1) It is nonsensical to ask to leave politics out of social and economic life.
2) Hootsuite is a B Corp. This means they've already publicly committed themselves to act with social responsibility, above and beyond whatever is currently profitable.
This doesn't mean that non-B-corps get to act with zero responsibility in pursuit of profit, but it's just underlining this requirement.
It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred. Why would that happen? The whistleblower believes strongly in the company and the mission and isn't targeting anyone, not even the CEO, as a figure of hate. The worst thing that's happening here is that ICE will have to use another vendor for their social media management. I think society will be able to continue to function after this.
As a B-Corp I'm somewhat surprised they even considered the contract. Broken bird syndrome perhaps?
> It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred.
It does, after a fashion. The question is 'do we care'? There are many parties that get upset with people who are assertive. People-pleasers get trapped into thinking that it's their fault if everyone isn't happy with them at all times and in all things. It's unhealthy. Every choosing beggar they meet turns them into their own personal doormat.
In interpersonal dynamics there is a concept that:
"The sort of person who wouldn't like that is not the sort of person you'd want as a friend."
your idea of "acting ethically" may not be how I interpret the situation. Therein lies the creation of division.
The "worst thing that happens is ICE uses another vendor" is such a slippery slope view point.
Should all 3rd party tech companies stop servicing ICE because the employees refuse to support it? What about the millions of Americans who do not work for a company with that power? Should you be given the ability to undermine something that impacts everyone?
This is the direction we are heading and it will create division.
If employees refuse to support it and they have the market power to change the company's behavior, then yes, they should be allowed to stop servicing ICE. Its not a power that the companies are "given" - it's a power they create by creating the product that ICE wants.
Put ICE aside. Is there any organization that you feel "should" not be served by vendors?
If you want to dodge by claiming it should hinge on the legality of the org, I'd be happy to give you a menu of several that were perfectly legal at the time to choose from.
2) Hootsuite is a B Corp. This means they've already publicly committed themselves to act with social responsibility, above and beyond whatever is currently profitable.
This doesn't mean that non-B-corps get to act with zero responsibility in pursuit of profit, but it's just underlining this requirement.
It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred. Why would that happen? The whistleblower believes strongly in the company and the mission and isn't targeting anyone, not even the CEO, as a figure of hate. The worst thing that's happening here is that ICE will have to use another vendor for their social media management. I think society will be able to continue to function after this.