Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Businesses Communications Education Facebook Google Government Network Networking Software The Almighty Buck The Internet United States Wikipedia News Technology Apple Politics

145 Tech Leaders Say 'Trump Would Be A Disaster For Innovation' (cnn.com) 360

An anonymous reader writes from a report via CNN: "We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation," wrote 145 technology leaders in an open letter Medium post published Thursday. Some of the leaders are from tech giants like Google, Facebook and Apple, others from small startups, venture capital firms, nonprofits and universities. "We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field. Donald Trump does not," reads the letter, which was signed by well-known names like Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak, Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield, IAC's Barry Diller, Reddit's Alexis Ohanian and Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales. "His reckless disregard for our legal and political institutions threatens to upend what attracts companies to start and scale in America. He risks distorting markets, reducing exports, and slowing job creation," reads the letter, published by chief marketing officer at Color Genomics and former VP at Twitter Katie Jacobs Stanton. Moreover, Trump has shown "poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works," they wrote, citing his proposal to "shut down" parts of the Internet and the fact that he has revoked reporters' press credentials. "We stand against Donald Trump's divisive candidacy," the letter concludes. "We embrace an optimistic vision for a more inclusive country, where American innovation continues to fuel opportunity, prosperity and leadership." Meanwhile, Jon Swartz writes from USA Today that "If there was any lingering doubt as to tech's favored presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton put an end to that Tuesday with a tech plan that reads like a Silicon Valley wish list."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

145 Tech Leaders Say 'Trump Would Be A Disaster For Innovation'

Comments Filter:
  • Translation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:22PM (#52513355)

    Translation: Trump would do something about importing cheap H-1B workers while Her Majesty wouldn't.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Hylandr ( 813770 )

      +1 Insightful

      • Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be off panhandling visitors to his site with his picture?

        (Wait - Maybe Hillary learned her Wall Street/Clinton Foundation act from him...)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 )
      Right. There's a big difference between being a "disaster for innovation" and being "annoying because innovation may cost a bit more because we can't import indentured tech servants to replace local professionals that were forced to train their foreign replacements."
    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:30PM (#52513471)

      Except he backtracked on that and said he wouldn't...

      "I'm changing. I'm changing. We need highly-skilled people in this country. If we can't do it, we will get them in. And we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have."

      And he's flopped back and forth a few more times since then.

      Trump will say whatever the hell he thinks will get him elected. You'd have to be retarded to believe that he means any of it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tailhook ( 98486 )

        Trump will say whatever the hell he thinks will get him elected.

        Right. And Hillary is going to be scrupulously truthful in all things and depend on voters giving her credit for her long history of honesty.

        o_O

        One thing Hillary has said that you can absolutely take to the bank, however; she'll give instance and permanent resident status to however many millions of people the "stem" degree mills of Asia can graduate. Thus our tech leader obsequience.

        Cool how the employers of one of the most black free labor forces in the US can't seem to wedge enough "inclusive"s i

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by dugancent ( 2616577 )

          "...but Hillary" is hardly an excuse for the bullshit that Trump is spouting.

          • Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)

            by cavreader ( 1903280 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @06:55PM (#52514723)

            A vote for Trump would be a vote against Democrats, Republicans, and the biased media who fall all over themselves trying to elect anyone who would validate their editorial lines. A vote for Trump means there will be a whole bunch of rich people and companies who will see the billions of dollars they have pumped into their candidate of choice has been wasted. The Democrats and Republicans need a serious timeout to reflect on how bad they have fucked up the country.

            The office of the President doesn't allow any candidate to actually accomplish anything they say while campaigning. The policies Trump speaks about cannot be dictated by the President. Trump is hated by both Democrats and Republicans equally. Does anyone see Congress approving anything Trump asks for? Dissolution of signed international treaty's cannot be abrogated by the President alone. Even declaring a war needs to be justified and unless someone lobs a few nukes at the US the legislative branch will never fund a war. For all those wishing the US would stop wasting money protecting foreign ingrates then Trump is your man. If he was to even come close to exceeding his Presidential authority he would be impeached in an afternoon since he has no party support. Anyone wanting to see a President tell some foreign leader to fuck off and defend themselves on their own dime than Trump is your man. The bottom line is a President cannot destroy a country without help from lots of others in the Legislative and Judicial branches.

