Am I correct in understand your central question is “what’s the practical impact”?
If so then I think it’s a good theme for conversation. I’ve seen suggestions that “death of the artist” applies here. I’ve also seen “software is apolitical” and similar. While these are valid discussions in their own right: they miss the point.
Using anything created by people whose public speech is actively and consistently attempting to rhetorically enhance their political views implies acceptance or endorsement of those views. It’s a kind of identity politics not dissimilar in concept from brand identity.
What is and is not culturally acceptable is (in part) determined by norms established via association with such identities and the credibility-enhancing displays affirming those associations.
Using Omarchy suggests DHH’s political views are acceptable. It doesn’t matter how much creedance one gives this idea or how much impact it may have. The “Nazi dinner party” principal applies regardless.
Am I correct in understand your central question is “what’s the practical impact”?
If so then I think it’s a good theme for conversation. I’ve seen suggestions that “death of the artist” applies here. I’ve also seen “software is apolitical” and similar. While these are valid discussions in their own right: they miss the point.
Using anything created by people whose public speech is actively and consistently attempting to rhetorically enhance their political views implies acceptance or endorsement of those views. It’s a kind of identity politics not dissimilar in concept from brand identity.
What is and is not culturally acceptable is (in part) determined by norms established via association with such identities and the credibility-enhancing displays affirming those associations.
Using Omarchy suggests DHH’s political views are acceptable. It doesn’t matter how much creedance one gives this idea or how much impact it may have. The “Nazi dinner party” principal applies regardless.