For Big Tech, Neutrality Is Not an Option and Never Really Was – DARKReading

The idea of mixing work and politics has always been a fraught topic, andunderstandably so. Most companies have customers and employees on bothends of the political spectrum, and remaining neutral is often the only way to make sureall parties feel respected and comfortable. They say never to discuss religion or politicsat a dinner party; well, the same rule could be applied to the marketplace or workplace.

The problem is, "politics" is a word that covers a vast expanse of topics, and at somepoint everyone even company leaders need to draw a line. Neutrality isn't alwaysan option.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical infrastructure bill making its way throughCongress. This is politics we likely wouldn't discuss at work for a number of reasons. Itmight be a sensitive topic; there will likely be extreme positions on both sides of theaisle about whether the bill should be passed, adjusted, or blocked completely. Is itessential for a business to take a public stance on this? Except for a few nichebusinesses, probably not. Companies can (and often should) remain neutral.

But what about when it's an issue of human rights? Of war? Genocide? These topics,on a global stage, are often considered politics, but they likely affect a huge percentageof customers in much more profound ways than other issues we consider politics. Thedecision of whether to remain neutral, therefore, is much more complicated. Somecompanies choose to take a political stance; others insist on "staying in their lane" andfocusing only on their products or services.

But there, of course, is the rub: the products and services. What if a company's productor service directly affects, benefits, or connects to the issue at hand? Is a neutral stancereally possible at that point? Or does neutral mean complicit?

Tech companies, in particular, must reckon with this question. We can't pretendthe products we create aren't used on a global stage, for all kinds of uses somepositive and some downright nefarious. But if our tools are used by, say, governments tocommit war crimes, can we really say we're neutral?

We must do more. Some of the behemoths of the tech industry have obscene amountsof power over culture, communications, laws, and policies worldwide. With that kind ofpower, neutrality is impossible. But what exactly does this mean? It means techcompanies need to take more ownership of how their tools are being used.

That could start with something as simple as withdrawing business. If a company isselling products or services to an entity that is knowingly committing harm and,worse, using those products or services to do so that company has chosen a side.They are not neutral. Tech companies need to recognize this and make the harddecisions to pull out of these kinds of business relationships.

My own company recently did just this. We believe we have a responsibility to standwith the people of Ukraine, against Russia, and we have taken steps accordingly. We nolonger do business with companies in support of Russia, and we offer our services forfree for those actively supporting, or on the ground in, Ukraine. To do otherwise would betantamount to supporting the Russian invasion; there simply is no neutral option.

Why do business leaders seem to think that if profit is involved, morality ceases toexist? That mentality belies the real reasoning behind so-called neutrality: If profit isinvolved, many leaders simply don't care about anything else. It also reveals a certainshort-sightedness because, let's be honest, losing profit in the short term for a reasonlike this will often actually help your business in the long term. Customers care aboutthese things, and they don't take kindly to businesses supporting egregious acts ofviolence.

But the imperative goes further than this. So many tech companies today play a vitalrole in global communication, which has profound effects on how politics, policies, andreal human rights issues play out. And yet these companies social media companies,content platforms, and the like all still seem to want to remain as neutral as possible.We can't have it both ways. Neutrality inevitably will favor one side or another. As thewriter, Nobel laureate, and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel summed up so succinctly:"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim."

We are living in the age of all things digital, in the transformation of every aspect ofglobal society at the hands of technical innovation. This is powerful thrilling, even and can truly make this world a better place. That's why so many of us got into tech inthe first place, isnt it? For that hope. That thrill. But it will matter little, or not at all, if thetechnological advances we make just add fuel to a fire of hate, authoritarianism, or war.We must take responsibility for the technology we're creating; companies must do more.We must use the incredible tools at our disposal to help the oppressed and give up thisfruitless quest to be forever "neutral."Neutrality is cowardice.

Continued here:

For Big Tech, Neutrality Is Not an Option and Never Really Was - DARKReading