            • Does anyone see Congress approving anything Trump asks for?

              Yes, for example, from his platform [donaldjtrump.com], a Republican congress would approve repealing Obamacare (they've already done it what, a dozen times already?). They would likely increase spending for mental healthcare as a way to handle mass-shootings (again, Republicans have already tried to do that in the last year).

              Will they vote for the wall? Maybe, if Trump can actually get Mexico to pay for it. If Trump gets his way, he'll have a bunch of copycats, and then congress will be filled with hucksters. Wait.....

          • It is in this case because it's an election year, and the candidates are either Trump or Clinton. None of the other party candidates have a remote chance this year. It's not a false dichotomy, one of them will be president, which is the least worst?
      • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ElectricHellKnight ( 4011689 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @07:22PM (#52514865)

        Except he backtracked on that and said he wouldn't...

        "I'm changing. I'm changing. We need highly-skilled people in this country. If we can't do it, we will get them in. And we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have."

        And he's flopped back and forth a few more times since then.

        Trump will say whatever the hell he thinks will get him elected. You'd have to be retarded to believe that he means any of it.

        Except here's him being consistent in his opinions since 1980 [youtube.com]. That's a better track record than all the real politicians, especially Hillary "Marriage should be between a man and a woman oh wait not anymore" Clinton.

      • Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)

        by BradMajors ( 995624 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @07:30PM (#52514941)

        Trump has never changed his position. He stated that the current H-1B system as being done is bad for the country. However, the idea behind H-1B visas of importing highly talented persons that the US work force can not supply as being good. The media has no interest in writing about such a nuanced opinion.

      • Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)

        by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @07:37PM (#52514977)

        H-1B is sold as snatching up Einstein fleeing from the Nazis. H-1B in reality is Haroum taking your 1st level helpdesk job.

        Everyone is in favor of picking up exceptional people, but the media tried to pretend that the question had been about the H-1B program. Trump gets tripped up by trick questions like that sometimes because he wasn't raised from birth to be a politician.

        He has, however, been totally consistent about putting Americans first for at least 25 years, based on interviews he's done in that time. (Head over to youtube if you want to watch them.) I trust his principles and his instincts.

    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) <sharper AT booksunderreview DOT com> on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:33PM (#52513523) Homepage Journal

      Trump would be a disaster... ok, but that doesn't mean Hillary would be a disaster is any less true.

      It's been interesting to see how much people rely on saying bad (and at least somewhat, although usually not totally) true things about the "other" candidate, but usually fail to make the case at all as to why "their" candidate is any better.

      The candidates don't exist in a vacuum. Saying Candidate X is horribly Y doesn't actually compare them to their opponents and thus feels more like calling names than having a reasoned discussion.

      I'd listen to more of this if it actually brought up something which wasn't already public knowledge, or tried to at least do some kind of comparison rather than just being a one-sided political attack.

    • Further, these guy are hiding trillions of dollars overseas. They are worried Trump will find and tax that money.

    • Seconded. Now has Trump opined on patent trolls at all?

    • 'Trump has not yet promised to maximise the protection of our position and profits, Which, of course, Hillary has done!'

      I hope everyone is enjoying this episode of dumb and dumber. thank god its just a tv sitcom... oh, wait..

    • Screw the oligarchy. Screw H1B. If you can't run a company in America with American staff, get out.

      The more the oligarchy pee their pants over Donald Trump, the more appealing he actually becomes to the American people who know they're being screwed massively.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Translation: Trump would do something about importing cheap H-1B workers while Her Majesty wouldn't.

      That's probably true and I hope Trump defends himself by pointing that out and giving plenty of examples and details in speeches.

      I won't vote for Trump because I believe his "awkward" diplomacy will likely get us in trouble with the world.

      But, I'm glad he's running and glad he speaks his mind and doesn't fear offending the establishment or donors, even if half of what he says is nutzo. Raw honesty can be beau

    • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      Translation: unemployable low level IT crybabies who fell behind and can't find a job in a field that is hilariously easy to find work in blame everything on the Visa boogeyman.

      One problem: Trump's not going to help with that.

