Stop using app icons for political activism

https://blog.efitz.net/blog/icon-activism/

by efitz • 4 years ago

133 217 4 years ago

blog.efitz.net

rbanffy10• 4 years ago

How about no?

If it's my app, I'll use my logo. I consider the logo an integral part of the application's identity and I should control its identity. I promise I'll do my best to make it easily and readily recognizable, regardless of it using national colors, a rainbow or shades of white, pink and blue. If you don't like it, it's your problem, not mine.

canadianwriter• 4 years ago

Yup - private companies/app makers can do as they please. You consented to them doing as they wish.

The choice is simple, if you don't like it, just stop using the app. There are probably tons of alternatives.

vogt• 4 years ago

Sure, so let’s just not give feedback on apps ever again, because the same big companies we demonize at every turn for being advantageous capitalists can do whatever they want - courtesy of ToC and other such legalese. Pack it in, folks!

masswerk3• 4 years ago

private companies/app makers can do as they please. You consented to them doing as they wish

However, there is a license, and this goes both ways.

Or would you consent to the statement, "Yup, users are private individuals and can pirate software as they please. The developer has consented to this by publishing the software."?

bavell• 4 years ago

We here at Union Busting Inc. approve this message. Pound sand! ;P

mwint3• 4 years ago

The part about it not being your problem is fantasy. When the author of this article leaves a bad review, it becomes your problem.

You are unlikely to be able to pursue the author and force them to remove their review, so your choices are to not change the icon, or change the icon and accept the bad review. That’s certainly your problem.

idealmedtech• 4 years ago

And here we see that even this discussion is political; a summary rejection of the premise of the article! At the end of the day, we're all people, and a lot of what we are boils down to politics. You can't exist outside of it.

jansan2• 4 years ago

If you don't like it, it's your problem, not mine.

I may be old fashined, but I remember it being considered a problem for the seller if a potential customer does not like offered product.

culpable_pickle2• 4 years ago

So your saying everyone should be able to demand a custom app icon that fits their design preferences, presumably for free?

spacemanmatt3• 4 years ago

Sometimes the customer is wrong, and it is worth more to avoid them.

rbanffy10• 4 years ago

And this is why having a lot of low-margin, low-touch customers is better than a few high-margin, high-touch ones.

It should always be OK to fire your customers.

rhn_mk13• 4 years ago

The app might be "yours", but once you gave it to another person to install it on their phone, you should not abuse their hospitality. You don't rerrange furniture in a home you're visiting if you have good manners.

rbanffy10• 4 years ago

Then don't update the app.

yessirwhatever5• 4 years ago

What’s the activism angle exactly for? Do you think people on the fence about some issue will be swayed one way or the other?

kube-system2• 4 years ago

It doesn't need to change anyone's mind. A simple acknowledgement is reason enough. Not unlike other holidays.

rbanffy10• 4 years ago

As someone said much better than I ever could, I don't want to impose my values upon others, but I want to show others who have the same values I do they are not alone.

ThrowawayR2• 4 years ago

It's political advertising and, like many, I don't want any ads in my apps. Normalizing political ads in apps is a two edged sword because, even if yours are righteous, there are plenty of unsavory political movements I don't want to see ads for and they would be just as "justified" as yours because they too sincerely believe their cause is righteous (even though we would disagree).

rbanffy10• 4 years ago

I'm completely fine with your right to dump those unsavory apps. If enough of us do, they may chose to, at least, hide to wherever they came out from.

spacemanmatt3• 4 years ago

How about no?

Ok, I'll take it. It's your app. I rather not wear the clown shoes when it comes to understanding property and expression rights, but also etiquette in app/business spaces.

Ajedi32• 4 years ago

If it's my app

Not picking on you specifically, because this attitude is extremely common among software developers these days, but I think this mentality of treating software running on users' machines as "yours" rather than "theirs" is at the core of a lot of problems with the modern software industry.

Software should serve the interests of its users, not its developers. The advent of ubiquitous internet connectivity, automatic updates, and business models based around selling ads rather than selling software have changed this dynamic somewhat and I think that's really unfortunate.

rbanffy10• 4 years ago

Software should serve the interests of its users, not its developers.

It is my belief the software is serving the betterment of society if it offends the people who don't approve my activism ;-)

More important than serving the individual users is serving society as a whole.

voussoir• 4 years ago

automatic updates

This is one of the most important points of the conversation. The other most important point would be the difficulty / impossibility of reverting to an older version of the application on mobile systems. When you put them together you get users powerless on their own devices, stuck in a needless dilemma between keeping the application in its new, worsened state, or throwing away the whole thing.

