Time to Take a Stand - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samaltman.com/time-to-take-a-stand <comment><USER4> Why is that all of these posts saying to "take a stand" fail to explain the political process? I'll just quote myself here. If you want to help stop trump the most effective ways are to:

1\. Call

      - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)

      - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/)

      - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials)

2\. Participate

      - Get involved in local elections (this is a decent start - to become informed locally http://www.npr.org/stations/)

      - <USER2>

      - Attend town hall and city council meetings (see npr)

3\. Share

      - Tell your friends

4\. Vote ([https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote](https://www.usa.gov/register- to-vote))

5\. Volunteer

6\. Stop reading and start doing one of the other things.

<comment><USER5> How effective is calling local congress members if you live in an area with a strong progressive majority such as the Bay Area. Not that we shouldn't voice our option to our represented officials but I suspect in some ways it's redundant whereas things like raising money for national organizations may be more impactful.

<comment><USER6> It feels like it's not very effective, but that may be because there needs more weight of numbers behind it. If you're in a progressive area like the Bay area I can see how it would just add extra load to officials who may not need further persuading.

I'm in Texas though. A very red state. I've been calling my representative and senators to voice my opinion on all this stuff, but it's hard to tell how effective it is. I either get someone on the phone who sounds like, "oh geez, another angry liberal" or I have someone who just sounds like they'll add my name to a tally or something and says "I'll pass it along" and it's hard to know if they will or if that will help. And then I call my state senator to oppose the bathroom bill going through the Texas senate and the person who I'm talking to on the phone gets borderline combative with me.

I found a group of local people who are trying to do this in a more organized way. I found this[1] the other day and it makes me feel hopeful that our efforts are helping somewhat. We just need to not lose steam. It's easy to get fatigued by this kind of stuff, and we're only a week in.

[1] [http://www.sacurrent.com/the- daily/archives/2017/01/26/cruz-...](http://www.sacurrent.com/the- daily/archives/2017/01/26/cruz-cornyn-offices-overwhelmed-by-constituents-who- actually-want-to-talk-to-them)

<comment><USER7> I wonder how much calling actually matters, because I feel like whether they receive 10 calls or 10,000, it's always going to be one-sided. Conservatives aren't going to call their reps and they don't have the propensity to engage in the same activism as progressives, so I would think representatives would take calls with a relative grain of salt. If a very conservative congressperson starts getting a bunch of calls saying how much the dislike [standard conservative proposal], they've got to think that as much as the people who voted against them don't want [standard conservative proposal], the conservatives who voted them in do.

<comment><USER8> It only really works if you are showing them that they are going against what they thought their base wanted. Free trade right now would probably be one where a lot of Republican members of congress would have likely been surprised to learn a year ago that there was a large percentage of their Republican voting constituency that was against free trade.

So yes, if you are a Republican with a Republican representative then calling them to voice your displeasure about Donald Trump's behavior may be beneficial. Otherwise it probably won't do much unless there really is massive numbers.

<comment><USER9> What is completely consistent with Republican policies for decades, however, is tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the wealthy, while supporting a regressive tax (which is what a tariff is) that will disproportionately impact the poor and working middle class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > In doing so, we should not demonize Trump voters—most of them voted for him > for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban. We need their eventual > support in resisting actions like these, and we will not get it if we > further isolate them.

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe, a moron, and not deserving of the franchise is not going to help anything. I didn't vote for Trump, but I do identify with some of the beliefs of those who did, and I can tell you that the rhetoric I'm hearing from many of the most vocal left is pushing the middle away.

<comment><USER11> _This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe_

Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you _are_ (co-)responsible for the outcome.

If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

<comment><USER12> Would you rather have a job and a racist in power, or no job and a person isn't racist in power?

I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.

<comment><USER13> Minorities on average earn less, have less job security and despite this they utterly rejected Trump and his hateful platform. Trump voters also weren't the most economically desperate, those people voted Clinton. Trump did well among solidly middle class white people in rural areas.

So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.

<comment><USER14> Data does not support your opinion (yes I know Latinos is only one minority): [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did- bett...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with- latino-voters-than-romney-did/)

<comment><USER13> What point are you making here? That you can find a subset within a minority demographic that voted for Trump? If so, that proves nothing.

Just look at the graphs here:

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind- trump...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps- victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/)

White people elected Trump, minorities rejected him. Fact.

<comment><USER15> Minorities always reject republicans. The argument is whether Trump did better with minorities given he is a republican.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >1\. Call 2. Participate 3. Share 4. Vote

This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. It might have worked in the '90s to get a gold medal for Rosa Parks. It will not work in 2017 to make Trump back off his core message.

The problem here is not that your side isn't loud enough and can't get political attention for an issue. The problem is that the opposing side is too organized and too strong and already has a decided stance about your issue.

Being more strident won't help. Ostracizing people who have links to the opposing side will positively hurt.

Instead of doing all this "yell out louder" crap, any serious opposition should rather do some serious soul searching to figure out how to win back key constituencies. The only people who need to be ostracized are the idiots who got us here in the first place.

<comment><USER17> For many Americans Sam Altman and Madonna are unrelatable so the messaging falls on deaf ears (or is potentially even counter productive). Nobody believes Google or YC is hiring refugees, or that Sam Altman and others are sending their kids to public schools attended by refugees, or living in low to middle income neighborhoods housing refugees and having to manage the increased violence that ensues. All well and good to bang your hands on a table from the Ivory tower that is San Francisco when millions of people in middle America believe that you are not the one bearing the cost of this "open door" policy. To be effective, I think the message needs to come from people middle America can relate to not millionaire celebs and billionaire tech CEOs.

<comment><USER18> Would you say Donald Trump, himself a billionaire celebrity, is someone Middle America can relate to? Why or why not?

<comment><USER17> A qualified no - Trumps relatability may not matter in this context. There are two parts to this: the message and the messenger.

Speaking in broad strokes here...

I believe more people are relating to (i.e. are inclined to agree with) Trumps [closed border] message and therefore do not need to relate to Trump the messenger.

Fewer people are relating to the open border message and thus, to help guide their analysis, people are looking to the messenger and finding them less relatable.

So there isn't an equal burden of proof / relatability and that's part of the problem. The left is already perceived as being out of touch and their loudest / most visible voices may not be helping that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> In case anyone is still skeptical that this is really a Muslim ban and not just a blanket ban on refugees and immigrants, note that Trump has said he will give priority to Christian refugees: [http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody- fi...](http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file- exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority- as-refugees)

<comment><USER20> I was talking about this last night with my wife and she mentioned she saw some statistic showing Christians were, until now, de-prioritized and actually given refugee status at a disproportionately low rate compared to their population in the ME. I don't have a source, but thought this might be useful to bring up. It sounded like this was why he did that.

<comment><USER21> Christians are being specifically persecuted in some Muslim countries, particularly in those areas under the control of ISIS.

Shouldn't we prioritize people who are the victims of religious persecution.

<comment><USER19> Yes we should, and Muslim refugees are also victims of religious persecution. Unfortunately, Trump's order says we only care about your persecution if you're in the religious minority in your country.

<comment><USER21> But this type of vetting is used _all the time_. Refugees that come to the US (and other countries, including my own, Canada), examine refugee claims using very similar methods.

If you are a minority (religious, ethnic, political) that is used as evidence of persecution and helps your claim for refugee status.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The ACLU is both challenging the order and rounding up attorneys to help legal residents and Visa holders that have been prevented from entering the country. Now would be a good time to donate. [https://www.aclu.org](https://www.aclu.org).

<comment><USER23> thanks for reminding us - I just put in my card on a repeated monthly donation. Easier to keep giving if set on auto-pay vs forgetting

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think that the only way to fix this long-term is by winning the hearts and minds of those who think this ban is a good idea, or who are ambivalent about it. Unfortunately, those of us who have been shrilly opposing every move Trump has ever made are perhaps the most poorly positioned to do that. Trump has successfully demonized the voice of the mainstream media and costal cultural elites, and if you're perceived as being in that group, your objections are likely to fall on deaf ears.

We need to find a way to rebuild bridges between different tribes in America, so that we can have a reasonable dialog. I don't pretend to know how to do this, but I'd love to have a discussion about how to get it done. I think _that_ is the only way to keep Trump or someone else like him from capturing the voice of the people long term.

"How to Culture Jam a Populist in Four Easy Steps" [https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/01/20/culturejam/](https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/01/20/culturejam/)

<comment><USER25> Not thinking of dialogue as 'culture jamming' would probably be a good start.

<comment><USER24> Yeah, the title isn't great and is a bit click-baity, but if you read the article I think you'll find the content much less objectionable.

<comment><USER25> The article comes off to me as though it assumes there was no inherent flaw in the message coming from the other side. That there weren't enough legitimate reasons to support Trump over Clinton in the election, and that Trump supporters all think the way they do because they were sold some great lie. Which I think is untrue, condescending, and a terrible starting position if the goal is to understand the opposition and try and change their minds.

