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

221–230 of 286 posts

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

#221

Post by bambax »

Flenser wrote: post #218
bambax wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I read that too, and that's my point: he doesn't make the invitations himself; just because you trust an organisation to do something doesn't mean you can dispense yourself from verifying they did what they were asked to do. The "people in charge of the Demo Day invites" probably have enormous incentives to invite influential and powerful employees from SOPA-supporting companies, and would certainly face backsla…

The people in charge of the Demo Day invites work for PG. They're just running an event, they don't care if any specific organisations attend it apart from the criteria given to them by PG.

Oh well, if they're simply Y Combinator employees it's as you say; I read that as if it meant they were a contractor ("the people in charge" vs. "us/we").

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

#223

Post by rmc »

gcb wrote: post #178
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…

When law firms have trouble, the common man can expect Kafka experience Imagine your company name appears there days before some meeting with pg

It would be brilliant. It would mean if you were a tech company or involved with tech, that you would steer the hell clear of any offical/unoffical/private/corporate endorsment of any crazy laws.

If some legislator asks for your "private personal support" for some crazy anti-internet law, you might remember this and not tell them anything, for fear that they'll list your company.

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

#224

Post by Iv »

estevez wrote: post #133
Iv wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. Considering that 95% of the National Academy of Science is atheist, the correlation is still pretty relevant. Clueless people can be successful investors, luck is always a factor, but someone who supports SOPA probably lacks a certain technical background or ethics.

>Considering that 95% of the National Academy of Science is atheist, the correlation is still pretty relevant. Since the Academy elects its own members there might be some bias lurking in that number.

In USA, a scientist is three times more likely to be an atheist than the national average. (It used to be more but ahteism became more prevalent in the last decade).

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

#225

Post by LeafStorm »

haberman wrote: post #201
LeafStorm wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this specific context, Jesus was talking to Thomas - though the other apostles had told Thomas that Jesus had returned, Thomas did not believe until Jesus came to him personally. So the verse isn't promoting "blind faith," it's criticizing those who insist on a direct revelation before being willing to accept the truth. I don't think it really applies to science (at least not empirical science), and it is definite…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a bunch of disciples of a religious figure claimed that he had risen from the dead, is it really the virtuous thing to accept these claims without any evidence?

Considering that Thomas had personally seen said religious figure perform miracles and that said religious figure had told Thomas that he would return from the dead in three days, yeah it is.

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

#226

Post by sandman223 »

DavidSJ wrote: post #198
pork wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 becau…

It wouldn't be a stretch to say that this action by YC would fall under (A) in this case.

GoDaddy has taken this stance simply because they think they can gain long-term competitive advantage by doing so. Supporting legislation that limits freedom in order to gain strategic advantage is inherently unethical.

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

#227

Post by chernevik »

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.

Que bueno.

Might be worthwhile for someone to send out a press release with a before / after strikeout showing the shrinkage. Makes people ask what else have the SOPA folks exaggerated.

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

#228

Post by chernevik »

redthrowaway wrote: post #200
dpe82 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have to wonder about the various state and local organizations on the list. Do mayors and state chief information officers really have a position on SOPA?

Maybe the SOPA opposition lobbyists can reach out to these organizations and find the details of their "support", and whom these groups really represent. Then maybe tech industry types can reach into whatever state and local connections they have to have conversations with the state / local officer represented here. If those supports are soft, and a couple of folks call from the field to ask what's going on, they too may melt off the list.

EDITED TO ADD: Don't know the industry, but entities with showbiz relations may be feeling pressure from the studios to be supportive. They need licensing deals with the studios, no? Pressuring them to choose sides might not be productive -- might be enough to urge them to offer nothing but transparently pro-forma support.

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

#229

Post by xenophanes »

bermanoid wrote: post #209
spindritf wrote: post #106

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? 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…

Being religious doesn't require one to be "clueless about rationality" Absolutely correct. You don't have to be clueless about rationality to be religious; you can also explicitly reject rationality, even though you understand it. But if you don't reject it, then it's quite difficult to accept any of the Big Three religions and simultaneously convince yourself that you're embracing an evidence-based worldview. That's…

Your religion-hate is false, and consequently your original argument too.

Rationality, correctly understood, values tradition. The correct attitude for progress is piecemeal reform. That need not start with religion. It should start wherever people's most pressing problems are. If someone's religion isn't ruining his life, but he has other stuff to deal with (a failing marriage, a startup, a scientific discovery he wants to make) then he isn't irrational to focus on that other stuff and leave the religion alone for now.

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

#230

Post by j_s »

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'm curious: does not allowing SOPA-supporting companies at YC Demo Day mean the SOPA-supporting companies won't be investing in YC companies? I am not familiar with the process; is this just cutting them out of the very first round, or is something being done to prevent SOPA-supporting companies from investing at all?
Post reply on HN