On my PC I download "portable" / .zip releases of software whenever possible, and I keep every single package. If a program has an update with a regression, I can just choose to not use it, or run it side-by-side with the older version.

On Android, F-Droid serves the last couple APKs for each app, and I download these to my PC also. However, Android makes side-by-side installation difficult unless you recompile the app with a different package ID. If it's a closed-source app from the Play Store, you're screwed. I would not be surprised if it's impossible on iphone.

So, I disable auto updates, and I ignore the boy who cries "important security fixes". Better luck next time.

vineyardmike3• 4 years ago

Software should serve the interests of its users, not its developers.

The history of “rainbow washing” in corporate marketing material served the original purpose of saying “you’re welcome here”. There are many stores/places that choose to not serve queer people.

Publicly sharing that you will allow queer people to use your product is serving the interest of those users, but perhaps not the interest of every user. But the remaining users thankfully never had to question if they’d be served by that business, so there’s no need to signal anything to them.

npteljes• 4 years ago

Yeah, software turned into service. Especially when speaking of apps, they are much more like a service, as opposed to a traditional good that you can own.

lupire• 4 years ago

If you do that you a paid customer, you are perpetuating a bait and switch fraud.

If you are doing that in a free app, OK, but you are going to get bad reviews from the users you vandalized, and might be violating the advertising/spam rules of the platform your are distributing on.

Banana6996• 4 years ago

Good. I love it when true believers show their true colors.

When your fashionable beliefs fall out of fashion, it will be your problem soon enough. Just don't cry about oppression then.

xisukar3• 4 years ago

When your fashionable beliefs fall out of fashion, it will be your problem soon enough. Just don't cry about oppression then.

The righteousness of these individuals make them blind to the fact the pendulum swings back and forth.

cato_the_elder5• 4 years ago

How about no? If it's my app, I'll use my logo.

Sure, but then I'll make sure that I won't use your apps if I can.

And we have the right to complain about these things as much as we want. It's your PR problem, not ours.

xisukar3• 4 years ago

If it's my app, I'll use my logo.

You might own the app's code but if the user paid for the app, they're entitled to not wanting their screen to become some billboard to The Current Thing™. Buy a few billboards and airtime if you feel you should shove your political beliefs and opinions down everyone's throat. With this behavior, you're the representation of everything wrong with corporate political activism and the tech industry at large: You're the app's developer, and for some reason you think you know more than the user.

masswerk3• 4 years ago

You're free to modify the logo on your corporate office, but the app logo is part of the license deal or purchase. On the home screen, it's not exclusively yours anymore, specifically, when it comes to posting message via this logo that are not covered by that license.

(We may think of exceptions where an app is specifically about posting such messages, like an iconographic motd, but this is not what's here addressed.)

randyrand5• 4 years ago

It is their app actually. You gave it to them, remember?

throwaway675309• 4 years ago

You're not thinking things through which is sadly pretty typical of most people.

Let's create a scenario where the changing of an icon which is visible on your phone to anyone around you might actually present a danger in a certain country.

What if your app changed to have a gay pride flag and one of your users lived in an extremely homophobic country where any signs of support of homosexuality could actually result in fines or even jail time?

The poor user (Who may or may not agree with your ideology) who has been using your app for months has no idea that your icon is literally going to change without their knowledge or approval.

But you didn't think of this scenario, did you?

Ekaros• 4 years ago

Yeah, it is your logo. But I also reasonably expect you not to change it every update.

imwillofficial6• 4 years ago

100% agree with this article.

Not only is it “thoughts and prayers” or Facebook filter tier support,

Not only is it a usability and accessibility disaster,

It also breaks trust between user and developer.

My device is not the appropriate place for your activism.

RC_ITR5• 4 years ago

Pretty funny that this is getting so much traction on the (recognized) Juneteenth holiday during Pride month.

Tell us how you really feel…

imwillofficial6• 4 years ago

So people should hold back their opinions during specific celebrations or they are homophonic?

That is… an insane stretch to say the least.

RC_ITR5• 4 years ago

No, I'm just saying that if it was a rainbow or Juneteenth flag that made you mad, then say that. Don't over-generalize, tell us how you really feel.

I'm being earnest.

hourago2• 4 years ago

That is called to have a "hidden agenda".