> Find a wound common to many, someone to blame for it and a good story to > tell. Mix it all together. Tell the wounded you know how they feel. That you > found the bad guys. Label them: the minorities, the politicians, the > businessmen. Cartoon them. As vermin, evil masterminds, flavourless > hipsters, you name it. Then paint yourself as the saviour. Capture their > imagination. Forget about policies and plans, just enrapture them with a > good story. One that starts in anger and ends in vengeance. A vengeance they > can participate in.

> In their mind it's very simple: if you're not among the victims, you're > among the culprits. In your case, you're that modern bogeyman called the > liberal urbanite hipster who thinks all cultures and religions are valid and > equally worthy, who thinks of the working-class disparagingly. You are, in > short, 'a citizen of nowhere' whose utopia is a massive, world-wide kumbaya > with carrot chips, no church, and no soul either.

> Because, again, the problem is not the message but the messenger.

The article is horrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I know it's an extremely antisocial position but I can't help but feel like most of Trump's immigration policies and outrageous tweets are just bait to keep our attention away from big money legislation that the 1% wants to get through.

For example, the Keystone XL and Dakota access pipelines were heavily debated, protested, and ultimately rejected under Obama but Trump just signed orders to have them built and Sam's post doesn't even mention it. Seeing Sam write about the accusations of voter fraud instead brings this quote to mind:

> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the > spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that > spectrum....

\- Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

<comment><USER19> I've heard the exact opposite, people saying Trump's orders on highly controversial but minor-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things pipelines are cover for his less tangible but much more damaging moves on immigration and refugees.

As to your last point, it is not unreasonable to ask the president for evidence when he challenges a core pillar of our society. It is good that hugely significant yet baseless opinions are not considered acceptable, especially for people in power.

<comment><USER26> I have not heard that. It doesn't even make sense to me given what's actually getting covered in the press is immigration, his crazy tweets, and gross comments on a bus.

<comment><USER19> Well, neither of these ideas make sense. He's just going through his list of priorities and trying to do what he promised to do. Maybe his tweets are a deliberate smokescreen, but his executive orders are not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I am affected personally by this. I have extended family members from Indonesia and Malaysia in the US who are still on Green Card. Although those countries aren't affected by the ban, who knows when Trump will decide to change his mind at his whim.

But the time for talk has passed. I don't think very much is going to happen because Trump is empowered by his election victory, and he won't listen to anyone. Has he ever listened to anyone, even during his celebrity-only days? To think that you can actively engage him in a conversation is not the way to do this.

What is needed is to prepare for the 2018 and 2020 elections RIGHT NOW. We need an organized social media structure where all of the positive, democracy- pro candidates in every electoral district gets publicized and supported. EDUCATE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH GREAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND MOTIVATE THEM TO VOTE. I'm not talking about just voting for the Democrats. Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. We need a new voice that actually cares about progressive, democratic values, and actually believes in what they say. Not the same, tired politicians that play us for fools and leave us with the best of two evils.

Organize now, smash the two-party oligarchy and elect REAL POLITICIANS, hopefully young people that care about the US, not people who want to enrich themselves from the teat of government funding. You could argue that Trump was that candidate for half of Americans, as well as Sanders for the other (nearly) half. We need fresh blood, and we need to start now.

The only way to stop Trump is to silence him by breaking up the Republican Congress majority, and it's only in 2 years.

<comment><USER28> > I am affected personally by this.

> Although those countries aren't affected by the ban...

So, you have not yet been personally affected? That's like saying German citizens have been personally affected by this action.

<comment><USER29> Compared to the post above, a German citizen has an incredibly smaller chance of being affected by any of Trump's future follow-up actions similar to the executive order that was just issued, so your comparison is invalid.

If one has to come up with new contingencies based on radical shifts in the likelihood of extreme events, then of course they are directly affected.

<comment><USER28> I'm not so sure I agree. It seems to me that Germany is currently having issues identifying refugees entering their country as well as keeping its citizens safe.

If this trend continues, it wouldn't be too far fetched for the US to require "extreme vetting" of German document holders to enter the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Things companies in tech can do:

\- Demand to see the detailed plan for TrumpCare. What's it going to cost us? What will it do to our employees? Where are the details? That's what lobbyists are paid to find out. Employers have a big stake in this.

\- Demand to see the tariff plan. So far, it's all talk, but soon it will be legislation. This has huge impacts for many businesses. Business planning and investment will stall until the details are settled. Already, you don't want to build a factory in China or Mexico. On the other side, will there be efforts to make it easier to sell into China?

\- About that infrastructure thing. What kinds of projects will be supported? Roads? Internet access? Pothole repair?

\- How serious is the administration about not employing illegal aliens? Will employer sanctions be increased or more stringently enforced? Will employers be going to jail? On the other side, will the enforcement be effective enough to force growers to use robotic picking? Is it time to get behind ag startups like Abundant Robotics? Get into robotic floor cleaning for commercial buildings?

\- Will there be tax incentives for investing in communities in rural America? If so, how much, and when will they become available?

\- Will Glass-Stegall come back? That was a Trump campaign promise, and it's in the Republican platform.

Every one of those is a real business issue, and business needs to know what's going to happen.

<comment><USER31> I think this is a Chess vs Checkers issue. It doesn't matter if you lay out a plan based on reason if the other side is playing a different game altogether.

Check out this simple strategy from the Republican playbook. They pour money into State elections (through Super PACs) during a census year and take control over legislature and the redistricting process and execute a horrendous gerrymandering which drives urban areas out of voting power. This leads them to hold on to a majority in the House at national level which forms the bedrock of their agenda execution at national level.

When have you seen Democrats executing such long-term ruthless strategy?

There is nothing stopping from Tech Billionaires doing the exact same thing Koch brothers did for the past 15 years.

<comment><USER30> There is that, but Republican politicians will listen to business about business issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> A majority of his voters _did_ vote for Trump because they support his views on immigration. It's why they voted for him. To deny that is to simply deny reality just like Trump does on a daily basis.

Honest question - What will statements by tech CEOs do? Trump has a mandate given to him by the people of your country against the very elites this post is appealing to. The politicians are with him because they want to keep their power.

And am I misremembering all these powerful tech CEOs went grovelling to meet Trump and hoping to have a foot in the door with the new administration with Thiel?

These are turbulent times.

<comment><USER33> He has power, he doesn't have a mandate.

That's why he keeps whining about illegal voters, because he doesn't have much of a mandate when he lost the popular election and won the Electoral College by winning 3 states with margins of tens of thousands of votes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> He clearly stated he would make strong policies regarding immigration. The American people voted for him knowing this and he's following through on it.

I'd say "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States" is a fitting name given everything he has said up to this point.

Whether or not you agree, this looks like the democratic process to me. Taking action against his policies after election is obviously fine, but if you cared so deeply then why didn't you do this rallying call before he got elected? He is doing exactly what he said he would do and what the people voted him in for.

* PS: I'm not endorsing Donald Trump's decisions at all.

<comment><USER35> This is the unfortunate reality that no one wants to face. Trump ran on an anti-immigration platform and won. Contrary to what Sam says I don't think that most people voted for Trump for different reasons. Some did, but for many the anti-immigrant message was what resonated with them. Are these people racist? Probably. Is a Muslim ban repugnant? Yup. But that's how our Democracy works isn't it? Politicians campaign on their platform and if they win they enact as much of that platform as they can. If you're taking a stand against this you should at least acknowledge that you are taking a stand against Democracy. If you don't believe The President should be allowed to ban Muslim immigrants after being elected on a platform of doing so then you might as well be honest about it and say that you don't believe people who want to ban immigrants should be allowed to vote. These people are a part of our country and thanks to our Democratic system they do have a voice, that's the root cause of the problem here.

I agree with OP that there's nothing wrong with taking action after an election has already happened. Although I do think it's pretty futile, Trump has been granted all the power he needs to enact such a ban by our Democratic process.

* PS: I'm also not endorsing Trump's decision.

<comment><USER36> We've already been through this before though. Interracial marriage was banned far and wide through democracy, but was overturned by the courts. Same with marriage equality. This has been seen by many as a feature of the system, not a bug.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Shouldn't we have been taking a stand against Obama who destabilized the region, was dropping bombs there and arming the "rebels" who had a revolving door relationship with ISIS and other such groups there.

Refugees didn't come from a vacuum and it wasn't some natural disaster. They started streaming in because the West including US has been meddling and destabilizing that part of the world.

Unfortunately it seems profiling to prevent terrorism has worked ok for Israel recently. It is not something pleasant and nice, but so far it seems there have been deadlier and more frequent terror act committed by radical Muslims in Europe than in Israel. People see the news from Europe and they don't want that here. A closer vetting of refugees from that region seems reasonable and letting them in unchecked seem irresponsible.

<comment><USER38> Hoswabout profiling on "radical" rather than "muslim"? You'd also catch many mass shooters, who (AFAIK) tend to still be radical, but usually aren't muslim.

