[konceptz]

The technicals of the story are interesting around the software supply chain.

I’m put off by the statement: “I want to be clear that this decision is not about contract value—it is about maintaining a consistent and fair business approach in these volatile times,” he wrote. “I do not believe that it is appropriate, practical, or within our mission to examine specific government projects with the purpose of selecting which U.S. agencies we should or should not do business.”

I hear about practicality all the time at my office and sometimes it’s real and sometimes it’s laziness. This sounds like a little of both but also profit motivated (not saying that’s wrong for a for-profit company).

Interested in your options on code of ethics and the above.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It's definitely impractical to say you won't do business with anyone who does things you don't endorse. Imagine an electrician trying to demand a certification that the buildings he works on will host only ethical tenants. You just can't run a company that way; even people who do meet your ethical standards won't do business with you.

If you think that ICE is so uniquely bad that they specifically need to be boycotted, that makes sense. Without inviting any debate on whether it's true, it's a consistent position that can be reasonably applied.

[cco]

There were a lot of electricians on the Death Star...

[sneak]

You absolutely can run a company that way. I do, as do many others. My company has grossed multiple millions of dollars operating that way.

[rjf72]

It's a PR statement so I wouldn't read much into it. It's designed solely to yield the least negative response possible in a polarizing situation.

But if we ignore the meaningfulness or truthfulness of the statement, let's take two hypothetical societies. In one society people agree to cooperate and trade with others when there's a mutual self interest, even if they happen to despise their partner otherwise. In the other society, people engage in a substantial degree of scrutiny and only trade and cooperate with others whom they are meaningfully aligned with. Which society do you think would have the better outcomes for whichever metrics you might imagine? I'd start with economic/technological progress, war vs peace, tribal vs unified (not to say homogeneous) society, etc.

I think there is a clear answer to my hypothetical, but perhaps people see things differently. I'd be quite curious to know how.

[bradleyjg]

It does seem odd and convenient to say I’ve got no problem making money from this part of the government but I won’t sell to that part of the government. It’s the same Congress and President making decisions for all the parts. Either it’s beyond the pale or it isn’t. I mean, would you do business with ISIS so long as the particular sub-project you were providing material for was innocuous?

[moomin]

I don’t think this tracks. I mean, the American Government is also part of the human race. Because we object to one part of the human race should we refuse to deal with any of it?

Humans have to make moral choices about where they personally draw the line and where they draw the boundary. Around the organisation that falsely imprisons Americans and runs concentration camps seems like a starting point.