for their own personal gain at the expense of the product, the company, and the customers/users.

It’s a worthy point to explore, and I suggest that disentangling it from your feelings about progressive voices would improve your argument immensely.

Urban dictionary can be useful for looking up pop culture terms, but it's not the place to go for canonical definitions ....

Words mean what people who use them intend them to mean.

There is no canonical source for living languages.

Dictionaries can only be historical references.

The Urban Dictionary can be amusing, but it is hardly a citable source for anything.

I've taken a forgive them for they know not what they do approach, but I think a power/reputation-grab explanation better fits the facts from my experience.

In other words, let the weeds grow with the wheat, and when it's time for harvest toss out all the weeds? Maybe. But if those weeds are going to make the whole place toxic better get rid of them asap.