> letting them in unchecked seem irresponsible

Why do you think they were being let in unchecked? Betcha TENBUX there's plenty of checks.

<comment><USER37> > Hoswabout profiling on "radical" rather than "muslim"?

You're right probably it should be based on "radicals". From those countries "radicals" would probably be "muslim radicals". From US it would probably be KKK-type militia like the ones from Oregon.

I am not even sure how they would check mulsim vs christian. Wouldn't muslims just say "nope, totally not a muslim, I got to church every Sunday" and they name some church address they memorized?

Then the whole "extreme vetting bit". How would they check? Does US have access to such detailed and exact intelligence about individuals from Yemen to know who did what when there?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > Almost every member of the GOP I have spoken to knows that these actions are > wrong.

How about Peter Thiel? What did he say when you spoke to him?

<comment><USER40> I'd love to hear an answer to this. How is the relationship between Sam Altman and Peter Thiel these days, now that it's becoming clear that Thiel's man is exactly as noxious as the rest of us were saying he was going to be?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is absolutely nuts.

Green card holders (legal permanent residents of the United States) are being turned back from the US as soon as they get to the airport. They are being forced to file waivers which can be denied.

How can legal permanent residents be denied entry? I mean this has to be breaking So many laws, how can this be ok?

<comment><USER21> _How can legal permanent residents be denied entry? I mean this has to be breaking So many laws, how can this be ok?_

You have it wrong. The _only_ people that can't be denied entry to the US are US citizens. When I had a Green Card it was made _very clear_ to me that a green card does not guarantee entry to the US.

For example, if you leave the US (and have a green card) for more than 6 months the onus is on _you_ to prove you haven't given up residency in the US.

<comment><USER42> sure, but of all the people to blanketly keep out, the ones who where actually vetted, did their paperwork and followed the law seems counterproductive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "The executive order… is tantamount to a Muslim ban" isn't quite true.

Islam by country [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country)

1\. Indonesia

2\. Pakistan

3\. India

4\. Bangladesh

5\. Nigeria

6\. Iran

7\. Turkey

8\. Egypt

9\. Algeria

10\. Sudan

It's probably not a great tactic to perpetuate the American habit for making sweeping comments about the rest of the world which aren't really grounded in truth. Might be best to be scrupulously fact-based on these matters.

<comment><USER44> The only people the ban will affect will be Muslim people though.

<comment><USER21> Uh.... no?

This ban also prevents any Christians living in those countries from coming to the US as well.

<comment><USER45> That's not what Trump says. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/trump...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/trump-approves-extreme-vetting-of-refugees-promises-priority-for- christians/2017/01/27/007021a2-e4c7-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)

<comment><USER21> Read the headline. "Trump promises". Christians from those countries are currently _banned_ from entering the US. In fact, all citizens of those countries are banned, regardless of their religion (unless they have a US passport).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I think it's shameful to have an open Trump supporter as part of the upper echelons of YCombinator (Thiel).

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But when you openly support a candidate who likes to "grab [women] by the pussy", and now is making headway into some sort of Muslim ban which was a campaign headline, how will female and muslim applicants feel if they know part of their process might be controlled by someone who finds this acceptable? Might it discourage them?

<comment><USER47> I am a life time Democrat, but every time I hear someone bring up the poor taste pussy grabbing comments, I have to ask: do you give Bill Clinton a pass on what happened with Paula Jones? Listening to old interviews as a very young woman, Paula Jones paints an awful image of what Clinton did. There is plenty to criticize Trump for, but nasty comments are not as bad as nasty deeds.

<comment><USER45> He was reporting a deed. You are accepting Paula Jones comments as fact of a deed, but you are not accepting Trump's own self-report of his behavior as a deed. Remember that the tape also contained him saying things like, "I can't resist beautiful, I just kiss", and "They let you get away with it". These are not abstract tasteless comments, like saying something tasteless about a woman's body. These are self-reported "nasty deeds".

<comment><USER47> OK, fair enough about Trump. Easy for me to say since I don't like him and didn't vote for him.

That said, it does seem like Bill Clinton's actions were worse. He paid a ton of money to settle the Jones lawsuit, IIRC.

<comment><USER48> Clinton paid $850,000 _without admitting liability_ to make a lawsuit go away. Jones' lawsuit was bankrolled by Republicans.

Equivocating what Trump bragged about with what Clinton was only accused of is a sad argument.

<comment><USER47> So, $850K in today's money would be a couple of million? A lot to pay someone, but he got what he wanted in not having to admit liability.

I doubt you have watched the Paula Jones interviews from when she was a young woman, since you don't believe that Clinton behaved shamefully in this instance when he was governor. Clinton was an effective president, but he apparently had his bad sides.

In no way way am I defending Trump, but I am willing to wait a few months to see if he can accomplish anything positive. Then, when I am totally disappointed I will probably get active politically again, probably supporting third party candidates after the DNC fiasco in the last election.

Thank the DNC political hacks for a Trump presidency.

<comment><USER48> You are aware this settlement was only _after_ the court had dismissed the suit. This was just to get her to drop the appeal.

      In no way way am I defending Trump, but I am willing to wait a few months to see if he can accomplish anything positive.

Wow.

<comment><USER47> Why "Wow"? He has done one thing I like, dropping out of the "trade" deals TPP and TPIP. Who knows, he might actually do something else I like. Who knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Lots of hypocrisy here today. There are 11 million refuges from Syria all over the world currently. The US gave shelter to about 0.1%. Fucking ridiculous 0.1%. There wasn't any uproar to hear about that shaming fact in the US until now. But when Trump makes it harder to recruit some IT workers from the middle East the HN bubble starts screaming.

<comment><USER50> I think the more shocking news event has been _keeping out_ US permanent residents (i.e. Green Card holders) -- people we've legally lived here for years, own homes, have children in schools, contributed to social security, paid income taxes, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Billionaire Silicon Valley tech CEOs are NOT sympathetic characters with the general public. (Or pretty much anyone outside the VC echo chamber.) Might as well ask the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JPM to "take a stand." The only option SV has is to continue introducing bias and propaganda into their already heavily biased products.

</comment><comment><USER52> I live in Central Europe. It is really hard from my perspective to understand all that mass hysteria in US, especially in California. Maybe overdosing leftist propaganda causes that hysteria.

Many products of Silicon Valley and Hollywood companies are simply blocked in China. Mainly to protect Chinese young companies. As far I known Google is completely blocked in China. Hollywood movies are also not freely distributed in China. And for some reason it is Trump accused of acting against free trade. What should be the right reaction for Chinese protectionism? More know- how transfer to the land of democracy?

And if you really care about Muslim countries then explain to me: why the PhD brain drain is so good for these countries?

<comment><USER53> > leftist propaganda

The establishment left in the US has been a supporter of Corporate Globalization for many years. And the left in general has replaced class policy with race and gender ideology.

So you have a situation now in the US where liberal millionaires and billionaires protest against the middle and working class and call them racist, etc for voting for populist policy that protect there economic interests by reforming free trade treaties like TPP and NAFTA, immigration limits, lower taxes, repairing infrastructure and so on, (ie much of Trumps campaign platform).

The outrage is from those who have been consumed by this identity politics and the corporate globalism that sustains it. They have forgotten what economic solidarity is and there policy has little or no recognition of class. Identity and Race are placed above all else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> The time to take stand was 3 months ago. Things will get a lot worse now before they can get better and no amount of blogging is going to change that.

Trump is hell bent on destroying America from within and his followers (who we are not supposed to criticize) are A-Ok with that.

Soon to be seen in a theater near you in Europe as well.

<comment><USER55> "Trump is hell bent on destroying America from within"

No he isn't. Those kind of ridiculous hyperbolic statements don't help anything.

You may disagree with Trump's policies and platform. But "intent on destroying America" is a silly charge. And it is equally silly when (as often happens) it is leveled at the left.

<comment><USER54> I'm just looking at the evidence of the last two weeks and that's my conclusion. That he thinks he's doing something positive I'll believe but the end result is going to be a very large net-negative, the longer this goes on unchecked the worse it will get.

What you think is hyperbole is merely extrapolation from the last two weeks over a period of four years. You'll see a world order remarkably different than the present one, one in which America's role will be greatly diminished and where the American economy will be much smaller than it is today or even worse.

It's about May 1914, time is running out to get the train back on the rails before momentum will take over.

<comment><USER56> >It's about May 1914

June 28, 1914 was the day Franz was murdered. Before that day there weren't really any more danger of a war in Europe than there were the year before.

It was a wildcard and nobody predicted what would happen it could have happened 10 years before and it could have happened 10 years later. Had there been a couple decent diplomats left in Europe the war could have been avoided. Had the Moltke plan been followed maybe Germany really would have won early. Too many variables to predict.

In summary, please don't compare this to 1914, it makes no sense.

<comment><USER54> In 1914 the world was a powderkeg and Franz Ferdinand's murder was the spark that lit the fuse.

