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

191–200 of 286 posts

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

#191

Post by marshray »

dpe82 wrote: post #185
marshray wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Riiiight.

I believe them. Once upon a time I worked as a legislative aid in the WI State Senate. I saw this type of thing happen a few times where some overzealous lobbyist or staffer fudged the list of supporters for some controversial legislation. Predictably it always resulted in a gigantic shitstorm. Beats me why they try to get away with it in the first place.

Count the number of law firms' names on the list here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76341338/SOPA-Supporters

Now count the number of private individuals listed.

I think lawyers are supposed to know the difference between personally supporting something and a company taking a position.

Somebody here is l-y-i-n-g and, sure, maybe it's not the law firm. But the system as a whole doesn't get to just pass it off on the tired old "overzealous junior staffer" routine this time.

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

#192

Post by mostlyListening »

So if SOPA fails to pass and stops being an issue, will that boycott end or will it continue?

Going by PG's reasoning (If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?") then it should continue until there are major changes the leaderships of those companies. Right?

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

#193

Post by johnrob »

gasull wrote: post #122
johnrob wrote: post #115

As much as I support the anti SOPA cause, is this more of a hunger strike than a consequential action? The startups presenting at demo day need those dollars a whole lot more than the corporate venture arms need the investments. Money is money, no matter how stupid it may be.

SOPA is going to hurt our industry so much. It's going to be destructive for Silicon Valley. Taking a stand is necessary. YC startups are going to have much a harder time is SOPA passes. Even from just an economic point of view, it's better to take some loses now than taking higher loses in the future.

A sacrifice is worth it assuming it provides some benefit to the cause. I'm not sure if this action is going to have any effect (hopefully I'm wrong though).

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

#194

Post by dpe82 »

marshray wrote: post #191
dpe82 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe them. Once upon a time I worked as a legislative aid in the WI State Senate. I saw this type of thing happen a few times where some overzealous lobbyist or staffer fudged the list of supporters for some controversial legislation. Predictably it always resulted in a gigantic shitstorm. Beats me why they try to get away with it in the first place.

Count the number of law firms' names on the list here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76341338/SOPA-Supporters Now count the number of private individuals listed. I think lawyers are supposed to know the difference between personally supporting something and a company taking a position. Somebody here is l-y-i-n-g and, sure, maybe it's not the law firm. But the system as a whole doesn't get to just pass it off on the tired…

And now count the number of firms:

http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of...

Zero.

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

#195

Post by marshray »

dpe82 wrote: post #194
marshray wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count the number of law firms' names on the list here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76341338/SOPA-Supporters Now count the number of private individuals listed. I think lawyers are supposed to know the difference between personally supporting something and a company taking a position. Somebody here is l-y-i-n-g and, sure, maybe it's not the law firm. But the system as a whole doesn't get to just pass it off on the tired…

And now count the number of firms: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of... Zero.

Well done!

I bow to you sir.

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

#196

Post by aangjie »

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 agree that line of reasoning is not fallacy free. but if you think in terms of probabilities, it may be safe heuristic to make a stance on..

Update: I mean probability of a venture backing a sopa supporter(company/startup) being anti-sopa is very low.. So it's a good heuristic to assume they are sopa supporters instead of innocent(technologically clueless) bystanders.

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

#197

Post by wpietri »

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?

Competent waste disposal is great. Totally incompetent waste disposal is bad, but those jerks tend to get caught quickly. The semi-competent ones are able to appear adequate for long enough that they can create giant messes. They can also undercut the people doing it right, creating a race to the bottom.

And no, I'm not necessarily pissed off at the people generating the waste. Heck, water's dangerous unless properly handled. As long as people using toxic substances pay the full lifecycle cost there's no negative externality so that's jake by me.

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

#198

Post by DavidSJ »

pork wrote: post #129
DavidSJ wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The examples you gave are all of events which are defined by some belief or cause, whose opponents would simply be out of place if present. That's very different from what's going on here, where the bearers of a particular opinion are being excluded from a business relationship as a punishment for expressing an opinion which is only circuitously related to that business relationship.

I don't see how SOPA is "circuitously" related, since YC deals with Internet companies and SOPA is damaging to fundamental bits of Internet infrastructure. IMO, it's no different from the PETA/fur manufacturer analogy in that the viewpoints are almost diametrically opposed.

I did not say SOPA was merely circuitously related to YC. I said it was merely circuitously related to YC's relationship with the blacklisted company.

On the one hand, we may have:

A) Avoiding a business arrangement because the counter party has behaved unethically. or B) Avoiding a business arrangement because it would make poor business sense.

On the other hand, we may have:

C) Avoiding a business arrangement because the counter party has expressed views you disapprove of.

I am advocating against (C) on the grounds that it is an attempt to intimidate people into silence.

Your scenarios are all of the form (A) or (B). Hunters and clothing manufacturers have acted in ways which some judge to be unethical, and hence they may be ostracized for their actions (A). Anti-evolutionists have demonstrated by their words a misunderstanding of science, and hence their participation in NAS would make poor "business sense" (B).

All GoDaddy and others have done, in this case, is express an opinion. Now, if the reason were, as Paul Graham says, that "these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, [so they cannot] be good investors", then this would be an example of avoiding an arrangement for making poor business sense (B), rather than punishing others for expressing their views (C). But do you really believe this is what's going on here, as opposed to merely a post-hoc rationalization? I'll certainly concede that support for SOPA reasonably calls into question an organization's understanding of the Internet and therefore their merit as a business partner, but an outright boycott, as opposed to mere caution, clearly goes beyond what is warranted by simple concern for one's own business, and becomes an attempt to silence others.

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

#199

Post by codyrobbins »

mekoka wrote: post #169
codyrobbins wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting point, and I’d like to read that article, but I think it’d be highly situationally dependent on the particular brand and you’d have to know their internal sales numbers to confirm it. Even if it were true, though, it still doesn’t address the fact that the designers would be crazy not to want more power to stop their designs from being stolen for simply artistic rather than pragmatic or business…

You made some very valid points in your replies and I was with you as long as you presented them as reasonable hypothetical motives for the fashion industry to support this bill. However, when you say stuff such as In fact, it’s that kind of one-sided ad hominem bullshit that’s actually the problem , you presume that the point about them being greedy or immoral is invalid. That also sounds a bit naive and one-sided.…

You presume that the point about them being greedy or immoral is invalid

Yeah, I am presuming it—because I just laid out how what they’re doing is not necessarily driven by greed or immorality but defensible motives from their point of view. You’re simply saying they’re bad people and that’s probably not true in the vast majority of cases. I’m not vouching for anyone’s integrity, but you are so down a rabbit hole of fundamental attribution bias I don’t have any interest in attempting to change your mind.

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

#200

Post by redthrowaway »

dpe82 wrote: post #184
dpe82 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Update: ALL the law firms have been removed from the list. http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of...

Excellent. That's a few down. I think the next one to focus on should be the Entertainment Software Association. It strikes me that, like the BSA, many of these companies would only have agreed to support some broad, generic, fight against piracy and not SOPA in particular. Let's put the pressure on them to withdraw their support.

Also, the UFC might be a good target. I know Joe Rogan has spoken out against SOPA, so he might be a good place to start.

Post reply on HN