Nowadays, articles get a lot of criticism for having "an agenda". That has never been a bad thing, everybody one way or another has an agenda. Nothing wrong with that.

But in that noise it has been lost the idea that "hidden agendas" are bad. Someone pushes for an idea, but in reality they are pushing for some effect that has nothing to do with that original idea.

"Hidden agendas" are bad because make dialog, understanding and getting to agreements difficult if not impossible.

yessirwhatever5• 4 years ago

What the hell is a Juneteenth?

parrellel2• 4 years ago

It's African American's name for the day slavery effectively ended and as of last year(?) a federal holiday.

SllX• 4 years ago

An app that did this wouldn’t stick around for very long on my phone either, but which apps are actually doing this?

marcodiego3• 4 years ago

In a certain way, Free Software is political activism. Disagree with something? Fork it. Not using FLOSS? Contribute to one by using, coding, donating money or trying to make it more popular. Can't or don't want to do that? How about stop complaining?

thereddaikon3• 4 years ago

That's not viable when Apple prevents you from installing arbitrary software on their devices. You can just say use Android but that is also fraught with compromises as well.

marcodiego3• 4 years ago

One more reason to support linux phones. And yes, I know how inconvenient they can be compared to other models, but people should make the effort or else we will always live with these kinds of problems.

kube-system2• 4 years ago

Well yes, if you choose not to use free software, then you don’t get the benefits of free software.

mikkergp4• 4 years ago

It is ironic that software development has been one of the most politically active activities in existence, and yet somehow imagined as apolitical.

Kye4• 4 years ago

Then you try and fork it, and people get mad about that too and accuse you of splitting the community over a difference they didn't consider important and didn't take seriously and dismissed when it was brought up for decades before the fork happened.

wly_cdgr• 4 years ago

Yeah, strong agree

hourago2• 4 years ago

As part of that bargain, you have to identify your app visually so I can find it.

If the problem is that apps change logos then that should be criticized, not activism. If the problem is with political causes that should be the focus, not interface. To mix both seems an excuse to legitimate one criticism using the other.

imwillofficial6• 4 years ago

It’s a bit of both.

Also critiquing activism is completely valid.

Passionately held belief is not somehow above reproach at all times

jp57• 4 years ago

Anyone got examples? What are we talking about here? Rainbow flags? Ukrainian flags? BLM colors? The GNU logo?

proxyon3• 4 years ago

CleanMyMac put a Ukrainian flag in my toolbar and I promptly uninstalled CleanMyMac and cancelled my subscription. I was already using AppCleaner (OSS?) for most uninstalls anyways.

Cenk• 4 years ago

For context, CleanMyMac is based in Kyiv

tobbob• 4 years ago

It's obviously rainbow flags etc.

randyrand5• 4 years ago

I believe it’s all of them.

Etheryte• 4 years ago

I'm always confused by statements like these. You can see similar dynamics playing out on artists' social media feeds for example, where people are upset when the artist talks about politics instead of their craft. Artists, developers, and everyone else is at the end of the day still a human being, not a machine that's there only to produce the content you want to consume. Getting a useful app for free (!) and then getting upset over what color its icon is or whatnot seems absurdly entitled.

proxyon3• 4 years ago

It's not entitled to say we own our own computers and don't want your political advertising on them.

darklion• 4 years ago

The reality is that while you own your computer, you generally don't own the proprietary software on it, you _license_ it. That license entitles you to remarkably little beyond using the software as the software vendor permits.

jansan2• 4 years ago

Art and politics have always been intervened, and there are many political artists (like Bono, Sting, etc) that made it their gimmick to raise their voice on every political subject that triggers them. That is ok, people got used to it and it has become part of their personality.

But if a defragmentation tool suddently rubs some "Free Tibet" activism into your face by changing their app logo and prompting a message, one can rightfully wonder what the developer is trying to achieve aside from alienating part of the userbase.

jsnell• 4 years ago

It's not the same. Icons are partly a functional component, rather than being purely aesthetic. If I just can't find the app I'm looking for due to there being something wrong with the icon, I certainly get annoyed.

For people who identify things primarily by color rather than shape, I can totally see a temporary palette swap causing that. Others might go mostly by the shape, and care less. (I'm one of those people, though the way Google's apps changed colors three years ago was an exception: they basically ended up applying the principles of camouflage to break the shapes in a way that completely destroyed my ability to distinguish them at a glance.)

And then there are people who just go by spatial location, or by the text, and couldn't tell you the first thing about the icon itself. I assume those people would instead be driven up the walls if the icons were re-arranged automatically by app popularity, or if apps were constantly being renamed.