> Had there been a couple decent diplomats left in Europe the war could have > been avoided.

Cf Trumps twitter feed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Sama, I appreciate your taking a stand on this, but how do you reconcile YCombinator's ties with Peter Thiel? Actions speak loud than words, and so far we've only seen words from you guys. Be the change you want to see in the world.

<comment><USER58> Indeed, a lot of words from pg and sama, and no observable actions.

<comment><USER59> If this is a high priority for you, have you personally dissociated yourself from people who hold views similar to Thiel's? Friends? Family? Coworkers? Employees? Employers? Business partners? Customers?

Sam Altman and Paul Graham have spoken out. Sam has also posted specifically about Thiel ([http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election](http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election)). They've donated to campaigns. They've likely done other things as well. If this one issue is this important to you, indeed, actions do speak louder than words, and I'd expect you to take similar actions in your own lives.

<comment><USER58> Yes, I have. As luck would have it, I also ran for a non-partisan local public office for my neighborhood in Washington, DC, and won. I have about a gnat's worth of power, but I'm trying to use it as best I can... and I don't have representation in Congress.

What are you doing?

<comment><USER59> I'm actively trying to figure out how people can have constructive discussions with each other. The US is effectively split and I strongly believe that further isolating ourselves from one another only increases the polarization that resulted in the kind of election we had—across the board.

I'm glad to hear you're sticking to your convictions and getting involved. Unfortunately those two things alone, coupled with dissociation, can equally describe a lot of hateful groups as well. It can also lead to the "tyranny of democracy", when those in power aren't listening to those who they may disagree with yet still represent. I think all three (conviction, involvement, engagement) need to be blended for a truly fair and good end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Are there any publicly pro-Trump founders in the current YC batch and, if so, how ostracized do they feel reading things like this?

 _EDIT:_ If there's no answers from the current batch (either due to sample size or general shyness), I'll pose the same question regarding past YC alumni. I find it hard to believe out of a thousand people there isn't a single Trump supporter.

<comment><USER61> Any Trump supporters in YC are probably smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

<comment><USER62> I would hope any Trump supporters in YC have read [http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html) and taken to heart "My advice is, don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles." The Overton window of the left is surprisingly narrow given how they talk about tolerance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Easiest way to take a stand is to be logically consistent about federal power - which means be against it always and not just when the opposition party is in charge.

If 2/3 of the country can't agree that it needs to apply to the whole country then it's a state policy and not a federal one. Embrace the 10th amendment and make nullification a common act and not some rare that people scorn. It's the agree to disagree amendment. Push it's use and you can unite this country again because half the country won't be able to impose themselves on the other half every 4 years.

<comment><USER64> You want to unite the country by making divide and conquer a _stronger_ and more effective political strategy?

<comment><USER63> Nope. I want to reduce the things that can divide people. Otherwise feel free to have the same polarizing debate topics for the next 50 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Amusing how Silicon Valley leadership is now bleeding their hearts out when legal immigrants from some countries are discriminated against. This same crowd had stood by silently when many of their workers - legal immigrants from India and China - had been discriminated against for many years in the name of per-country-green-card-quotas.

How is "we chose to discriminate against Muslim majority countries" any different from "we chose to discriminate against populous countries"? Both look arbitrary to me.

</comment><comment><USER66> Donald Trump and Steve Bannon's blatant disregard for objective fact is reckless and dangerous. Go too much further and talent will begin to divest from the United States for moral reasons. Your move, America.

<comment><USER67> I'm already seeing this in Berlin. I know multiple engineers and academics who have abandoned career moves to the US because they "don't want to live in such a toxic environment."

<comment><USER68> I'm thinking about moving to Berlin, but a million of illegal economic migrants from middle east in Germany and Trump policy in the US regarding them make US much more attractive option

<comment><USER66> Are you referring to the families of refugees fleeing indiscriminate bombing and war?

<comment><USER68> Refugees are those who fleeing the war to neighbor regions or countries to get to safety. People who pay smugglers to get to rich countries because they can live better there are illegal economic migrants. It's not that we don't need to help but the fact that sponsoring anyone who claims he is a refugee is just plain wrong. Stop the war and spend resources more efficiently by helping rebuild the economy and not wasting it on a bunch of free riders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> So Trump is a racist homophobe but he also won the elections: straight and fair. At last 45% of American population is like that - if their "economic anxiety" causes them to ignore rights of LGBT people, immigrants, latinos, blacks, and other minorities, then just imagine what they will do when there is no food on the table.

I cannot blame these people: that is how it is. But we need to accept that fact: we live in a very diverse country where there are people who do not share the same moral values as SV, NY, LA, etc.

<comment><USER70> Did he win straight and fair? According to Trump there was massive voting fraud. If massive fraud against him is possible, as he asserts, then massive fraud in his favor is also possible. Perhaps we should run the election again, just to make sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I think that most Americans, even many Trump voters, disagree with this specific action. The problem we have now is that the left and the press have declared every single thing Trump has done both before and after the election as the worst thing that has ever befallen our nation. The press has left both Trump and the country tone-deaf.

Donald Trump is a man extremely concerned with his popularity and public image. If the media were to present a balanced and fair portrayal of the positive (or non-negative) things he does, he would be able to gauge how unpopular actions like this ban are and would probably listen to the message. But the press simply cannot contain itself - CNN, for example, has turned into HuffPo with a cable channel.

In short, the universally negative coverage of every breath Trump takes has actually empowered him. Trump will do some good things, such as making it less punitive for large corporations like Apple to repatriate foreign cash and invest it here, and he will do some bad things, like this temporary travel ban. The media will treat it all negatively, which gives him carte blanche to ignore all forms of criticism and defeats the entire purpose of the free press.

<comment><USER72> I'm actively looking for things to praise. If he implements an effective carbon tax like Musk hopes, I'll be on the front lines cheering him.

Oh, I just heard that the Director of National Intelligence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were removed from regular National Security Council meetings to be replaced by.. Steve Bannon.

I really, really want Trump to start doing (some) good things so that I can cheer him, but it seems like every day is a new horror.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Reading this thread, I see people saying he is implementing his campaign promises. However, going through the thread on his victory ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12909752](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12909752)), most people seemed to be of the opinion that he will implement none of his election promises (eg [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911551](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911551)). It is fascinating to see how people perceive things and how they might turn out to be. I wonder what more is in store.

</comment><comment><USER74> People like Sam Altman are alarmed now that Trump has shown he is willing to meddle in labor markets and potentially impose protectionist labor policies. As Sam says, "This is not just a Muslim ban." Indeed not!

</comment><comment><USER75> This order directly affects me.

But frankly I've lost hope in any political process. I know this is a grim message, but perhaps standing idle is exactly what needs to be done.

I fear people now vote out of frasutration, and leave it to someone else to make the right choice and cancel out their vote. Perhaps it's time for everyone to realise the full force of their voting power, and perhaps it's time to trust the powers to be. That breaking social contracts will be detrimental to The society in the long run and hope that voters will realise this.

My pessimistic two cents.

</comment><comment><USER76> > Guys, Donald Trump might be President. We need to speak out in our support > for Clinton.

Donald Trump becomes our democratically elected President.

> Guys, _now_ is the time to take a stand against Donald Trump.

No, the time was 6 months ago. You failed.

It is astounding to me how little respect Silicon Valley elites have for the democratic process. This article is another instance of the continued marginalization of the massive voter base who voted for Trump, and, if it were read by them, would do nothing but convince them that Trump was the right choice.

How about, instead of saying "Trump is really bad", we encourage those in power to work with him and find solutions to the problems he has highlighted that work across the isle? Sam is just perpetrating class and party politics with this article, and its infuriating.

</comment><comment><USER77> Balderdash and blather!

This type of empty outrage and chatter serves little purpose.

Well articulated facts and solutions along with the leverage to put them in to practice or enforce them is productive. Tabeth's comments are appropriate and on point.

Sam has clearly proven he is a bright guy, but this is nothing more than a chant for a march, or a pointless drum circle. I know it feels good, and that's not a bad thing, but a call to action should have more direction.

Disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER78> aren't the majority of Americans in favor of this ban?

[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/18/fox-news-poll- vie...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/18/fox-news-poll-views-on- trumps-proposed-ban-on-non-u-s-muslims.html)

[https://theintercept.com/2016/07/07/donald-trump-backs- off-m...](https://theintercept.com/2016/07/07/donald-trump-backs-off-muslim- ban-but-its-already-way-more-popular-than-he-is/)

<comment><USER79> Appeals to majority do not make sense when it comes to fundamental human rights; we have a Constition for a reason.

More concretely: majorities of Americans once believed that African-Americans could be someone else's property or that a trans-woman is somehow not a woman. Thus this would not be the first time large numbers of (mostly old, white and privileged) Americans placed themselves on the wrong side of history by opposing logic, facts and basic human decency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> > But the executive order from yesterday titled "Protecting the Nation From > Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States" is tantamount to a Muslim > ban and requires objection. I am obviously in favor of safety and rules, but > broad-strokes actions targeted at a specific religious group is the wrong > solution, and a first step toward a further reduction in rights.

