Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update on YC China

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 403 posts

Re: An update on YC China

#71

Post by [deleted] »

undefined3840 wrote: post #66
jessewmc wrote: post #11

Strange optics not to mention the elephant in the room. I could see them hitting some roadblocks and wanting to try again to get into China, but that would be a reasonable thing to come out and say. It also would be reasonable to come out and say they've changed their minds due to political climate or some other risks. Instead its... the new guy is busy?

It’s understandable it’s a touchy subject. Why piss off China if you don’t have to? Only something to lose and nothing to gain. Also this story of a Chinese Stanford professor/investor’s “suicide” last year is quite the story. There’s a potential safety issue here too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2018/12/13/a-death...

[deleted]

Re: An update on YC China

#72

Post by ngcc_hk »

blotter_paper wrote: post #38
ddevault wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has got to be satire. >I understand this is a very difficult decision. I'm not sure if its right or wrong. From the perspective of Human Rights its probably right, but from the perspective of investment its difficult considering China's growth prospects. I can't believe a human being would actually write this. The level of cognitive dissonance would be off the charts.

Here's an attempt at interpretting it graciously: if China's economy grows, more Chinese people may be lifted out of poverty. This is obviously beneficial to their lives directly, but could also result in political shifts as the rising middle class becomes more of a stakeholder in society. More developed countries can also afford to have more environmentally friendly laws. There are a bunch of potential benefits to C…

You have missed as the original posting about china not care about universal x. China do. We do. Always. We have enforced our harmony way to our labour for several thousands years now. We would.

At least I quite the Open source founder has used the chinese way of colonialism to describe open source. Look at how the top leader talk in international forum on things like internet.

China will impose its view. And if you are not civilised per china view you are barbarian to be crushed. It is in our gene.

They will play nice then when not colonised you will be see.

*

Still I believe it does not make commerical senses. China does not allow others to make money unless they can’t replace you. Learning and turn ... The nasty part will come.

Our whole place is an example. And we are chinese according to them. Still ... hence good luck.

Re: An update on YC China

#73

Post by derefr »

president wrote: post #41
justinzollars wrote: post #28

I imagined this was going to happen. Lately PG has been more vocal on twitter regarding Human Rights issues in China. I understand this is a very difficult decision. I'm not sure if its right or wrong. From the perspective of Human Rights its probably right, but from the perspective of investment its difficult considering China's growth prospects. I'm torn on the China issue and I personally hope our two countries ca…

If he pulled out over China's human rights issues, I have a newfound respect for PG. Very few leaders today are willing to support basic rights of fellow human beings over personal profits.

What would you think of a VC who was investing with a thesis that enlarging+enriching the Chinese bourgeoisie (i.e. entrepreneurs) would give Chinese citizens as a whole more power relative to the Chinese state, and thus likely accelerate the shift toward more democratic forms of government that seems to inevitably come to "developed nations" once they have enough people who've "got theirs" and now want to signal their care for the working man, rather than rising on their backs?

Re: An update on YC China

#74

Post by bigpumpkin »

jessewmc wrote: post #11

Strange optics not to mention the elephant in the room. I could see them hitting some roadblocks and wanting to try again to get into China, but that would be a reasonable thing to come out and say. It also would be reasonable to come out and say they've changed their minds due to political climate or some other risks. Instead its... the new guy is busy?

I think it's reasonable to stick with what YC knows best: Startups in the US. Perhaps this will be an opportunity to use the capital that would've been directed to China for American startups.

I am also encouraged they are still funding Chinese companies and have a nuanced approach to China in this highly politically charged environment that reminds me of McCarthyism.

Re: An update on YC China

#75

Post by psds2 »

blotter_paper wrote: post #59
overkalix wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sacrificing these benefits to bring attention to human rights might actually be harmful So we have to tolerate human rights violations so that in the future _maybe_ there are no more human rights violations?

