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

Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 286 posts

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#51

Post by marshray »

thebigshane wrote: post #34
theorique wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YC demo day is a private event hosted by a private organization. As such, YC has the right to determine the kind of entities that are allowed to be present at the event. And YC / pg have determined that the kind of companies that would support SOPA are unlikely to make good investors in YC portfolio companies. No censorship, just a business decision.

Curious: Aren't ISPs and payment processing companies also private organizations? Are DNS "name servers"? I don't disagree with PG's stance here and I don't think it is censorship, but you must admit that these are "just business decisions" for these parties as well (possibly even Congress)

The term for large ISPs and DNS systems is "common carriers". They are qualitatively different than a Y Combinator.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#53

Post by mekoka »

nextparadigms wrote: post #6

PG, if you're reading this, I don't know which list you saw, but here's one with SOPA supporters that is probably the most comprehensive: http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-s...

I glanced at that list quickly even before I was aware of the boycott. Many of those names are just random non-tech related companies, but I couldn't help but think that GoDaddy sticks out like a sore thumb on it. Almost as if they were tricked into joining.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#54

Post by philh »

burgerbrain wrote: post #5

" "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?" " That is a brilliant point.

I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science.

So I'm not convinced by the argument here. It makes too many unstated assumptions.

I support this boycott, and this argument might make good rhetoric, but I wouldn't use it directly to evaluate investors.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#55

Post by ceejayoz »

mekoka wrote: post #53
nextparadigms wrote: post #6

PG, if you're reading this, I don't know which list you saw, but here's one with SOPA supporters that is probably the most comprehensive: http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-s...

I glanced at that list quickly even before I was aware of the boycott. Many of those names are just random non-tech related companies, but I couldn't help but think that GoDaddy sticks out like a sore thumb on it. Almost as if they were tricked into joining.

GoDaddy's official Twitter account is currently robo-replying with "We encourage you to visit our blog to view the details of our position on SOPA: http://x.co/c0q4, so I doubt they were "tricked".

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#57

Post by gnaritas »

philh wrote: post #54
burgerbrain wrote: post #5

" "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?" " That is a brilliant point.

I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. So I'm not convinced by the argument here. It makes too many unstated assumptions. I support this boycott, and this argument might make good rhetoric, but I wouldn't use it directly to evaluate investors.

> I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science.

And there exists Catholic priests who are pedophiles, that doesn't make Catholicism and pedophilia compatible. Nor are science and religion compatible. Those people just have an ability to tolerate or ignore their own cognitive dissonance because their religious beliefs are so strong.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#58

Post by mekoka »

marshray wrote: post #19
mrlase wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these companies are just so random... Why, for instance, does Adidas, L'Oreal, American Apparel, Rite Aid, Pfizer, etc. even have a stance on SOPA? I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :(

Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs. There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash. I consider them un-American traitors.

Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs.

Your assumption is that if someone doesn't buy knock offs, they'll buy the real thing. Until that can be proven true, I think a better reformulation which more accurately translates the greed of these corporations is Because they feel they're not making more money due to counterfeit knock offs. The companies themselves aren't actually losing anything.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#59

Post by evan_ »

burgerbrain wrote: post #29
staunch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they're different people in the organization, which is likely the usual case. Not that I disagree with the sentiment.

If that is the case, then the organization is ill. Best to stay away from it, in case it happens to be contagious.

An organization is ill if it tolerates its employees having differing political and/or ideological beliefs?

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#60

Post by maaku »

burgerbrain wrote: post #29
staunch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they're different people in the organization, which is likely the usual case. Not that I disagree with the sentiment.

If that is the case, then the organization is ill. Best to stay away from it, in case it happens to be contagious.

That's a little naïve.
Post reply on HN