  • by LoverOfJoy ( 820058 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52513437) Homepage

    I'm not a Trump fan but I get the impression that many who like him believe he isn't bought and paid for like Hillary probably is. If they are right, it makes sense that these guys wouldn't want to lose their investment and have someone elected that isn't beholden to them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, Trump is the one who does the buying and paying. He's still just as corrupt as the rest of them.

      Although it appears he doesn't always pay his bills.

    • While that might be the case up to this point, it will not be going further into this election cycle. Predictions are that unless he picks up a massive groundswell of donations from his supporter he will be in the same boat as Hillary within weeks. He will quickly loose the most appealing thing about him: he was self funded for the most part. There is know way he can afford to spend, the predicted 2 billion it is expected to run a successful campaign to completion, out of his own pockets and he doesn't
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Well now, I'm beginning to see him in a different light.

    Remember, those are all the same tech giants who lied and said Americans don't have the qualifications so they need more H1-bs and they need to offshore to India. And some of them said that programmers over 30 don't get it.

    So, they are just trying to protect their billions by convincing us peons that our interests are the same as theirs. Fuck'em - all of them!

    And the word 'innovation' coming out their mouths is just insulting. Most of them are just

    • What about Steve Wozniak? He signed the letter, he is not an innovator? What about the founders of companies like Splunk, Qualcomm, eBay, Yelp, Twitter, and Wikipedia? And even though they didn't sign we know from their public statements that the founders of Microsoft, Cisco, Google, YouTube, Tesla/SpaceX, and Facebook support immigrants.

      Who are the anti immigrant tech leaders?? Besides Peter Thiel (who btw didn't invent anything) and I suppose maybe one or two others I assume .. there aren't many. I guess

      • by lgw ( 121541 )

        It's all just virtue signalling. America now votes along class lines more than ideological lines. Trump represents working class people who (gasp!) likely didn't even go to college. Can't have that sort of embarrassment, no way, we must appear sophisticated above all else!
         

  • All About the H-1B (Score:5, Interesting)

    by curmudgeon99 ( 1040054 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:31PM (#52513491)
    The tech executives just want to keep the gravy train of cheap, captive H-1B visa holders. I have been a Democrat all my life, donated many times to President Obama--and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. Hillary Clinton is the first Democratic presidential candidate in my life that I cannot support. I am senior enough in my field to have never had my personal job touched by an H-1B visa holder. (They are dishonest [linkedin.com] morons.) The way it's run, the entire H-1B visa program is a scam [linkedin.com]. So, I will be voting for Dr. Jill Stein. I will be damned if I will vote for Clinton. I've done that enough. She supports rich tech billionaires--not me--and I will return the favor. I would rather suffer through 4 years of Donald Trump instead of allowing Hillary Clinton to screw us.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:44PM (#52513683)

      You'd knowingly support an insane person, just so you wouldn't get your feelings hurt. That's smart.

      • by tomhath ( 637240 )

        You'd knowingly support an insane person

        You have to vote for one of them, so pick the least insane of the bunch. No way I'd vote for Hillary.

        • by dugancent ( 2616577 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @05:04PM (#52513929)

          "You have to vote for one of them"

          You absolutely do not have to and shame on you for saying that.

          • by tomhath ( 637240 )
            So go ahead, let other people elect your representatives. But don't complain about who gets elected.
            • I'll complain if I damn well please. I'm a citizen, I pay taxes and I didn't vote for them.

              I'm going to vote for presdient, I'm just not picking Trump or Hillary.

          • "You have to vote for one of them"

            You absolutely do not have to and shame on you for saying that.

            Actually, it's more nuanced than that. The real question is about what you should do, not about what you have to do.

            If you are in a swing state you should vote for one of them, assuming they are not equal in your eyes, because you are one of the few people with the power to influence the outcome. (Unless your pride in supporting a third-party candidate who will lose is more important than the difference between which of Hillary and Donald has the power to shape, or destroy, the world.)

            If you are not in a

    • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:58PM (#52513863) Journal

      I would rather suffer through 4 years of Donald Trump instead of allowing Hillary Clinton to screw us.

      If it were only 4 years ... The next president will get to nominate a minimum of 2 judges to the Supreme Court. Probably 3. This will influence life in the USA for decades.

