71–80 of 286 posts
Wow, surprising to see Visa on that list. Here's a direct link to the list on the techcrunch article. http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...
" "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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It doesn't sound like you would be banned for merely working for the company and being interested in YC - it's keeping that company out of the process.
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certain opinions?
pg runs an investment firm that invests to a large extent in internet-based companies. To "blacklist" the companies that want to hurt his investment opportunities and returns (really, just no longer help profit from his work) seems like a no-brainer. It gets you positive press from the group you want to attract and hopefully denies some revenue from the ones that would use that revenue against you in the future.
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...
Actually, if you read the article and linked letter, you will see that this list does not seem to come from any explicit support of SOPA. Instead, anyone on this list and not on the official judiciary list linked above comes from a letter[1] not stating support for SOPA but rather petitioning Congress to "enact carefully balanced rogue sites legislation this year." From the linked article: "This list is derived from…
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certain opinions?
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certain opinions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Of course not. I know enough of their business practice to know they were willing participants, but one has to wonder what they thought they would gain by enlisting. It looks kinda naive to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?