I see this mistake a lot. "Muslim" isn't intended to target a certain religion here; it refers to citizenship status with problematic countries that happen to be predominantly Muslim. I support the "Muslim ban", but would be surprised if Trump tried to target Muslim US citizens(especially 3rd-generation US citizens, to avoid all doubt).

You might oppose the immigration controls, but it's nothing more than a rhetorical trick to say they violate religious freedom, so that you can bring up the first amendment. I don't believe the first amendment offers any protection with regards to citizenship status.

</comment><comment><USER81> Bravo to Sam Altman for focusing on a way to talk about immigration that will resonate outside Silicon Valley. The full-strength SV mindset plays very well in the 650 area code ... but it's less effective and sometimes downright counter-productive in a national context.

Here's the lead story on Breitbart today, demonizing Mark Zuckerberg for his position on immigration. [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/28/sheriff- clarke-im-...](http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/28/sheriff-clarke-im- tired-one-percenters-like-mark-zuckerberg-lecturing-us/) I'm sharing it, not because I agree with a single word of it, but because it's in the mix. To convince the current Congress (or the emerging Supreme Court) of the merits of the pro-immigration case, the argument needs to be made in a way that polarizes less and enlightens more.

</comment><comment><USER82> When did yc became a shill for Democratic party?

<comment><USER83> Why would having opinions make someone a shill?

</comment></comment><comment> duncan-donuts This isn't the tech community's responsibility. This is everyone-who- disagrees' responsibility. If the GOP doesn't. It starts with holding representative's responsible. I think you're right that big tech has a huge voice, but I can't agree with the idea that it's their job to Be the Guiding Light ™

</comment><comment><USER84> It makes me sad that politics has made its way to the top of HN. I'm relatively new here. One of the things I love about the community is that it has been something of an oasis over the past few months.

This is in no way intended to denigrate the esteemed author or his thesis. I'm just disappointed that we're at this point.

<comment><USER85> You can only afford to ignore politics for as long as it ignores you. This no longer ignores us, because it's affecting our friends, our companies, the pool of tech workers that make up the intelligence that builds Silicon Valley.

This is entirely comparable to when Jewish scientists were first getting barred from getting positions in German universities. We are now seeing the much-publicised case of an Oscar-nominated director being unable to attend to receive his prize. There are many other, less publicised cases of colleagues getting barred from working alongside us.

We can no longer ignore these politics.

<comment><USER84> I haven't been ignoring it at all. I read the news sections of the NYT almost in its entirety every day. Same with USAT and WashPost.

There's a big difference between ignoring it and wishing that wishing that I wasn't immersed in it.

<comment><USER85> I understand. It's sad and alarming that this is happening. But it's too late to wish that we could ignore it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think Sam's point about strength in numbers is really critical. The tech community sometimes has a little fear of being first that can rapidly shift into fear of being last, so I wonder what will cause a critical mass of tech leaders to take a stand. I think Sam is right that employees will have to provide some of the push, the New York Times article I read on this earlier mentioned an Iraqi Facebook employee in Seattle who can no longer go to Vancouver BC to visit his family for instance, so this effects us and our colleagues directly, not abstractly. I would suggest we all try and start bottom up pressure within our organizations to denounce the immingration ban, tech has always been pretty pro immigration (not always for noble reasons) so this shouldn't be a difficult sell.

</comment><comment><USER86> This strikes a personal chord. Shortly after 9/11, I had taken a short trip back to India. I was transitioning from a student to work visa, and got held up indefinitely by the US consulate. It was a grueling experience, but what I remember most is how my employer stood by me. They contacted our local congressman, kept me employed, and even paid me for the time I could not work (two months), at a time when they were a struggling start-up. I know I am not the only immigrant who has experienced the incredible generosity of this country. For beneficiaries like us, it is all the more important to speak up, and take actions to welcome and support the next generation that wants a shot at the American Dream.

</comment><comment><USER87> A lot of people in the comments below are fussing over whether there is a Muslim ban. Well, think about it for two seconds.

1\. This doesn't set a good precedent. 2\. Donald Trump is aiming for a Muslim ban. He said so during the elections.

He said it during the elections: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald- trum...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump- president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement- removed-a7408466.html)

At this point I'm surprised by how many people are bickering over this. Why don't you guys just say that you voted for Donald Trump? That would simplify the discussion.

</comment><comment><USER88> I hope I am not downvoted because I have a different view.

I think Trump is a show man to some degree. He has said in the past he wanted to be in Hollywood. This is important to understand what drives him.

I think what Trump is doing is a part of a show, to tell his voters he is credible. But I think his long term policies will not be this drastic even if they are. I think the tech community should work with him to do the right thing, dissenting with him is not the right way at this point in time. It is too early to decide that you are against Trump ( as a Tech community).

<comment><USER89> I do hope that he'll "soften up", but I don't see what consequences that has for now.

Especially his show-man-ship seems to make it _more_ important to show clearly that a significant portion of the public isn't ok with the policy. Some might argue that he's disregarding that side's positions anyway, but he's doing that to some degree anyway.

Also, this is the period in his government which'll shape the rest of his term. There's more freedom/influence initially (government through reconciliation is time limited, no previous deals weighing you down, key personal brought into place). So even if he "softens" later, the consequences will be smaller.

It's also not like just Trump's opinion plays a role - his current alliance of supporters has their own goals which in some cases is only tangentially aligned with Trump's.

(FWIW: I didn't downvote)

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> "Almost every member of the GOP I have spoken to knows that these actions are wrong. Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Kevin McCarthy and James Mattis said so themselves when Trump first proposed his Muslim ban"

NY Times says about Paul Ryan today [1]: "House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said it was right on target."

Which one is it?

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/trumps-immigration- ban...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/trumps-immigration-ban- disapproval-applause.html)

</comment><comment><USER91> The only thing worse than mixing religion with politics is mixing business with politics.

</comment><comment><USER20> While you're at it, Sam, you should disassociate HN from Marky Mark for building his racist wall in Hawaii. He should be building bridges, not walls.

</comment><comment><USER92> US immigration policy became broken long time ago. Why the rage only now? I'm not a US citizen and entering the US used to be a major headache every time. Every freaking time. Nobody cared during Obama's time but now all of a sudden it's "time to take a stand". I suspect it's way more about the despise of Trump than real concern about the current state of US immigration policy.

</comment><comment><USER12> Why do people call this a "Muslim ban", when most Muslims are unaffected by it? There are 200M Muslims in Indonesia who are unaffected, 180M Pakistani Muslims, 172M Indian Muslims, 150M Bangladeshi Muslims, 75M Nigerian Muslims, 75M Turkish Muslims, 73M Egyptian Muslims...all of these people are unaffected by this "Muslim ban"

<comment><USER93> OK, but they explicitly mentioned that non-Muslims from the target countries are exempt from the ban. What do you call that?

<comment><USER94> Can you provide the source please? BBC says that the minority will have a priority e.g. Shia in Yemen.

<comment><USER93> [http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody- fi...](http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-file- exclusive-president-trump-says-persecuted-christians-will-be-given-priority- as-refugees)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> Here's a link to the full text of the executive order:

Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (January 27, 2017)

[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme-V...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3431228/Extreme- Vetting-EO.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER96> I stopped reading as soon as I got to "Muslim ban". Muslims did not get banned.

A Muslim ban would mean any Muslim coming from any country is banned. Sad that this is the level of discourse and understanding these days.

I care more about correct terms than if you are for or against it. Stoking fears over something that does not exist is childish at best.

</comment><comment><USER97> Trump is not really a "Republican" and the real Republicans don't know how to handle him. What is sad is that it would only take two Republican senators taking a stand to block his legislative agenda. How more outrageous does he have to be before we get two such senators.

</comment><comment><USER98> We need to take a stand, but I encourage everyone to look at what is happening with depth. The immigration actions are terrible, misguided and anti-Anerican BUT much like abortion or taxation this is the most distracting and highlighted issue in the media.

Surely, we should stand against such a law, and I will. But let us not do so at the expense of more dangerous and less publicized attempts to curtail freedom. This will be fought on many fronts and is much bigger than immigration. We stand to have surveillance bolstered, restriction in our movements, loss of input in our governments behavior & worse. We are entering into a world war-- which is already being fought publicly; and we need to work as a country & the global community for diplomacy and freedom.

</comment><comment><USER99> Well, at least I hope this puts rest to one particularly galling argument made by some Trump supporters: "If you take Trump literally, you don't understand him."

(...Well, one can hope, can't one?)

Never vote for a politician if you can't take him literally. He might mean it literally.

</comment><comment><USER100> I question how effective this policy is going to be in stopping the actual terrorists. Just as a determined hacker will always find a way to break into your server/network, the terrorists will find a way to illegally enter.