      While I don't think that Clinton is a good candidate, I think that Trump will be far, far worse. He is already beholden to wealthy people (his campaign hasn't been self-funded for a long time now), his statements show that he has an utter lack of concern for the liberties that the Framers wanted people to have. His real policies may not be for the benefit of tech billionaires, instead, it is for the benefit of billionaires. Trump is a proven liar. He used charity money to buy himself a vacation (now he has paid, but only after being called out on the issue).

      What's in his tax returns that he is hiding? It's obviously something that shows him in a bad light. My guess is that it shows that his income and net assets are actually far lower than he would like people to know. In other words, his claim to be such a great businessman are in part smoke and mirrors.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        What was said in those $700,000 speeches Hillary gave to Goldman Sachs? No, my entire life I have been taking the safe road, and invariably I see the people who I thought were decent enough turn around and hire Larry Summers and fill their cabinet with ex Goldman Sachs members. I am so fucking sick of the elite buying off our politicians and of our politicians then joining the elite, as has happened to Hillary and Bill Clinton. That she thought it acceptable--two years before she planned to run for Preside
      • What's in his tax returns that he is hiding?

        That one's obvious.....he doesn't have as much money as he claims.

    • What about all the foreigners trump will deliberately torture, maim and kill. And yes, he has stated he wants to target family members of terrorists (i.e., not just the terrorists themselves). This is no big deal to
      you?

    • by TheSync ( 5291 )

      "Should the government increase or decrease the amount of temporary work visas given to high-skilled immigrant workers?

      Jill Stein's answer: Increase" (source) [isidewith.com]

      • Then I write in Bernie Sanders, who I supported with $$ in the primary. The central point here is that I, a Democrat, feel compelled to support someone other than the candidate coronated by the DNC.
        • Then I write in Bernie Sanders,

          That's my plan. I don't live in a swing state, so there is little to no chance that voting this way will allow Trump to win my state, but it sends a message.

          • I don't know why people are so opposed to this line of thinking. Including third (or forth) party candidates in the process seems like something that would be especially useful this time around -- if only to drive more discussion and call Republicans and Democrats on their bullshit -- but it's not going to happen if people reserve their vote for "the lesser of two evils." Also, let's face it, individual votes don't really matter for determining the outcome of most states, but they can matter, in aggregate,
            • The problem is that voting for a third party candidate may mean that the worst candidate (from the voter's perspective) may win.

              However, my message is aimed at the DNC grandees who selected Clinton. I hope you don't believe that the voters selected Clinton through the primary process. It's glaringly obvious that the process was rigged. Which brings an interesting question, if the DNC rigs their primaries, what about the Republicans? Was Trump really their preferred candidate, or was there a massive tide of

    • After reading the first two sentences I realized that your judgement is terrible, so I didn't read the rest.

  • What about the distaste trump would be for human rights?

    Trump openly supports torturing non-citizens without even a trial to make sure they are guilty of anything.

    Trump supports killing the innocent family members of terrorists (this while claiming to be Christian even though the bible specifically forbids killing family members of criminals).

    Knowing these two facts, which Trump has proclaimed and stated repeatedly .. How can anyone support Trump? You would have to be evil.

    • by twotacocombo ( 1529393 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:59PM (#52513869)
      What Trump says and what will actually happen are obviously two different things. There are still checks and balances to keep him from running roughshod over human rights by himself. The H1B travesty is real, happening, and can only get worse under Clinton. I'd rather have a redfaced blowhard spouting off nonsense than this slippery bitch plunging the knife in even deeper than it already is. They're both clearly unfit for the job, but Trump entertains me while Clinton makes my blood run cold for multiple reasons.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by swillden ( 191260 )

        What Trump says and what will actually happen are obviously two different things.

        "What he says he'll do is so insane he can't actually do it", is a frighteningly bad argument for supporting a candidate for the most powerful office in the world.

        They're both clearly unfit for the job, but Trump entertains me while Clinton makes my blood run cold for multiple reasons.

        Clinton will be another four years of the status quo, basically, but Trump's brand of insanity could well start WWIII.

        • Just remember this: every time you say Trump will start WW3 or compare him to Hitler, you create another 10 Trump supporters.

