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

151–160 of 286 posts

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

#151

Post by forensic »

hnsmurf wrote: post #104
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.

That's not really fair. The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. (There are of course caveats, and we can argue all day over whether or not SOPA is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, but you get the point.) If you are a movie studio, SOPA is a great idea for your bottom line. I don't think it's fair to call everyone who is in favor of SOPA either evil or stupid, even if SOPA itself is both…

Why do you bring "fairness" into this discussion?

YC has a fiduciary responsibility as well.

Corporations that are pro-SOPA don't make PR statements saying, "We are pro-SOPA because it will make us money."

Instead they say, "SOPA is good for America! Anyone opposed is a misinformed basement dweller!"

When pg says, "Anyone pro-SOPA is stupid" why don't you interpret it as pg discharging his fiduciary duty?

Why do you apologize for sociopathic lies in large corporations, but then criticize self-interested statements from small corporations?

I'm questioning the basic assumptions you take toward this issue. I find your attitude here baffling and, honestly, horrifying.

If corporations are supposed to tell PR-friendly lies to benefit their bottom line, shouldn't Paul Graham be telling PR-friendly lies to benefit his bottom line?

By extension, when you write that, are you telling PR-friendly lies? Which fiduciary duty are you discharging when you write that? Does SOPA benefit your bottom-line?

If SOPA benefits your bottom-line, shouldn't you be going around telling sociopathic lies to stop it? That's what the CEO of Pfizer is doing... you are your own CEO and you have a fiduciary duty to yourself.

If it's socially acceptable for corporations to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, then it must be made socially acceptable for individuals to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, and any appeal to "you're not being fair!" must be recognized as pure rhetoric designed to fool the gullible.

"Guuuuyyyys! Be nice to the SOPA supporters! They're only acting like Democracy-destroying sociopaths for their own personal profit! It's just not fair if you call them mean names!"

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

#152

Post by forensic »

DavidSJ wrote: post #72

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?

The Democracy-destroying government-subsidized corporations are already playing hardball with you.

Why do you refuse to play hardball back?

Try getting hired to be a VP at Pfizer while publicly supporting patent-reform.

Try spreading the gospel of universal healthcare while being employed by Blue Cross.

Try getting corporate advertisers for your online newspaper that presents a favorable view of WikiLeaks, or is willing to stand up for corporate whistleblowers who expose fraud.

Individuals are already excluded from many, many activities based on their opinions. Non-violent non-cooperation with Democracy-destroying organizations is absolutely fundamental if you want to defend freedom in your country.

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

#153

Post by fredBuddemeyer »

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.

selling a country's freedom? un-american? its hard to even conceive what on earth this means or how your consideration of what is american - or treason - means anything. and adidas is german.

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

#154

Post by dspeyer »

hnsmurf wrote: post #104
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.

That's not really fair. The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. (There are of course caveats, and we can argue all day over whether or not SOPA is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, but you get the point.) If you are a movie studio, SOPA is a great idea for your bottom line. I don't think it's fair to call everyone who is in favor of SOPA either evil or stupid, even if SOPA itself is both…

> The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility.

In other words, the corporation does not hate me, but I am made of atoms that it can use to make a profit?

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

#155

Post by forensic »

philwelch wrote: post #140
rjurney wrote: post #41

Maybe all us angry nerds should OCCUPY something. Something big, related to SOPA. It would be cool to see EFF type concerns channeled into that movement.

The "Occupy" movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage. I think a traditional, well-organized, on-message movement against SOPA would do a lot better than throwing in with OWS.

Expressions of incoherent rage have fuelled the majority of social change in history.

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

#156

Post by Steko »

200+: content creation, distribution, etc. Approximately 1/4 seems to be small photography studios.

100+ commonly pirated physical products - pharma, shoes, fashion, guitars, spirits, golf clubs, etc.

50+ general manufac/retail industry concerns.

15+ law enforcement/local government trade orgs

15+ law offices

There's a number of testing and credentialing organizations, I'd guess they might be part of content but I'm really not sure.

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

#157

Post by jackowayed »

spindritf wrote: post #106
philh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? That's because the underlying assumptions are false. Being religious doesn't require one to be "clueless about rationality" and supporting SOPA doesn't requre the supporter to be clueless about technology -- they may as well hope to benefit from breaking the Internet. As every regulation (th…

Of course, if a company is hell-bent on killing startups, there is also no reason to invite them to Demo Day, even if they understand technology well enough to know how to kill startups.

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

#159

Post by pbhjpbhj »

idiot900 wrote: post #110
stingraycharles wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what definition? There are quite a few historical scientists who made great discoveries, who very extremely religious too. Newton comes to mind.

There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence, which is what faith is; faith forms the basis of religion.

>"There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence"

I'm not a professional scientist but as a wannabe theoretician I can't concede how this can be correct. Indeed I think it needs to be wrong often in order for experiment to progress from theory.

I'd warrant that the LHC was only built because those theoreticians at the forefront of physical advances in particle physics at Fermilab and CERN (and wherever) felt that, despite not yet having the evidence, that nonetheless the Higgs boson (or other particles like the Chi_b (3P)) would be found.

Moreover often one adopts a first hypothesis because one is convinced of the truth of that position without a rigorous proof; obviously empirical method then steps in to affirm that belief.

Yes beliefs can be found to be false, but they can also be confirmed.

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

#160

Post by MPSimmons »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #119
wpietri wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends on what you mean by "good investor". If you invest in tobacco, land mine manufacturers, and semi-competent toxic waste disposal facilities, you might make a mint. That would make you a good investor in the sense of profitable. However, no entrepreneur in his right mind would take money from people like that, because they wouldn't be good investors in the sense of being supportive of a long-term eff…

Minor tangent here that's not relevant to your main point - what exactly is wrong with trying to dispose of toxic waste in a "semi-competent" manner? Lead, mercury, asbestos, and all those other freaky things have got to go somewhere . Shouldn't you be more pissed off at people generating that waste?

I think we should keep them where they belong; in children's toys imported from China.
Post reply on HN