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

Post by philwelch » Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 1:28 AM UTC

wnight wrote: post #270

philwelch wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not confused about what OWS is. It would be an embryonic version of the Jacobins or a gang of proto-fascists if only it had some sort of coordination. In my city it turned into a settlement of homeless people and street kids until they were finally evicted by the community college they were squatting at. Anyone who joined the armed forces to avenge 9/11 joined for the cause of justice. It's not the fault of the t…

> I'm not confused about what OWS is. It would be ... if only it had some sort of coordination. Like Anonymous, there are no leaders, there's no membership list, etc. It's fundamentally chaotic because it isn't trying to ram everyone's different message into one one tidy media-palatable sound-bite. So yes, you are totally confused about what OWS is. > Anyone who joined the armed forces to avenge 9/11 joined for the c…

Post by philwelch » Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 11:10 AM UTC

wnight wrote: post #272

philwelch wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, I don't know what OWS is because I say it's incoherent and uncoordinated, and you say it's chaotic and anarchic? Sounds like we agree what OWS is; you just think anarchy and chaos are good things. I never voted for Bush or Obama, or for any congressman or senator who voted for any of the military actions this government has taken since I was eligible to vote. Where possible, I have voted for candidates promisin…

> Wait, I don't know what OWS is because I say it's incoherent and uncoordinated, and you say it's chaotic and anarchic? You expect it to speak with one voice. Even organizations like the Republican party don't consistently speak with one voice and you expect an non-organization to produce a clear and concise mission statement in tv snippet lengths. You're obviously stacking the deck. > Sounds like we agree what OWS…

Post by Shorel » Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 2:05 PM UTC

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…

Post by Shorel » Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 2:11 PM UTC

philh wrote: post #88

marshray wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're not talking about just any odd collection of investors. As I understand it, Y Combinator specifically relates to Internet-centric business models. SOPA seems wholly destructive to this sector of the economy.

Nevertheless, it is conceivable that a company could support SOPA while making good investments in the tech industry. Maybe they don't think SOPA will pass, and they want future business dealings with the RIAA. But that's not really the point, which is that whether or not they're good investors, they support something harmful. We're not boycotting them because we think they're bad investors. (If we thought they were…

Post by Shorel » Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 3:57 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #99

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.

how could they be good investors Because they have a checkbook? Does General Dynamics care if pacifists buy their stock? Since YC doesn't seem to sell to media-providers I suppose they won't be losing much, but seriously? If GE wrote me a billion dollar check, I'd take it no matter my politics.