          I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way, and I agree that "what he says he'll do is so insane he can't actually do it," is a really bad position to take, because he may actually mean some of what he says, and he may actually have the means to accomplish it. He will not, however, have the means to start a war without provocation, nor will he actually be able to round up people already re

          • He will not, however, have the means to start a war without provocation

            As commander in chief? Yes, he would. I'm not saying he'd actually do it, but he'd certainly be in a position to... and it's not impossible that he would do it.

            nor will he actually be able to round up people already residing in the US of a certain race or religious creed

            He could probably get away with a fair amount of it in the short term, though the courts would step in pretty quickly (although that doesn't necessarily mean that much, remember Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears). But he could do a tremendous amount to inflame all sorts of deep resentments and spark a great deal of violence... and his potential r

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by quantaman ( 517394 )

      What about the distaste trump would be for human rights?

      Trump openly supports torturing non-citizens without even a trial to make sure they are guilty of anything.

      Trump supports killing the innocent family members of terrorists (this while claiming to be Christian even though the bible specifically forbids killing family members of criminals).

      Knowing these two facts, which Trump has proclaimed and stated repeatedly .. How can anyone support Trump? You would have to be evil.

      But Clinton was really careless in using a personal email server at the state department.

      I mean even Hitler didn't go that far!

    • Could you cite both of these accusations, please?

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:38PM (#52513609)

    >> We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity

    Translation: We prefer a corrupt government so we can get an endless supply of H1B visas to replace all our US workers with cheap foreign labor.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2016 @04:51PM (#52513777)

    It's amazing how I wasn't even fooled for a fraction of a second about what they really meant.

    As a tech worker who lives on paychecks rather than dividends, I couldn't give half a fuck about their huge margins or their eternally climbing share price. I'm sure that a lot of the C-levels will weep and gnash their teeth if they have to pay me an extra 10 20 or even 50 percent salary but how in a million years does this hurt me?

    And no, I know it won't result in unemployment because I know that my work generates millions of dollars a year in ROI (summarizing here but I automate the jobs of insurance adjusters, call center employees and the like). My salary is a tiny fraction of the value I provide. There's an enormous amount of money on the table here. We're talking about companies employing thousands of employees and generating billions in profit. All the unlimited visa abuse does is put more of it in the pockets of C-levels, shareholders and the banks.

    And frankly, fuck them. I have never wanted to vote republican so much in my life. All the right people are recoiling in horror at Trump. Know someone by their enemies indeed.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's 1860 all over again.

    Filthy rich racist plantation owners are outraged that a Republican is going to deprive them of their cheap labor force.

    Watch out. In 1860, the plantation owners went crazy and declared an actual war after the Republican was elected. They conned all the poor southern whites into thinking that the enslavement of blacks was in thier best interests and that the fight was about "states' rights" (which IS a legitimate constitutional principle) but the only "State's Right" the plantation

  • "Trump would be a disaster for innovation," wrote 145 technology leaders in an open letter

    In the UK, Michael Gove, an Oxford graduate, Times journalist, Cabinet minister and leading campaigner to leave the EU, said recently [ft.com], âoepeople in this country have had enough of expertsâ.

    His side of course won (though he personally hasn't, now being out of government) and that is the constituency Trump appeals to, one which no longer trusts rationality and expertise and is often, sad to say, receptive to an

  • by Mike Van Pelt ( 32582 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @07:08PM (#52514803)

    Just wondering. To the extent I know their political orientation, they are all quite partisan Democrats.

    One tech person who was interviewed on Leo Laporte's "Triangulation" podcast a few weeks ago had an interesting perspective. Basically, there's a lot of very bad stuff entrenched in Washington DC that needs to get broken. The candidate most likely to break stuff is Trump; hopefully, he'll break more stuff that needs breaking than stuff that needs to not be broken.

    Me, I'm probably going to vote Libertarian; I won't vote for either of the D or R <obscene characterization redacted>."

  • She advocates everyone should buy a personal email server.

  • I love how they can seriously write this with a straight face in the wake of Hillary's email scandal. I mean, I'm not arguing that Trump knows what he's doing either, but come the fuck on! Hillary's grasp of technology was so grossly negligent that, had she actually continued on in her cabinet position, she'd have been asked to resign, and yet they bring up technological incompetence as a talking point. This is just ludicrous and pathetic.

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...