Getting a useful app for free (!)

The author did say these were "likely" apps they had paid for.

barrysteve5• 4 years ago

It's not for free if you're being sold a political ad. No such thing as a free political lunch for developers.

al_borland• 4 years ago

Just because a person has political views doesn’t mean they need to push them out to every medium possible.

When I’m at work I expect people to mostly talk about work, not divide the office by broadcasting controversial political views via their avatar and posting hot takes in their status messages.

With developers I expect the apps to solve some problem I have. That’s it. I know a person, or team of people, wrote it but their politics are completely irrelevant to their ability to solve my problem via and app. I also don’t need to know about their family, hobbies, religion, or dreams.

rhn_mk13• 4 years ago

Just another symptom of the users not truly having control over "their" devices.

If you don't like the logo, swap it the application files. Oh wait, sources are unavailable? If you want your phone to serve you, guess you better jump on the FLOSS bandwagon.

thereddaikon3• 4 years ago

I hate it when apps change long used icons for any reason. Make its hard to find the app. I'm still annoyed about Google changing the icons for all of their android suite a few revisions ago.

If you have to virtue signal, there are better ways to do it than changing the icon.

tonymet2• 4 years ago

in general i would prefer to keep the political activism outside of our tools. It’s a distraction and comes off as inauthentic bandwagoning . I use adblock to block any politicking I see on software so i can get work done

yessirwhatever5• 4 years ago

@dang: this shouldn’t be flagged.

daenz• 4 years ago

I have been part of a dance/art community in a past life. There's a prevailing belief that "the personal is political"[0], which basically manifests as all things (art/products/etc) being unambiguously imbued with your politics, because politics doesn't end at the public sphere.

This idea became mainstream at some point, and the result is that we must now signal what team we're on in everything we create. Abstaining from this signaling just means you're either ignorant of the causes (best assumption) or you're on the other team (worst assumption).

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_personal_is_political

snowwrestler2• 4 years ago

Politicizing the person is something that happens to some people against their will.

For example people don’t choose to be gay, it just happens like being tall or having blue eyes. But in Florida there is a law now saying teachers can’t talk about gay people in school. Totally still fine to talk about tall people, though.

This is why “Pride Month” is a big deal but tall people month is not. Gay people didn’t choose to become “political.” But since they are subjected to that scrutiny, they of course want to stand up for themselves, and other people who value equality under the law want to stand up with them.

xisukar3• 4 years ago

But in Florida there is a law now saying teachers can’t talk about gay people in school.

If only you weren't misrepresenting the Parental Rights in Education bill[1] you'd have a point. There's no reason why a teacher needs to discuss sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. with kindergartens, be that heterosexual or homosexual. That's a private matter that has no place in a classroom, less so in primary grade levels.

[1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1834

Banana6996• 4 years ago

Is there no limit to the amount of "Standing up" or rules about when and with whom you do it? Because it seems to me that if some people reject your existence, and in response you politicise your whole existence and become an insufferable walking-talking political billboard constantly shouting the same things regardless of context or consent of the people you're shouting at, seems to me like that's walking right into their trap?

I can say, speaking from experience, that insufferable political advertising has the effect of making people who had no objection to your existence previously gradually start despising you.

Isn't the best revenge, as always, to live well and normal? Maybe save your moral grandstanding to the next one who says your existence is a sin, and not the user who wants to get shit done?

dmkirwan• 4 years ago

The main question I have after reading this is: what 'bargain' is the author referring to? Apps change their logos all of the time, as is their right. The timing of this post is coincident with pride month, and many companies changing altering their logo to use the pride colors. I disagree with the suggestion that changing the color(s) of the logos and icons hinder the user's ability to find the app. A rainbow version of Dropbox's icon isn't going to make it any harder for me to find the Dropbox app and it might just make under-represented groups feel more seen.

I think the more general topic of brands taking political stances is worthy of debate, for sure. I tend to think it's fine. If I agree, great. If I don't, then I can choose spend my money at a company whose values align better with mine.

pickovven• 4 years ago

When someone complains about politics infiltrating a space but is unwilling to name the specific politics, suggesting it's a general principle, they very likely have a problem with the specific politics. They see social costs in voicing that opinion, so they generalize it to some principle.

Hard to imagine a minor annoyance of logo design would otherwise justify a public post. Living in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society doesn't mean excluding politics from the public sphere. It means tolerating politics in the public sphere, especially if you're ambivalent or even a little annoyed by those politics.