<comment><USER101> No 9/11 or later terrorists have come to the US as refugees or from the nations targeted for specific bans, so the idea that this is about protecting against terrorists is pretty amusing.

Its almost as if it is a set of policies designed to avoid preventing terrorism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> Tech companies must use their advertising networks to influence public opinion on these issues.

Instead of ads for products/services, they should allocate space for ethical and moral issues.

Staying 'politically' neutral is no longer an option when we're dealing with issues which affect a great part of Earth's population, like climate change, globalised economy, aggression and war and so on.

Tech companies must get political - in fact, they must reinvent politics like they reinvented so many other fields.

We have to do this now or these people will slowly shut everyone down, like they did in China, Russia, Turkey, etc..

</comment><comment><USER103> I just want to say that I appreciate Sam Altman for speaking up - I know that just speaking doesn't change things, but tech/business guys are often very cautious when discussing politics, as they fear that making their political stand public may have negative consequences to their business (which might be true), but in times like these one has to take position.

So kudos, Sam, and please America don't go the route of politics that mimic politics of Europe's 1930s (sadly there are also suboptimal developments in Europe).

</comment><comment><USER104> And yet HC killed [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13506412](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13506412) earlier today.

</comment><comment><USER105> Can't wait to see what Altman writes when the voter fraud is investigated and it's over 3 million fraudulent votes.

We already know of 800,000 ([http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary- clinto...](http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton- received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/)). Detroit was apparent. The rest will come easily.

What else is Altman wrong about??

<comment><USER83> > We already know of 800,000

Well no. The article you posted, which doesn't provide any data or source to any actual study, just says some researchers EXTRAPOLATED polling data, and they themselves say it is NOT plausible for non-citizen votes to account for all of Clinton's margin.

So not only is this hardly anything to base a conclusion off of, the conclusion that is arrived at is that Clinton still won the popular vote.

Focusing on voter fraud after winning is a weird tack to take, especially when the president has a 36% approval rating, so many people would enjoy a revote.

<comment><USER105> Focusing on voter fraud is critical to sovereignty, especially with future elections coming up.

A nation needs strict voting laws or it is not a nation. Besides non-citizens voting, there were also multiple votes across county and state lines as well as dead people voting. So I'm not just blaming illegal aliens.

Ultimately, this argument is not going to go anywhere, so how about this: How much money would you like to bet, that IF there is a voter fraud investigation, there were over 2,868,520 fraudulent votes cast across the nation?

Approval ratings are far greater than 36% already BTW.

<comment><USER83> I agree that strict voting is important. I'm just waiting for evidence of widespread fraud before passing judgment.

Most recounts end up with different numbers just due to human error. This is "expected", and that should be fixed.I just read the book "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" and he mentions that there was an election in Washington State that was recounted 4 times with different outcomes each time. That's crazy. And as far as we know nothing to do with malicious intent.

> How much money would you like to bet... I wouldn't bet any money because I > have no idea. I assume there is some baseline level of fraud in most > elections. It wouldn't surprise me if there is SOME fraud, but as most of > the hullabaloo around fraud seems much more ideological than evidence based, > I have no idea what to actually expect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Those people implementing these orders need to also take responsibility for their actions. The concentration camp guards take just as much responsibility as dictators.

</comment><comment><USER107> So what will you be doing Sam?

</comment><comment><USER108> I realize this may seem alarmist, but I have to say it, nonetheless. Judging by the pace and effectiveness of policies being implemented, it seems possible that voting might not matter a few months from now. Whatever your action, it must be one of immediate consequences, however small. Call, write, donate, protest, support and spread statements such as sama's today.

</comment><comment><USER109> I strongly agree and I believe what Sam is doing is essential: People are hard wired to follow social norms, as I once heard a social scientist describe it. If we say nothing, we allow passivity or tacit acceptance of Trump to become a norm. That especially applies to leaders in every community, who have a special responsibility. Thanks Sam for making your voice heard.

</comment><comment><USER110> If this is a Muslim ban it's a weak one - the vast majority of Muslims in the world live in countries not affected by the new rules.

</comment><comment><USER111> Does this mean foreign students and foreign workers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen will have to leave America? That's really troubling. I wonder if Canada could step up and take the valuable human resource that America seems to be willing to throw away.

</comment><comment><USER58> Sama doesn't need to "remind anyone involved in this administration" about how they'll regret the actions of this administration. He simply needs to remind Congress--who can undo an executive order--and he can easily get their attention with lobbying and donations.

</comment><comment><USER112> I think as a non-US person, I think it may also be time to pay attention to executive powers in the US political system. It is one thing to have a system that will only rarely elect a nutjob but not having any safeguards once a nutjob is elected is too dangerous at a systems level.

</comment><comment><USER113> To Republican voters: I agree Hillary wasn't the greatest candidate, but there are bigger things at stake now.

You have more power than most of us here to stop this Muslim ban. Call your representatives in Congress before your party allows America to be destroyed by white nationalists.

</comment><comment><USER114> Maybe under a Trump administration Silicon Valley will also object more strongly to the NSL regime, now that it's "someone I dislike doing something I dislike", rather than "someone I like doing something I dislike."

</comment><comment><USER115> OK, so take one! Your partner is complicit in this and you still haven't done anything about it.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12926843](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12926843)

</comment><comment><USER116> Google's Pichai had sent an internal note regarding this which got leaked to the press and was covered by the WSJ. What will it take for him/others to make public, target than private, statements?

</comment><comment><USER117> Why did this disappear off the front page so quickly? It has 934 points and is 4 hours old. Do stories have a customizable weight? Did this one start at the top, like the YC recruiting posts?

<comment><USER59> It's not a YC post, so it wouldn't have started at the top. It's a submission from an HN member on a blog post by a YC member.

It's likely moved off of the front page for a couple of reasons: it's generated a heated discussion and likely tripped the "overheated discussion detector" algorithm (over 800 comments in 4 hours is quite a few), which will downweight the post. It's likely also attracted a number of HN member flags (though not enough to display the '[flagged]' tag) as there's been a lot of political discussion recently, and from what I've seen in the comments there's a lot of people who are growing exhausted of the politics on HN. The flags will also push it down the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER118> in the end only US citizens can decide. as a devotee for freedom and a world in peace i am very worried about those citizens' last decision concerning POTUS. i am not a US citizen. and i never felt the need to be one - <USER3> because i was lucky to be born in a country where in my opinion there is at least hope left for a better future.

i hope more US citizens "take a stand" like the OP and show how they want their part of the world to be like.

just my two cents - euro cents (a currency used in another union of only 28 states...)

</comment><comment><USER119> Tech can also do a lot by stopping moving everyone to California. Winning the popular votes doesn't mean much when those votes only come from states that Hilary already won.

</comment><comment><USER120> Trump needs to be focused onto social and humanitarian issues where his penchant for aggressive and disruptive change can be a benevolent force, if that's possible.

</comment><comment><USER121> Relevant: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA)

</comment><comment><USER122> The time to take a stand was a year ago, before the (albeit flawed) democratic process elected a president you now disagree with.

</comment><comment><USER123> I'm not sure if this will get any response, but figured I'd pose the question since I'm giving it serious thought.

Has anyone considered renunciating their US citizenship? Do you have practical advice on how to go about doing so and handle the ramifications?

Half my earnings going to government through taxes has been a hard to swallow fact, but funding an administration making decisions like this, just seems like something I want to be no part of.

<comment><USER124> FYI, even if you renounce, you'll need to continue paying the US gov taxes on all worldwide income for awhile (I believe 10 years).

</comment></comment><comment><USER125> I strongly encourage people who consider Donald Trump to be a threat to consider arming themselves in accordance with the 2nd Amendment. While my hope for the future does not involve needing to use them, if the situation one day comes to that, I would prefer that people who are indifferent to the actions of this administration NOT be the only ones with guns.

<comment><USER53> Make sure you also donate to the NRA and support Republican politicians who work tirelessly to protect your second amendment rights...

<comment><USER125> I generally do. We are a long way from an actual civil war. I am hoping the left is able to view the 2nd Amendment in a more positive light post-election, and hopefully moderate some of the more asinine manifestations of gun control put into place here in California.

If there is one thing about modern liberalism that boggles my mind, it is the simultaneous mistrust of police departments and the government in general, but also believing that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own semi- automatic rifles. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER126> You the people voted for him, so support him. Its a democracy. You dont always get what you want.

<comment><USER127> And in a democracy such as the US, there are certain inalienable rights to peacefully assemble and protest against perceived injustices.

Blindly supporting a president isn't what a democracy is all about. That's called a dictatorship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER128> You should boycott every company that kisses the ring: Uber, Tesla, IBM, Exxon.

</comment><comment><USER129> I have a little private wish that Facebook would identify anti-immigration comments by people who themselves are immigrants and post a big red "hypocrite" banner above their posts.

It's so infuriating how quickly people forget their own past and become entitled oppressors themselves.

