Yea all that talk and she is still there. Clearly it didn't have any kind of impact. Either people didn't follow through or they were free accounts which they probably don't mind losing anyways.
What boggles my mind is that there are many people who would pillory the guy who got canned at Mozilla because he gave $1000 to people to fear-monger about LGBTs, who gets multiple few-hundred-comment threads, but we talk about someone who could charitably be described as a war criminal, and also add ardent supporter of NSA surveillance and such, (i.e. things a lot more harmful and important than marriage equality) and the outrage is so lukewarm as to be non-existent.
I really don't get the culture here sometimes. Eich gets hung out to dry (which is something I still agree with, for the record) but Rice more or less gets a free pass, despite Rice having been responsible/complicit in a hell of a lot more evil in the world?
What boggles my mind is how a group of smart people decide that having her join the board is even remotely a good idea. Even if you want to pretend Iraq didn't happen - the NSA did and she was part of that. Just today - she was still supportive of the NSA. Just before her praise of the NSA Workday said everything needs to be done to stop them (read: our business is not going so well).
So we have an entire industry (Country really) who is screwed by this and they appoint her to their board. Either they are wrapped up in the idea of having a former high ranking political figure on their board or they just don't get it. Regardless from the outside it's not a very good look.
Ultimately, the state doesn't give a shit if gays can get married or not, and fighting that battle is a lot easier once you get the population on your side - the state's position being basically that it will do whatever the population wants.
However you could have literally every single citizen outside of government, the bureaucracy, and the sociopaths set up to control both, opposed to the kind of surveillance Dropbox facilitates, and the state would still fight tooth-and-nail for it.
It's really a case of cowards picking their battles, and piling on when it's convenient.
"The state" is not arguing on HN, which is more what I was talking about. Where's the community outrage that happened when Eich's donations came out? The politicos had nothing to do with that, it was all grassroots.
LGBT community has a very strong support network and is a visible target. In case of Rice, her evil-doing is less apparent and diffused. There's no "minority" to protect - everyone is affected - but not in a personal discriminating manner. Wars happen, but some place else. Surveillance happen, but we don't really see it. Hence, public reaction is a lot less emotional.
Consider that Mozilla is a non-profit that relies very much on the community goodwill, while Dropbox is a full-blown for-profit corporation that cares first and foremost about maximizing revenues.
Lets face it, the 'brand' of Dropbox has been tarnished by Rice.
Even if all the other cloud sync companies have to hand over data to the US Government, at least they aren't being so blase about it by putting Rice on their board.