In this example, if it's pride symbols or the Ukrainian flag, or something else -- those will stop being political once the rights are so normalized and obvious, they no longer elicit reactions like this.

randyrand5• 4 years ago

I think it’s actually possible to be against virtue signaling in and of itself.

Changing your profile picture to “support” some cause has been ridiculed for years. Starving children don’t care what color your profile picture is, and it’s hypocritical to say you're a supporter when changing your profile picture is the most you’re actually willing to do, even if you have the means to give a dollar, or 5 minutes of your time, you choose not to. It’s hypocritical, and pretty selfish imo.

Or the idea that we all need to public state our beliefs at all times and ideologically walk around with flags on our forehead of every cause we are for. App Icons are in support of the idea that we all need to public state our beliefs at all times. There’s been growing backlash against that. I think people find it annoying anti social behavior.

Anti Virtue signaling as a topic has been growing tremendously over the past 10 years.

sn92• 4 years ago

Do you really think the reaction would be the same if instead they kept the neutral icon but donated a percentage of app fees to charities directly supporting the cause?

I genuinely think more people would be fine with that for the sorts of causes that come to mind.

I think people respect action but find virtue signalling without action annoying.

mikkergp4• 4 years ago

I disagree with the suggestion that changing the color(s) of the logos and icons hinder the user's ability to find the app.

I actually disagree. There are lots of inputs my brain is using other than the specific logo when I'm quickly moving through my phone looking for a specific app, and this could totally throw me off. Often times I think to save energy my brain looks for a "low-rez" abstraction of what I'm looking for rather than one that is in full detail. That being said, with everyone requiring an app these days my phone is so overloaded I just search for everything.

Granted, I don't thing the original posters concerns have as much to do with accessibility, and if it takes me a little longer to find an app, so be it.

hulitu• 4 years ago

All icons rainbows. Now .

drewbug0121• 4 years ago

What is left unsaid often speaks volumes.

otachack• 4 years ago

You can consider not using the product? If you can't stomach a temporary icon change, which I'm guessing has to do with either Pride or Juneteenth, then I'm sure the app organization and society wouldn't mind you finding an alternative.

The latter has become a federal holiday so it's not exactly activism IMO to show alliance with that.

ohCh6zos• 4 years ago

Activism may be the wrong word when something is dictated from the top down, but it seems similar enough in all but origination.

borplk• 4 years ago

Apart from the points that the author makes I dislike the disproportionate political activisim because it's just plain cringe and arrogant.

When it comes from a multi billion dollar giant it's still annoying but more understandable that a giant organisation with thousands of people will have a lot going in it.

But when a dude behind a $2.95 "NFT chat bot for your grandma's crypto portfolio" app wants to do it, it's something else.

They need to find another avenue to express their political ideas rather than letting it bleed into an unrelated product.

There's something to be said about having some tact and knowing your place and where you stand. If you ship a little flashlight app on Android understand that you don't have that kind of room to attach political commentary and activisim next to it. The best thing you can do is to just be the little reliable unchanging app on someone's phone and not try to over reach.

spacemanmatt3• 4 years ago

Net/net: -1, poor couching of an old gripe I share.

I miss ResEdit and the option of using a quasi-developer utility to swap out icons and other assets from the "resource fork" of any Mac app. As a consumer, I loved how everything was externalized in a common format.

RicoElectrico• 4 years ago

Now that so many big corps change their logo colors to rainbow in July, I think it's no longer a strong statement. Not that it really was one, if certain locales were excluded from it. I guess ceasing business with countries which don't follow human rights requires too much courage.

mikkergp4• 4 years ago

Given that the GOP in Texas made the declaration that “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice” part of their platform, It’s probably nice for people to know which companies are at least not echoing that, even if it’s not full throated support. I doubt chik fila is changing their logo for instance

sumthinprofound• 4 years ago

I've always set custom icons using a consistent theme in my android phone's app launcher for years.

AlphaWeaver• 4 years ago

Something I don't see mentioned in this thread- on Android you can load custom icon packs. I standardize my icons (a solid color, outlined, version of the app logo) across all my apps, so I don't experience it when developers change their app icons.

Using a free(er) platform like Android (compared to iOS) affords me this opportunity for customization.

drewbug0121• 4 years ago

The author didn’t bother to state which political statements they were upset about; neither did they bother to say something like “all of them,” which would have been trivial. So we are left to guess which political activism they find annoying.

