Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update on YC China

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 403 posts

Re: An update on YC China

#261

Post by radmuzom »

dang wrote: post #216
mrobot wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your account has been using HN primarily for nationalistic and political battle. That's not allowed here, because it destroys the curiosity this site is supposed to be for. We ban accounts that keep doing this, so please don't keep doing this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Strange hypocrisy from a moderator. You do not seem to have a problem with American nationalist dogs.

Re: An update on YC China

#262

Post by asdf9240 »

archibaldJ wrote: post #251
spectramax wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Chinese government is one thing. But "the Chinese way" is another thing. And "the Chinese way" actually underlines how the Chinese society works and how the Chinese government functions. "The Chinese Way" is a cop out, it points out the cultural differences between the West and China, but that does not change the fundamentals of political ideologies. Fascist and authoritarian regimes, all, justify their actions…

> It dismisses, insults the argument that is pertaining to human rights, freedom of press, justice, freedom of speech, liberty, right to vote - some of the pillars of Democracy. The more fundamental question here is: What if the modernist's definition of democracy which you have just laid out is extremely one-sided and full of grey areas and, when implemented into a society accordingly, would be full of vulnerabiliti…

> The problem here is that "speaking out" doesn't change a damn thing. And it never will. Not in China. Not in the States.

Aren't you doing exactly that right now? "speaking out" on Hacker News against people you disagree with?

> Criticising is only useful when it actually influenced something.

Of course. And countries with freedom of speech allows criticism to be influential.

Re: An update on YC China

#263

Post by spangry »

archibaldJ wrote: post #227

OP here (no affiliation with YC in anyway), posted the link because was surprised it wasn't already on HN. I first got to know about it on WeChat actually. There was an announcement from the official WeChat account of YC China in regard to the split-up (link: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SnSsli_ZGo0yI58YD-ddaw ), though the announcement took a much more positive and exciting tone than its English counterpart. The annou…

Genuinely curious, what is "the Chinese way"?

Re: An update on YC China

#264

Post by spectramax »

ClemFandango wrote: post #222
realusername wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s understandable it’s a touchy subject. Why piss off China if you don’t have to? Only something to lose and nothing to gain. Because that's pushing the line further and further of what the CCP can make people accept.

Business won't be the one to push the change on this attitude. It has to be people, or at best government. Most companies are morally agnostic, they only follow the money, you can judge them for it either way, but it's the truth.

May be we should then question the model that Businesses should be morally agnostic.

Re: An update on YC China

#265

Post by colechristensen »

throwaway423342 wrote: post #252
colechristensen wrote: post #80

I would expect more, and more direct language. Doing business with a fascist state or in a fascist state is deplorable. The message should be loud and clear. China today shares many parallels with Germany in the 1930s. There needs to be open frank opposition because embarrassing them is the only way to stop them until the US is willing to park an aircraft carrier group in HK waters.

Can the US stay away from this? > park an aircraft carrier group in HK waters. This is called invasion. What is your incentive in supporting an invasion?

>What is your incentive in supporting an invasion?

Isolationism and appeasement post-WWI leading to the next, disastrous world war which could have been avoided or significantly diminished with early intervention.

Re: An update on YC China

#266

Post by colechristensen »

master-litty wrote: post #224
colechristensen wrote: post #80

I would expect more, and more direct language. Doing business with a fascist state or in a fascist state is deplorable. The message should be loud and clear. China today shares many parallels with Germany in the 1930s. There needs to be open frank opposition because embarrassing them is the only way to stop them until the US is willing to park an aircraft carrier group in HK waters.

Naive perspective: Is it possible that this language prevents YC from being blocked by the Great Firewall? I'm not sure I'd advocate it, but I see the potential argument: It's better to let users see YC's independent decision to not conduct business in China, even with vague reasoning, as there's no realistic narrative that would put China in a great light. The alternative is to be completely censored. If the intent…

Probably something more along the lines of censorship via perceived or actual fiduciary duty.

Re: An update on YC China

#267

Post by refrigerator »

iooi wrote: post #44
jessewmc wrote: post #11

Strange optics not to mention the elephant in the room. I could see them hitting some roadblocks and wanting to try again to get into China, but that would be a reasonable thing to come out and say. It also would be reasonable to come out and say they've changed their minds due to political climate or some other risks. Instead its... the new guy is busy?

They probably have a significant investment from Chinese LPs. It could put those investors in a very awkward situation if YC was more explicit with their statement -- we've all seen how childishly defensive the Chinese government can get.

afaik YC doesn't have any LPs

Re: An update on YC China

#268

Post by peteretep »

tomnipotent wrote: post #231
peteretep wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to have copy-pasted this definition from a blog article, and then added bullet points between the syllables to make it look more official. Yikes! A real dictionary will show you that McCarthy-esque allegations are specifically treasonous.

> You appear to have copy-pasted Wikipedia pretty much defines it the same way: "McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence." > specifically treasonous Treason is one small dimension, use as a rhetorical device to make the real villain stand out - accusations without evidence.

No, Wikipedia defines it as accusations of treason or subversion, as you’ve specifically quoted.

Re: An update on YC China

#269

Post by stevens32 »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #158
colechristensen wrote: post #80

I would expect more, and more direct language. Doing business with a fascist state or in a fascist state is deplorable. The message should be loud and clear. China today shares many parallels with Germany in the 1930s. There needs to be open frank opposition because embarrassing them is the only way to stop them until the US is willing to park an aircraft carrier group in HK waters.

The US can't take military action in Hong Kong, because its handover to China was completely legal. You can thank the British for their short-sightnedness on this one, but nothing the rest of the world can do, at least overtly. I see this fact repeatedly forgotten or overlooked in the brewhaha over HK.

Are we just going to ignore why Hong Kong was under British rule in the first place?

Re: An update on YC China

#270

Post by Iv »

undefined3840 wrote: post #66
jessewmc wrote: post #11

Strange optics not to mention the elephant in the room. I could see them hitting some roadblocks and wanting to try again to get into China, but that would be a reasonable thing to come out and say. It also would be reasonable to come out and say they've changed their minds due to political climate or some other risks. Instead its... the new guy is busy?

It’s understandable it’s a touchy subject. Why piss off China if you don’t have to? Only something to lose and nothing to gain. Also this story of a Chinese Stanford professor/investor’s “suicide” last year is quite the story. There’s a potential safety issue here too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2018/12/13/a-death...

What tells you there is nothing to gain? I was probably the only one to consider Google a degree above other GAFA companies because for a long time it resisted Chinese censorship and refused to give away access to the gmail account of Chinese activists.

In a world where so many companies' valuation is tied to the number of users willing to give you their personal data, reputation is a precious thing.

Post reply on HN