Am I the only one thinking that this is censorship too? edit: censorship
Censorship is using legal force, physically if necessary to shut you up. It isn't simply refusing to provide you a platform.
I wish I could downvote
Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
171–180 of 286 posts
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#172" "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…
You appear to be suggesting a variation on the Nuremberg defense.
"Your honor, I'm not evil! I was just following orders... errr.. I mean I had a responsibility to my shareholders!"
I'm sorry, I simply cannot take your line of reasoning seriously.
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#173I'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?
Do you mean "vehemently", or is your anti-SOPA position actually contagious?
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the one directly from the SOPA .gov site: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...
Take a look at the front page of the committee's web site: >Markup Shows Strong Support for SOPA (12/16/2011) >SOPA Has Strong Support (12/15/2011) >Smith: Critics Continue to Spread Lies about SOPA (12/14/2011) This is about as divorced from reality as you could possibly get. If this country is not the definition of a corporate oligarchy I don't know what is.
> This is about as divorced from reality as you could possibly get.
That's politics for you.
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#175My company has about 35 domains and SSL certs through GoDaddy. I've always loathed them but I can't justify the cost of transferring over. Is anyone offering a discounted option to jump ship?
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#176My company has about 35 domains and SSL certs through GoDaddy. I've always loathed them but I can't justify the cost of transferring over. Is anyone offering a discounted option to jump ship?
Just found discount list on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supp...
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the "esoteric" definition is the one used by religious people, then it has a great deal of use in discussing the thought processes of religious people.
I see no evidence to indicate this is the popular working definition of faith for the religious.
I mean no offense, but that's probably because you're not religious. But most of us have had experiences we interpret as God having taken care of us, and instances where even when we suffered pain, it seems like someone was looking out for us and making sure stuff turned out well.
I phrase this conservatively because I'm aware of the possibility of assigning motive to events that were actually "happenstance", assuming there is such a thing. But others would phrase it much more aggressively: "I have faith in God because of all the things he has done for me." If they can't, they probably should, in fact, re-evaluate their faith.
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#178The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position. Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their posi…
I was extremely alarmed to see our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on that list and immediately emailed my attorney (a partner) about it. Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list. Incredibly dirty move on the part of Rep. Smith. DWT has tweeted about…
When law firms have trouble, the common man can expect Kafka experience
Imagine your company name appears there days before some meeting with pg
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#179Earlier 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.
This is not just a generic religious scientist. It's more analogous to rejecting a young-Earth creationist from a study on evolution. The link here is much more direct than general rationality.
Even a young-Earth creationist can theoretically be a good biologist or physicist. This is more analogous to a young-Earth creationist that wants to keep evolution out of science textbooks and lectures.
Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day
#180" "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.
PG has argued elsewhere that the key to becoming a successful startup is to be good[1]. Since SOPA is bad, organizations that support it are malovelent and so startups cannot succeed if they are beholden to malevolent investors.