Given the timing, there’s a very good chance that it’s related to Pride month here in the US. It seems even more probable when you consider the context: very few companies change their logos for Juneteenth (the other contender), but many companies slap a rainbow on it for Pride.

So: odds are, the author is upset about having LGBTQ “activism” pushed on their devices.

I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.”

_-david-_2• 4 years ago

There is a few issues.

Nobody (at least in the West) are denying LGBT people exist. Companies who put the flag up are just virtue signalling.

If the app icon was changed for a single day for Juneteenth would you sympathize with the OP?

The OP was not complaining about the actual political issue. He was complaining about changing the app icon to push their politics. The OP just wants to be able to easily find the app: "As part of that bargain, you have to identify your app visually so I can find it" and doesn't want the app author's politics on his home screen: "I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line. My device screen is not an appropriate place for your political statements. So cut that shit out"

Let me ask you a question. Would you still be making the same points if the political activism was putting a Russian flag as the app icon? Maybe they feel like there is a dehumanizing effort against Russians since Russians are being called orcs by Ukrainians. Based on your logic that would not be political since a vauge assertion that Russians exist is not political.

lamontcg• 4 years ago

I thought it was pretty clear that the author objected to it on principle.

I think I do as well, I don't really want all the icons on my phone changing colors and shapes every other day since that is just bad UX when I'm hunting for the right button.

And when it comes to politics I don't want anyone else's politics pushed into my personal life when I don't expect to encounter it, even if I agree with it. It is particularly difficult these days to donate to any worthy cause because you know that it is interpreted as an invitation to harassment and you'll get put onto lists that get sold and get bombarded with mail, e-mail and door-to-door solicitation.

I've practically had to throw people off my property -- for causes that I agree with and donate to similar organizations -- because they're just being rude about my personal space.

If you show up on my porch waving a pride flag I'm going to be very irritated and ask you to leave. And you might want to be careful about asserting that anyone who doesn't like having a pride flag pushed in their face is automatically homophobic/transphobic. There are those of us who are non-neurotypical who find all the demands on our attention by society, in total, just fucking exhausting, and you might want to keep in mind concepts like consent and privacy.

drewbug0121• 4 years ago

I thought it was pretty clear that the author objected to it on principle.

It isn’t clear whatsoever. It would have been trivial to mention the other, far more common reasons why app icons change and make a fairly politically-neutral argument. However, they did not choose to do so.

In fact, they never even go so far as to say “and these political statements hinder my ability to recognize things visually.” But politics, well - they brought up the concept no less than 4 times in the brief post.

What they did was leave it open for you to read your own perspectives into it.

And you might want to be careful about asserting that anyone who doesn't like having a pride flag pushed in their face is automatically homophobic/transphobic.

I have taken great pains to avoid this very assertion. What I did assert was this: “it’s likely related to Pride month, and the author considers LGBTQ identities political.”

If you believe that “considering LGBTQ identities to be political” is a synonym for “homophobia”, you are welcome to that connection. It’s not unreasonable.

But again: my point is that my existence is indeed political. Whether the author supports my community or not isn’t the point I’m making, at all.

onionisafruit• 4 years ago

It could also be Ukraine. There have been a lot of blue and yellow logos lately.

drewbug0121• 4 years ago

This is definitely true. I considered that it could be Ukraine, but ultimately it seemed less likely. Most of the Ukraine-related logo changes I personally saw were done earlier on in the war, and most of what I see right now is Pride-related. I probably could have mentioned this possibility in the comment, as well.

That said, the author didn’t tell us; so we’re left to guess.

masswerk3• 4 years ago

That's also what I thought.

cato_the_elder5• 4 years ago

So: odds are, the author is upset about having LGBTQ “activism” pushed on their devices.

Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right? Someone here literally threatened that they "actively" won't hire me for commenting on this post :-)

Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist

It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support.

is what some folks consider “political.”

Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous.

drewbug0121• 4 years ago

Your guess is probably correct. We all know why they aren't being explicit about it, right?

Of course: there is significant risk to saying hateful and bigoted things outright, so folks resort to dog-whistling.

It's not vague at all, it's literally a flag. And it's not an acknowledgment of existence of some group. The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity, which many people naturally support.

I disagree, completely. The most “charitable” interpretation is that it’s a vague, non-committal statement of support. The interpretation you mention is far more specific and - when phrased the way you did - antagonistic interpretation of things.

Of course it is political, pretending it isn't is disingenuous.