</comment><comment><USER130> Yes, let us shed our puppet democracy for a corporatocracy.

</comment><comment><USER131> is there an option like "i don't really give a fuck about politics, US especially" anywhere on this site?

</comment><comment><USER132> He's not a legitimate president any more. This is illegal. Anyone enforcing these illegal orders will be considered criminal as well.

<comment><USER133> Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives him this power.

<comment><USER134> _Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to "suspend the entry" of "any class of aliens" that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.

But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be "discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence." The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers)._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps- immigratio...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration- ban-is-illegal.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER135> It would be a pretty powerful move if the big tech companies all participated in a blackout of their sites/services in protest.

</comment><comment><USER136> Maybe time to start OpenGov?

</comment><comment><USER137> perhaps we can use fake / fact based trump tweets to offset his #altfacts? it's asking a lot from the public - but it may help en masse. ~ [http://TrumpTweets.io](http://TrumpTweets.io)

</comment><comment><USER138> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place.

Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US.

Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept military age males from there for entry into the country, particularly if information about them is very sparse (which in war torn countries it typically is).

But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to this country, "it's time to take a stand". The time to take a stand was back when Obama and Clinton armed extremists in Iraq and Syria -- years before Trump.

<comment><USER139> We've been killing Muslim families in these countries for years, even under Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner.)

Like or hate Trump, I'm surprised that _now_ is the time to be outraged. It should've been ages ago.

<comment><USER140> I suspect the outrage has less to do with a rational analysis of polices and world events and more to do with virtue signaling and groupthink.

<comment><USER139> I'd respect some of these people (like SamA, and Zuckerberg, and others) much more if they were consistent in their views. These millionaires/billionaires who supported Sec. of State Clinton during her election, fully knowing the loss of Muslim life her actions caused abroad, now virtue signaling about Trump -- I just don't know how to take them seriously.

<comment><USER21> I'm glad I'm not the only person that picked up on this.

It's a little hypocritical to get outraged when the opposition does it and keep silent when your own party does the same thing.

<comment><USER141> Another way to look at it is the problem that many people rely on the news to tell them when something bad is happening. If you don't analyze your sources constantly due to a variety of reasons, then you are suspect to being rendered blind simply by omission. If you don't realize how badly the media sphere has gotten polarized since the 2000s, it is easy to dismiss valid critiques as bad faith partisan smears. Consumption of the news in a single source method is a great way now to turn yourself into a partisan.

In the age of a non stop stream of content with an unprecedented amount of choice, it can be difficult people to exert the discipline needed to consume in a method that creates a nuanced world view. People have jobs, kids, and things they'd rather do than confronting and synthesizing opposing viewpoints. It's just easier to wrap yourself in a bubble rather than change your worldview. The destruction of the era of responsible, sober journalism due to the economic realities and consumption habits of people is wreaking havoc in our political system. It doesn't help that there are inherent biases in many journalists themselves.

We've placed an increased burden on the American population to sort through a cacophony of bias to create the truth. Is it a small wonder than considering people never had to before, we're falling so short now?

<comment><USER21> _Another way to look at it is the problem that many people rely on the news to tell them when something bad is happening._

That is really true. The media doesn't report news, it interprets news for you as well.

Whenever I see an outrageous headline I always think "That sounds like BS. There is probably a pretty good reason for this happening."

A great example was the man who found a line on his hospital bill for "holding his baby". The outrage!! Those greedy hospitals!

Turns out that the hospital needed to have nurse in the room and that's just how they bill for that time. Completely innocuous and reasonable. But did the media dig that up? Of course not. No one would click on an article that said "Hospital bills man for nursing services."

<comment><USER142> It's still outrageous.

Why the nurse? Were these people out on parole/probation/bail for child abuse? No, they were not. They are adults. They can hold their own baby without supervision, and obviously do as soon as they go home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER143> Yet Peter Thiel is still a YC partner. It's nice that Sam is speaking up but he needs to display some actual backbone here. Words are not enough.

</comment><comment><USER144> How do you expect us to take Ycombinator and the tech community seriously when you have a large number of persons within the tech community organizing grassroots initiatives for the purpose of having California succeed the from United States. It's a bit hypocritical to lump the tech community into your narrative to fit your narrative of how you believe America should operate and which values it should uphold.

</comment><comment><USER145> I voted for Trump, and am very happy with the ban- I don't see the benefit of bringing in Muslim refugees.

<comment><USER146> I like to see this opposing voice here. Discussion is good. Please though, don't use a throwaway: it makes me think you're a government person or bot.

<comment><USER147> Uhhhh, bad things happen to people who publicly support trump in liberal bastions. A throwaway account is perfectly reasonable.

I cannot count the number of times I hear supposedly tolerant people yell "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences." Where the consequences is usually violence. But thats OK, because it is not the government doing the violence.

Being coy about being a Trump supporter is a necessary precaution.

<comment><USER64> That's because they are tolerant towards personal choices, not political ones. There's a big difference, and sticking them in the same bucket so you can shout 'hypocrisy' doesn't constitute a useful analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER148> This is meaningless grandstanding until:

1) YC voted Thiel off the island 2) YC establishes a policy of "take money from Thiel and you are toxic to us"

Anyone in a position of power who took a look at Trump and didn't recoil with disgust needs to be exiled from civil society.

<comment><USER149> >Anyone in a position of power who took a look at Trump and didn't recoil with disgust needs to be exiled from civil society.

I don't like Trump, but fighting him isn't worth going against the very principles we fight for.

People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we?

<comment><USER150> I'm not sure of any nominal principle that says we have to do business with, work for or to invite to things people who behave abhorrently.

That Thiel can get a table at a restaurant in SV proves all the talk about changing the world tech leaders do is so much nonsense.

<comment><USER151> It's crazy that you can't see how hypocritical you are: you ate literally saying that restaurants shouls ban thiel because he supports a person who bans people. Look in a mirror once in a while, buddy

<comment><USER152> Are you really comparing divestment to segregation?????????????

You realize the reason segregation was wrong was because it was based on someone's skin color, not the actions they've taken?

<comment><USER149> That's true.

However, people were sent to concentration camps for their actions and beliefs, and we all think that's wrong...

<comment><USER153> You are now literally reprising a joke from Season 1 of Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER149> Am I? Huh.

Also, does that invalidate my point? I mean, I don't think it does, but I figured I might as well ask...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER154> It's interesting Trump's administration has brought political threads to HN -- in fact they're becoing the most-upvoted threads

</comment><comment><USER155> You have directly caused my wife's parents to miss the birth of their first grandchild, and worse things I won't name because they would personally identify me, by electing an idiot who is terrified of fictional terrorists. You are a bad person, and I don't care whether you appreciate knowing it or not. I don't really give a shit what you think of Hillary, because she did not needlessly block my family from coming to me. Your guy did that. And he is capable of doing it because of you.

There is nothing 'mindlessly nasty' here. The central theme of the Trump campaign, and now the Trump administration, is right-wing virtue signaling with no consideration for the effects those actions would have on real actual human beings. This shitty situation is exactly what everyone said would happen if he got elected, and you elected him anyway. There is no room for interpretation here. Hillary is a straw man. You elected a man who is causing American citizens active trauma and the best I can hope for you and those like you is that one day you at least realize what you have done, and take responsibility for it, instead of this weak-kneed "well I only support SOME of his policies" apologetics.

You won. The least you can do is develop a fucking spine.

<comment><USER156> I'm disappointed I'm not a citizen and couldn't vote for Trump.

I wonder how opinion-widening it would be if a terrorist attack victim's family member came on here to respond to you. There are bigger things to consider other than minor inconveniences.

<comment><USER157> I wonder how much your opinions would be widened if you learned about the extent of terrorism during the troubles in Northern Ireland[1], and how that conflict was ended[2].

In many ways the Good Friday Agreement is incomprehensible to people outside Northern Ireland. How could they forgive the other side for what they did? Release prisoners that were know to be paramilitary murderers?

The cries of Trump supporters are not the cries of victims of terrorist violence. They are the cries of people who have never seen terrorism in their lives, never mind the kind of repeated and sustained terrorist attacks that threaten the entire fabric of a country.

If you want to respect the victims of terrorist attacks then you should let them speak for themselves and don't assume to know what their response would be.

You say there are bigger things, but it's peace and compassion that is the biggest thing of all. Tit for tat violence isn't something we should aim for, it's something we should aim to rise above.

[1] the graph here should put it into context: [https://www.statista.com/chart/4093/people-killed-by- terrori...](https://www.statista.com/chart/4093/people-killed-by-terrorist- attacks-in-western-europe-since-1970/pretty) much all the UK deaths on that graph are related to Northern Ireland, with the exception of Lockerbie in 88 and London in 05.

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER158> A good place to start for someone like Sam Altman is people in his strata, such as Peter Thiel, who notoriously donated money to Trump's campaign, and publicly endorsed him.

</comment><comment><USER159> Not interested in politics - even if it's from Sam.