I'm not actually arguing that this is the most desirable course of action, I'm arguing that OP's original comment can be interpretted in a manner that isn't putting personal gain above human rights. I felt like there were a lot of angry voices piling on over a potential misinterpretation.

No it can't. You believe an acceptable response to Schrodingers Cat is that even if the cats alive maybe killing it is ok if it means you can sell the box. You then justify it by saying a lot of good things could come from the money we might get if we can sell the box.

None of those potentials are sacrificed, they just as much both exist and do not exist as they did before a hypothetical intervention based on human rights abuses.

Re: An update on YC China

#76

Post by throw_m239339 »

kbumsik wrote: post #56

Did some people in the comments forget what happens to Blizzard? It would be better not having a branch in China unless they are 100% sure they can be free from any political issues around China, and we actually don't need to hear "why" from YC.

> unless they are 100% sure they can be free from any political issues around China

Which they can't. There is a price to pay when doing business with/in a bloody dictatorship.

Re: An update on YC China

#77

Post by derefr »

Loughla wrote: post #30
justinzollars wrote: post #28

I imagined this was going to happen. Lately PG has been more vocal on twitter regarding Human Rights issues in China. I understand this is a very difficult decision. I'm not sure if its right or wrong. From the perspective of Human Rights its probably right, but from the perspective of investment its difficult considering China's growth prospects. I'm torn on the China issue and I personally hope our two countries ca…

As inflammatory as my last statement is going to seem, it's a genuine question, I'm not trying to bait you - But how does >investment Versus >Human Rights Equal >I'm torn on the China issue Do your morals and conscience have a price tag?

I read the GP's "from the perspective of investment" more like a sort of "corporations, despite being made of humans, are inhuman paperclip-maximizers" attitude. You can't convince a corporation to "do what's right", because caring about "what's right" requires a human definition of "right"†, and corporations don't have that, instead having other conceptual preferences in its place, that you have to appeal to instead.

You can't convince a paperclip-maximizer to preserve human life because "it's right"; you have to convince it that doing so will somehow get it more paperclips. You can't convince an investment firm to stay out of China because "it's right"; you have to convince it that doing so will somehow make it more money.

† https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fG3g3764tSubr6xvs/the-meanin...

Re: An update on YC China

#78

Post by hirundo »

undefined3840 wrote: post #66
jessewmc wrote: post #11

Strange optics not to mention the elephant in the room. I could see them hitting some roadblocks and wanting to try again to get into China, but that would be a reasonable thing to come out and say. It also would be reasonable to come out and say they've changed their minds due to political climate or some other risks. Instead its... the new guy is busy?

It’s understandable it’s a touchy subject. Why piss off China if you don’t have to? Only something to lose and nothing to gain. Also this story of a Chinese Stanford professor/investor’s “suicide” last year is quite the story. There’s a potential safety issue here too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2018/12/13/a-death...

[flagged]

Re: An update on YC China

#79

Post by cthor »

derefr wrote: post #73
president wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he pulled out over China's human rights issues, I have a newfound respect for PG. Very few leaders today are willing to support basic rights of fellow human beings over personal profits.

What would you think of a VC who was investing with a thesis that enlarging+enriching the Chinese bourgeoisie (i.e. entrepreneurs) would give Chinese citizens as a whole more power relative to the Chinese state, and thus likely accelerate the shift toward more democratic forms of government that seems to inevitably come to "developed nations" once they have enough people who've "got theirs" and now want to signal the…

I'd say they're delusional.

Everyone made this assumption in the '90s, that prosperity necessarily lead to freedom. 20 years later that assumption doesn't look so good.

Re: An update on YC China

#80

Post by colechristensen »

I would expect more, and more direct language.

Doing business with a fascist state or in a fascist state is deplorable. The message should be loud and clear. China today shares many parallels with Germany in the 1930s. There needs to be open frank opposition because embarrassing them is the only way to stop them until the US is willing to park an aircraft carrier group in HK waters.

Post reply on HN