Of course it is. We agree on that point. What we likely do not agree on is why: it is only political to me because other people choose to make it so. If folks just … let LGBTQ people exist, with full equality, there would be precious little political about it at all.

gumby2• 4 years ago

The most charitable interpretation is that it's a protest against heteronormativity

Protest? Come on. The most charitable interpretation is that the person making such a statement merely think non hetero people deserve the same rights as anyone else. Which is quite different from taking a position against something.

tonymet2• 4 years ago

It could have just been a coincidence. every month has a movement of the month nowadays.

Also, you can have too much of a good thing. Doesn't mean said thing is bad.

porknubbins• 4 years ago

The OP may well be opposed to the rainbow flag or not. The fact that they are not allowed to make a facially neutral “no politics on my home screen” statement without HN speculating about some political leaning seems to me to be a pretty clear example of how some progressive movements are encroaching on what used to be neutral space.

wdb• 4 years ago

I thought it was related to the War in Ukraine

UkrainianJew5• 4 years ago

I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.”

There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified.

Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month, emphasizing the importance of teaching your boys self-reliance, emotional control, delayed gratification. Or housewives' month, praising women that sacrifice careers and spend countless time teaching their kids important skills that will help them achieve independence and success in life.

But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important, but one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner.

So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives. We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday, we instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests. Because, you know, having common goals brings people together. And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.

avocadvocate2• 4 years ago

Hmm, I don't think any governments are actively legislating to make it illegal to be (or acknowledge the existence of) fathers or housewives.

drewbug0121• 4 years ago

mandatory acknowledgments

Who mandates that?

shielded from a lot of criticism

By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. They seem free enough to criticize to me?

while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified

Each side mocks the other; so it seems to be a moot point to me.

Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month
Or housewives' month
But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important

The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important?

one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner.

The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference?

So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives.

I would disagree. My experience has been that “politics-free” spaces in fact allow the dominant politics to be expressed, while silencing other groups.

And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.

You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical. It uses the gravitas of a “right” to make a point but then immediately admits that the point was false all along.

So let’s drop the nonsense about “special rights” - this is about acknowledgement, or “tokenism”.

solardev• 4 years ago

I dunno... as a straight hetero man, Pride has had pretty much zero impact on me. A bunch of gay people walk by in costumes and flags, and businesses add rainbows to everything. What's the big deal?

But for people who are LGBTQ, it is an expression not just of pride but also sheer survival and resilience, something that wasn't guaranteed even in recent history (and still isn't, in many places).

I think it's easier to think of something as "political" when it's different from one's own norms, because the status quo is often invisible. And most of these minority groups don't seek to convert the status quo, only to find space for them to be themselves. There's a difference between evangelism and asking for tolerance, between asking for respect and reversing the oppression.

There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified.

Isn't that just how culture works? It's not some baked-in static thing that we figure out once and then never have to discuss again.

As to why certain topics get more positive coverage than others, well, probably it's just cultural norms trying to change, but seeing friction when it meets the status quo. Change is hard on a lot of people, institutions, cultures, and religions -- and that conflict is therefore newsworthy (and inflammatory and gets all the hits on social media, sigh).

The things that are changing get more coverage because they are actually newsworthy -- they are novel. "How to raise your kids" is a very important topic, but it's not exactly newsworthy because it's not new. It's been around for hundreds of thousands of years. You're still welcome to raise your family in a heterosexual nuclear way if you'd like, but it's relatively new for LGBTQ couples to be able to openly adopt (or otherwise have children), or even to work and marry and walk around in the open. Likewise, "How to be a housewife" is also a very important topic (and a difficult job!). And frankly it would be great if we celebrated both kids and moms more, and gave kids enough schooling and shelter and care and love to be able to grow and thrive as kids, and paid the working class enough such that single-earner households become viable again. For what it's worth, all those same concerns apply to gay parents raising kids too, but it would be considered "ideological" or "political" to discuss that in some circles.

And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.

So... like giving health benefits to one's heterosexual spouse, before gay marriage was legal?

Or... having people take free, undocumented PTO for a personal errand, but only if they have kids to pick up?

Or... paying and promoting white hetero men more?

Or... having reproductive health covered by your health plan?

Or... having Christmas as a mandatory paid holiday and refusing to cover other religious days?

There is so much in the workplace that is already discriminatory to many people. The difference is that the status quo has the power to just invisibly normalize these things and so we don't really have to think about it day to day, but the underdogs have to use "political" messaging or advocacy just to try to reach parity with the status quo majority.