Flagged.

<comment><USER59> The guidelines ask us to flag and move on without comment.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER160> Yeah, Altman is a hypocrite. Zero respect for this guy. "Let's ban certain types of speech unless it's from me, of course."

<comment><USER59> The guidelines say don't comment on flagging. It's just not constructive. You're free to express other thoughts as long as they're civil and substantive. Why is this unreasonable?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER161> You really do need to demonize Trump voters. Most of them are in favor of his horrible policies, and are malicious themselves.

You're never going to get anywhere without recognizing the source of the problem.

<comment><USER162> > You're never going to get anywhere without recognizing the source of the > problem.

So... Demonize the voters that naively thought Trump would help them more than Hillary? What comes next after they're alienated?

Pragmatically: where are we going to get with you proposed tactic?

<comment><USER161> You could actually do things to punish them, like boycott their states. Being punitive towards these criminals is perfectly valid.

Liberals have the wealth in the country that the Trump voters want. You don't have to give it to them.

<comment><USER163> If liberals want to keep the wealth for themselves and not share it, are they still liberals? Sounds like a koan.

<comment><USER161> You're right. We liberals are supposed to give our money to criminals.

<comment><USER164> And other people's money too.

<comment><USER161> Only if they're hard workers, and are sweet and innocent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER165> I hope you mean "Peacefully Protest" I shut my eyes and ears once protesting becomes violent.

<comment><USER166> I'm not saying we're there yet, but, at the risk of waking Godwin, at what point in 1930s Germany would violent protest finally be OK? We'll start at "Never," and work back from there.

<comment> grey-area The 1930s were full of violent protest - running battles on the streets between gangs of thugs on both sides (red vs Brown shirts). It helped Hitler portray himself as the law and order candidate.

Peaceful but overwhelming mass civil disobedience and protest is better. The time for that is now.

<comment><USER167> And now much of that is virtualized or amplified and concentrated in terrorist incidents - like many other things in our technological society. Why would you expect political activity to have stayed the same when everything else is changing? Just as we don't go downtown to do all our shopping any more, many conflicts are carried out in cyberspace rather than in the street. go look at the comments section on major newspapers, they are a battleground for ideological dominance. There is abundant historical evidence that such battles are only a prelude to physical conflict.

Incidentally if you think violence hasn't already erupted then you're being wilfully blind. Here's a recent example and I could point to many more and famous examples, like that of Anders Brievik and his imitators.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-neo-nazi- stabbed-20...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-neo-nazi- stabbed-20160626-snap-htmlstory.html)

<comment> grey-area I'm not saying it has not errupted (it has) I'm saying violence and the glorification if it (as in people sharing the punch a Nazi video) is a dead end and will definitely strengthen trump support.

The way to defeat him is to resist, massively, peacefully and persuasively - to persuade the nation that he is wrong, irrational and damaging everyone with insane policies like retroactive withdrawal of green card status.

<comment><USER167> I hope you're right, but I have to prepare for the very strong possibility that you're wrong and that he and his major cohort of supporters are not in fact amenable to reason and shared conceptions of fairness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> What Trumpf has done here is so far beyond the pale I think you have to look toward tinpot dictatorships to find a comparison. This is not a disagreement about tax policy, trade, healthcare, etc. Rather, this is an illegitimate, unqualified con-man who due to our anachronistic electoral system wound up as president despite the majority of Americans opposing him.

It's now clear that Trump wasn't kidding and actually intends to follow through on his promises to ethnically cleanse America of Muslims, latinos and various other scapegoats.

Therefore, the solution is extremely simple. Trump cannot continue to be President and we need every institution of our society -- our courts, congress, businesses, media, schools, etc -- to put aside petty partisan differences and unite on this point.

Now that we have full knowledge that Trump is every bit the white-supremacist fascist he campaigned as, it cannot remain socially acceptable to continue to support him.

The people who have supported him are complicit in ethnic cleansing and their beliefs are absolutely incompatible with the our core American ideals of multiculturalism, freedom-of-religion, equality and diversity.

Trump needs to be removed from power and in our personal, familial and professional lives we need to make it our mission to stamp out the hatred and intolerance which fuelled the rise of this white-supremascist cancer which we if turns out we never fully excised.

</comment><comment><USER168> Silicon Valley should let go of politics and look inward; only supporting one party leaves you without influence when the other party wins.

</comment><comment><USER169> Is targeting religious groups in refugee admittance actually a bad thing? How would this guy feel about favoring Jewish refugees in the 1930's?

<comment><USER170> Presumably you are smart enough to see the difference between those two cases, given that one group was actively fleeing state-sanctioned oppression and eventual genocide. I would hope that no one has to explain that to you.

<comment><USER169> I'm not in Syria and thus can only repeat what other people say, but I've heard that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and Shiites. The source of this information is John Kerry.

<comment><USER21> Exactly. Doesn't it make sense to prioritize those people who are under the most persecution in those countries?

<comment><USER35> .

<comment><USER171> > Of course, one plausible explanation is that Democrats don't like Christians

That's a conspiracy theory with no evidence, not a plausible explanation. Refugees can't vote for a long time. There are too few to make any substantive electoral difference.

<comment><USER169> And if they did, they'd probably lean Democrat, like Hispanics for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER172> I think that one of the main issues of politics is the lack of real time data. There should be a website where people can vote every day (I'm not sure what exactly I mean by vote, I guess the bare minimum would be "i'm content with current political situation" and "i'm not content with current political situation").

Idk if this could take off but i feel like it could become a tool for voicing discontent and seeing some of these numbers of how many other people are voting could lead to something more.

One of the fundamental instruments of dictatorships is deceiving the public about how many other people are dissatisfied with the regime. If you know for a fact that 9/10 of the population is extremely dissatisfied with the regime, you can topple these regimes.

<comment><USER173> This only works in a system where every citizen has perfect, unbiased information on what is happening in our government. Unfortunately, this is impossible, and humans are emotionally-driven creatures, so whatever memes get the most emotional traction in both traditional media and social media spread the quickest, regardless of logic or reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER174> > ... the executive order from yesterday titled "Protecting the Nation From > Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States" is tantamount to a Muslim > ban and requires objection.

But it's more than that -- it's illegal. Apart from known criminals, the government can't arbitrarily choose which groups to deny entry:

NYT Op-Ed: Trump's Immigration Ban Is Illegal: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps- immigratio...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration- ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0)</comment>


If you need a PIP at Google Meet, this could be an alternative - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gaerae/multiple-pip-changer <comment><AUTHOR> If you need a PIP, this could be an alternative. During the presentation at Google Meet, multiple participant's screens are passed to Picture-in-Picture are automatically changed.</comment>


Show HN: Pfelk, a customizable pfSense/OPNsense firewall visualization - <AUTHOR> PFELK is a pfSense/OPNsense firewall traffic visualization solution based on ELK stack. It is a highly customizable tool that let's you have extensive insight into your network traffic.
Key points:
- pfSense/OPNsense support
- openVPN support
- pfSense/Suricata/Snort dashboards with interactive Maps support (MaxMind GeoIp fields, src -> dest locations, Heatmap, etc.)
- deploy with ansible-playbook, docker or script.
https://github.com/3ilson/pfelk <comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing this really looks cool. But there are some things that make me hesitate using it:

1\. Maxmind: Since I don't know the company and it seems its only providing the geoip-database, my question is: Can it be disabled or left out at all?

2\. Java: Its my personal preference to avoid using oracle products at all cost. Is openjdk an alternative?

3\. Is the geo-graphical visualization all Pfelk can do? Is there a feature list or demo?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1: Well, it can be useful to map your src and dest ips to a map, but it can be left out, since the dashboards are fully customizable. Anyway, Maxmind GeoIP is widely used in this and other areas.

2: Yes, openjdk is supported

3: No, with this setup, you can extend the stock firewall functionality by forwarding everything to an ELK instance. You can search and visualize all of your firewall log entries with the full power of Elasticsearch.

Yes, a complete feature list and/or demo would be great, we will work on those, thank you for your feedback.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

<comment><USER2> Thank you for your reply. Is there a roadmap of what you work on?

<comment><USER3> Roadmap is currently in development...seeking feedback and inputs for future enhancements. Thanks for your input.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for making this! I would be interested in support for netflow so that it could potentially work with any capable router/firewall.

<comment><USER3> Netflow is easily supported. However, it requires another instance of Logstash. Although ntopng does a phenomenal job with this, it can be easily included. I'll add, for consideration, as a future roadmap plug-in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wonder how I'd use something like this to nail down and block the advertising in stuff like embedded apps.

<comment><USER6> Pi-hole works pretty well for that - I don't see a lot of ads in phone apps when I'm at home.

[https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is awesome. Anything like this for Ubiquiti EdgeMax gear?

<comment><USER3> Hypothetically yes and would only require adjustments. Although, I do not have any Unifi gear other than a couple of access points. I'll look into adding Unifi support in the near future.</comment></comment>