11–20 of 138 posts
So is this a thing now? That all new high-valuation tech companies of the last generation (Uber, "We") have to have some shady founder/CEO thing going on?
Ergh, the lead picture in the article is terrible and paints him in a significantly negative light. I'm not a huge fan of WeWork's business model especially with the tax law exploitation in the UK but I find it quite irresponsible for newspapers to cherry pick such terrible photos - just like - don't have an extreme face closeup, get a picture of him standing on a stage[1] and don't pick one that makes me wary this a…
The article is from Business Insider, a well known clickbait content farm, not a newspaper.
Ergh, the lead picture in the article is terrible and paints him in a significantly negative light. I'm not a huge fan of WeWork's business model especially with the tax law exploitation in the UK but I find it quite irresponsible for newspapers to cherry pick such terrible photos - just like - don't have an extreme face closeup, get a picture of him standing on a stage[1] and don't pick one that makes me wary this a…
So, your complaint is that the article is presenting a viewpoint that you basically agree with, and making the CEO out to be a grifter, which he basically is, and therefore making him look like a grifter is uncomfortably biased? Hell, the article didn't even mention the insane narcissism of the IPO filing.
Starting with a baseless attack just weakens your reporting.
A lot of people care now because they just filed for an IPO, which is why he returned the money.
But if this was a private company and a co-founder thought he deserved $6 million for his efforts and wanted to label it as a trademark transfer, I see no problem with it.
I can see it now:
“Wait, so we’d be investing in your business which is leasing buildings from another business that you own... but we’re not getting a piece of that action?”
“Hold on, so we’d have to license the name of this company back from you and then you continue to get a royalty from that?”
“So what’s your revenue and how much did you take home last year? Sorry say that again?!?”
So is this a thing now? That all new high-valuation tech companies of the last generation (Uber, "We") have to have some shady founder/CEO thing going on?
I doubt the amount of shady CEOs is any worse than it was at times in the past (the 80s being known for the "Gordon Gekko" type CEOs immediately come to mind). I think it just feels like there's more corruption because of a combination of us consuming more media, quicker and recency bias.
The whole Web 2.0 and beyond phenomenon is about getting some other sucker to over-pay for what you built before you run out of money.
So is this a thing now? That all new high-valuation tech companies of the last generation (Uber, "We") have to have some shady founder/CEO thing going on?