Is something only toxic and tension-causing if it's different from the status quo? What if the status quo IS the problem for some? The "non-monetary tokenism" usually applies to some historically oppressed group for whom "leave politics out of _______" has resulted in actual harm, monetary or worse, upon their lives.

We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday

That is only the case when your workplace is either homogenous enough (which works well), or else invisibly oppressive (which doesn't work well), or else is diverse but also well paid enough that people choose to look the other way (which also works well, but is rare). In practice the second is the most common, I think, where you don't really talk about it but there's this permanent underclass who's just otherized and neglected. The cultural movements we're seeing now are because many of them have had enough and feel the need to speak up rather than to continue being marginalized. And frankly that goes both ways: all across the ideological spectrum, people are culturally dissatisfied with the status quo, each other, their employer, their government, etc. Our companies are ultimately just reflections of the individuals who own and staff them, and they don't exist in some cultureless vacuum...

If your workplace really hasn't had any discussions about any of this stuff, um... maybe it should? It's an inevitability that it's going to affect the employees/customers/stakeholders in one way or another. And if you don't address it, it's just going to blow up on its own when the pressure builds enough. I think cultural schisms are like earthquakes: you can have many small ones that are easy to address as they come up, or you can let the pressure build and build and build until it explodes catastrophically.

We instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests.

People are part of the work too. Whether it's taking a new hire out to lunch, or celebrating someone's baby shower, or not offending someone with a gift of the wrong religion, or letting a dad pick up his kids from school, or treating someone's same-sex partner with the same respect you would anyone else at a +1 event. How could you expect to work well with people if you can't even show them basic human dignity and respect? "Shut up and go refactor that test" is pretty awful, no matter their sexual orientation or political ideology. IMO we're people first and employees second, and if your workplace can't even acknowledge that basic tenet of the relationship... eh... :shrug:

spencerchubb• 4 years ago

Why are you assuming it's about a specific issue? The author made it pretty clear it's about the principle and not a specific issue.

From the author: "I might actually agree with your political cause, but you crossed a line."

drewbug0121• 4 years ago

Honestly? I’ve lived long enough and heard this rhetoric so many, many times before.

It would have been utterly trivial to make clear that it wasn’t about a specific issue. Instead, it was only implied.

Serenacula• 4 years ago

Okay, but aesthetic design is important. I am very much a part of pride, but I hate having my phone's homescreen totally redesigned at the whim of some dev somewhere. It highlights an already uncomfortable lack of control.

People have the right to make aesthetic choices about the things in their life. I would be pissed if someone came into my house and painted my walls without my permission. Even if I agree with the cause, it's my choice to make.

ankushnarula2• 4 years ago

The fact that you’re speculating about what the author may or may not believe rather than contemplating what he is saying IS the problem.

drewbug0121• 4 years ago

There is more to communication than the words said. Context matters - including place and time.

What isn’t said is also important, and “editing” is arguably the hardest part of writing. “Negative space” in art is a powerful tool that one can wield, and I think it’s just as applicable to writing as it is to visual media.

Georgelemental• 4 years ago

"You know, it would be nice if I could get something from the store that didn't have ' WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE ! ' engraved on it in huge lettering."

"Wow, you must think working people don't have a right to exist" "I bet you support serfdom and slavery" "How could you say such a thing on May Day?"

trentthethief• 4 years ago

I will likely be downvoted but I agree with the author. Not only for app icons but anywhere.

For example, if I am searching a programming language documentation site I do not need to see a political banner.

There is a time and place for political discussion and expression. It is not on my phone screen or sites meant to get things done.

Nextgrid• 4 years ago

What I hate about this behaviour is that it’s pure virtue-signalling and surprisingly it’s always done by the most disgusting & morally-bankrupt companies ever, the same ones who will screw employees, customers & partners alike at every potential opportunity.

It feels similar to these YouTube personalities who film themselves giving money to the homeless and that’s not a coincidence; it “feels” that way because the motive is the same: virtue-signalling.

If you want to support a political cause, donate $$$ towards it and don’t even tell me about it. Changing a homescreen logo provides dubious value to the cause (especially to an already well-known one) in comparison.

yew• 4 years ago

Wouldn't've thought of that. Seems like a good way to raise awareness around campaign season.

rjstreur• 4 years ago

My heart bleeds. Oh the humanity.

Stop using app icons for political activism

Related Stories