Y Combinator and the Negative Externalities of Hackernews

the tl;dr is

1. HN culture is (generally) sexist & racist, a "bro-fest" if you will.

2. ycomb profits from HN

3. ycomb says they're against sexism etc.: “We—the tech industry as a whole—need to fix this. Most importantly, it’s an ethical issue.” ...

4. ...but there seems to be no legitimate effort by YC to alter the culture & signal what's acceptable behavior (i.e. don't be racist) on hackernews.

So, this is all well and good, and am sure the outrage plays well with certain circles. But, let's look at things from a business perspective--because, ultimately, that's what YC is: a business.

Let's assume that HN is a terrible place where sexism and racism are easily found--consider that the ability to review people's posting histories is a really good datapoint of figuring out whether or not they're somebody you want to work with. If an applicant applies with a posting history rife with sexism and racism, then maybe they're not going to be asked back. It's a chance to let people show their true colors, and many people are bigoted shitbags.

So, even looking past that, the author raises the point that YC has a portfolio north of 30B USD. So, erm, maybe whatever they're doing is working? Maybe, just maybe, sexism and racism and everything else is not really that relevant to running a successful business. I don't want to go full libertariloon on this and go claim that the free market thus proves those are non-issues, but from a business standpoint they don't seem to be mattering. A criticism of "but but but imagine how much better things could be if they stomped it out!" is a non-starter, because it's playing in what-ifs.

If HN does have a problem, it's that the downvote system is bullshit and broken and enables people to hivemind more easily. PG screwed up, in my opinion, when he gave a blessing on giving downvotes based on disagreement instead of civility or relevance. The moderation system is opaque and broken, though much less broken thanks to people like dang.

Mostly, I think, the single systemic issue of HN is that people are not self-selecting for good technical content, and are so closed-minded that useful discussion of non-technical content becomes boring, tedious, and prone to flaming.

EDIT: Thank you whoever gave that downvote without explanation for helping to demonstrate my point!

Sexism and racism are views on life, much like religion and capitalism--I don't have to agree with them without respecting them as views held by other people. Silly, stupid views that I disagree with and find counter-productive, but it is their right to think in that wrongheaded fashion and talk about it.

I agree that making policy decisions based on racism and sexism, especially when the affected population has no alternative but to be subject to those decisions (say, no other place to look for work, no other police force to seek protection from, etc.), is wrong. That said, I find it just as wrong to brand other people as bad or evil because they've got some silly view.

To put it quite crudely: The primary job of YC is not the policing of ideas and thoughts of people posting on HN beyond keeping things relatively civil.

Sexism is something that is rampant in the whole tech industry. I feel bad about it, but I don't see how YC or HN is responsible for policing the posts. Sure, you could have a report button and couple of mods to look at them and approve or reject. That model however is not scalable and downright silly. The bigger issue is with the society and people's mindset and it is up to the people to not be sexist. Having said that, I don't think any business has to do anything special for being inclusive to sex/race/gender etc. Businesses run on profits, talent generates profits. Sure, capable people should not be denied opportunity, but incapable people should not get preferential treatment and held against a lower standard.

How can you have things "relatively civil" if people engage in sexism and racism?