Why The 99% Should Protest Against Y Combinator

I so wish this were the top comment.

That's really the issue for me. Most of the analogies with Apple/Microsoft/Chevy/etc. are flawed because anyone can buy those products. In this case, Cloudant not only accepted a partnership with Monsanto (and thus, obviously had communication with them for some time) but touted it as as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And I can understand their enthusiasm since it's a big deal with regards to their business.

But, Monsanto's track record within the last forty years is deplorable. Read their Wikipedia page, about Bovine somatotropin, or watch documentaries about them. Goodness, it's hard to like them.

You are absolutely right. Having known my comment was going to be so popular, I would've offered a more civil and productive opening to the discussion. Realistically though, I saw my comment being downvoted into oblivion. I was ok with that. And I'm still ok with my comment, because "fuck you" is probably how I'd start any discussion with a member of Monsanto. I don't think that makes me insane (or dumb according to PG).

Its unfortunate though that my comments distracted from the real issue.

But then again, perhaps all of this discussion wouldn't have happened without my comments. Controversy can be fickle.

Well, good on you for saying so. I don't think your opinions are insane - I don't fully share them but certainly understand your reasons for disliking Monsanto. I'm just not a fan of the shouting match as a conversational style.

I don't think Cloudant's move was even particularly bad PR. Cloudant doesn't sell to the 99%, they sell to businesses. Businesses are going to be impressed that a large multinational corporation trusts Cloudant with their data, and probably won't care too much about Monsanto's ethical infractions.

Paul Graham's response is two things... disappointing and misleading.

What makes his response disappointing is that this is a great, old debate. Cloudant is developing potentially breakthrough technology ("Our founders first devised our open-source platform BigCouch while at MIT, working on Large Hadron Collider experiments generating millions of data points per second from the collision of atomic particles") to perform complex tasks ("the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops"). When have important technologies been developed for less than warm and fuzzy purposes? Without the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic bomb, we wouldn't have modern forms of cancer treatment. GPS was developed to give more precision to submarine-launched ballistic missiles. There are other examples of equal importance. Is it right? Is it worth it? Whatever the answer - it deserves a thoughtful response.

What makes his response misleading is that he conflates the levels of involvement in the client/customer's work.

Apple computers, Chevy cars and Clorox cleaning supplies - are all mass produced goods. They are not custom products for specific clients for a specific purpose. It appears Cloudant is doing this for Monsanto... therefore, the purpose matters. The press release states that Cloudant has been "working with" Monsanto "for a few weeks" on "the partnership". Furthermore, Cloudant's custom work is mission-critical to Monsanto's business: "We’re not powering the CMS of some administrative division or a minor part of their website. Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new, company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business: the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops". This isn't the same company/customer relationship as buying Clorox. The purpose of developing genetically modified agricultural crops and hormones is central to the relationship between Cloudant and Monsanto. Again, the purpose matters.

Paul Graham says: "If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you’re saying is fuck the entire corporate world". Maybe that's right. When the American people decided they didn't agree with the Apartheid regime of the South African government, the Congress and Republican-controlled Senate passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 and they stopped selling to them. I'm not saying what Monsanto is doing is apartheid - I'm saying that if you disagree with somebody, not selling to them has been an effective responsive.

Unfortunately for those that disagree with the development of genetically modified agricultural crops and hormones, there's not much that can really be done beyond not buying these goods unless there's government action that limits interactions with these companies. But if you disagree, then you can do as Paul Graham suggests in his essay "The Patent Pledge": "Now there's something any individual can do about this problem, without waiting for the government: ask companies where they stand."