Wait what? You don't hire people from Microsoft? Let's say I get Facebook (I don't really) but what's wrong with Microsoft?
How about people who eat meat? Or vote for the other party - the one you don't like? Are you trying to hire people who are morally compatible with you on every single question? That's gonna be rough hiring.
Even the weapons industry is a tough one. The knee jerk reaction says it's immoral to work for them. But after contemplating - if the U.S (or Europe, or anyone else) doesn't have an advanced military it will be taken over by its enemies (Chinese, Russians etc). Yes, the fact that "they" build their own militaries for the exact same reason is tragic. But if the U.S just dismantled it's arms industries what do you think would happen in a few decades?
The thought of any military being advanced due to Microsoft’s help made me giggle.
My opinion is that the best you can do is to hire people with a similar set of core values and there’s nothing wrong with everybody having their own ethical scale that they act upon accordingly.
> My opinion is that the best you can do is to hire people with a similar set of core values
Not working with people who worked at Microsoft is a huge inflation of the concept "core values". There are terrific people who work for Microsoft who are far better than you or I (statistically it must be true), yet they are somehow not good enough to pass your "core values". Which are what exactly?
Also - would you be as liberal for the opposite discrimination? Someone who thinks progressive politics should be banned in his company?
It also runs on Intel and probably gets some supplies from Europe. It's pretty insane to boycott any company that indirectly works with the U.S military.
> Blog about their names and the work they do and their employer, so anyone searching for them on Google knows that they are military-industrial complex scumbags.
I don't see how this is constructive. Some companies are actively seeking out people from SV companies, especially Google and Facebook.
> No, publishing and free expression (especially of factually accurate information) is extremely democratic.
If I publish someone's name, address, and personal routine to am online forum and ask someone to assassinate them, is that "democratic"? It's "factually accurate information", right?
No, obviously not. People's personal information is off-limits.
Unless, you think that it's not - in which case it's ok for large companies like Google and Facebook to gather it, as well, and I expect you to hand yours over to them (as well as the US government).
Regardless, it's quite clearly false that publishing someone's personal information with the intent to make them unemployable because of your partisan political opinions is "democratic" - you're doing your best to enforce your own values on someone else as an individual. That's the opposite of democracy - tyranny.
> It's really surprising to see people pushing back lately against free speech and a free press.
I'm calling this for what it is - feigned surprise and an appeal to emotion used for the purposes of emotional manipulation.
And if you think that doxxing people counts as a "free press" that explains a lot about the other things you've written.
> If you find the truth to be malicious, perhaps it's reality you have the issue with, not the speaker.
As we've seen, your claims have no relation to reality, and are additionally indicative of extremely malicious intent (truth and malice are not exclusive anyway - you can say "I'm going to mess you up" and that's both truthful and malicious). Please stop trying to justify doxxing people - it's both evil by itself and completely inconsistent with the other positions that you've stated on freedom and privacy.
It's pretty clear that you don't know what doxxing means, and have constructed a strawman ("publish someone's name, address, and personal routine") which is completely unrelated to my suggested course of action.
