5 ms·

I don't even waste my time reading this guy's blog anymore. He's illustrated to me that he is corrupt and supports revenue models that are fraudulent ripoffs of

by fnid2 17y ago

I don't even waste my time reading this guy's blog anymore. He's illustrated to me that he is corrupt and supports revenue models that are fraudulent ripoffs of his startups' customers. As hackers who want to create a better web, we should stop promoting the words of people like him and jc and others who give the internet a bad name. We should just banish them from the web -- they make it worse for everyone but themselves and their uber-elite little group of scammers.

mixmax 17y ago
He's got some money, and he wants to safely invest them without too much risk so he buys bonds. Then he states his opinion on the risk of the historically low rates we're experiencing right now. How exactly is that corrupt and supports revenue models that are fraudulent ripoffs of his startups' customers?
- fnid2 17y ago
  It's favorite investment, Zynga, is a notorious ripoff artist and he has supported them before and after it was made apparent that their revenue model was a scam.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - messel 17y ago
    They had a small fraction of revenue from a questionable source (scammy sign ups). It was corrected immediately, Mark Pincus is an interesting guy, but I don't think of him as a scam artist. I think of him as a founder who wants to control the destiny of his company through revenue.
    - fnid2 17y ago
      I suppose my definition of "corrected" is different from yours. My definition of corrected means making the people you have wronged whole again. They took money from people and kept it and would have continued taking money from people in the same manner if Techcrunch hadn't have been so vocal about the zynga scam. There's a video floating around of Mark Pincus telling a group of startups that it's okay to rip off people as long as you're making money. It's atrocious behavior and I don't believe anything about it is at all acceptable. Until the situation really is corrected, this dude will have no respect from me.
      - messel 17y ago
        There's plenty more information out there about Mr. Pincus. He's not the monster he was made out to be.
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    I think your point here is that this particular blog doesn't do ethical (according to your set of ethics, from my perspective, zynga is at least attempting to clean up their revenue model) analysis of companies prior to making investment recommendations. Honestly, though, ethical investments funds are somewhat of a niche (and I don't think most of them would have a problem with zynga anyways) - whereas most would not invest in tobacco - which in years past has been a favorite holding for Warren Buffet; I don't suppose you are going to besmirch him, are you?
    - fnid2 17y ago
      There's a big difference between exchanging money for a product that customers want (cigarettes) and taking money from people who don't know they are giving you money at all and who also receive nothing in exchange.
steveplace 17y ago
http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- fnid2 17y ago
  You can say it is ad hominem or you can say it is a matter of trust. I don't trust this man or what he says. He has shown himself not to be trustworthy and that is a serious issue of character -- not just some flaw in an argument to be disagreed with. Look, humans can rationalize anything, so the rationality of the argument is less important than the motivations of the person making the arguments. Why are they saying what they are saying? At some point, you have to trust people and when someone justifies ripping off other people in the name of making a successful startup, then every argument after that becomes suspect. He has done just that. Said it is okay to build a business based on ripping people off -- it's not.
  - messel 17y ago
    I have gotten the opposite vibe, that Fred has proven himself as someone I can trust. What makes you think otherwise (I've been reading his blog for a little over a year, and he's remained consistent).
    - fnid2 17y ago
      Before zynga was "outted" he lauded them as his best investment. After techcrunch wrote what they did about zynga's business model, he said nothing for a very long time, until one day he was like, "Zynga is a great company, they are awesome and what they are doing is fine as long as they are making money." Well, it's not fine in my opinion and he should have said it wasn't fine and they should have given back all the money they took from customers. Instead, he's excited about making more money by selling zynga to the public or some other member of the startup pyramid scheme.
      - fredwilson 17y ago
        fnid2 - you don't have your facts straight on Zynga read this post and see what really happened. http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/03/candid-camera.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/03/candid-camera.html calling me corrupt is strong language and inaccurate i have a reputation for being honest, respectful, and generous. i have worked for 25 years to build that reputation. i value it more than anything other than my wife and children. it is very hurtful to me to read hateful stuff like you spew out

by fnid2 17y ago

mixmax 17y ago

He's got some money, and he wants to safely invest them without too much risk so he buys bonds. Then he states his opinion on the risk of the historically low rates we're experiencing right now. How exactly is that corrupt and supports revenue models that are fraudulent ripoffs of his startups' customers?

fnid2 17y ago
It's favorite investment, Zynga, is a notorious ripoff artist and he has supported them before and after it was made apparent that their revenue model was a scam.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- messel 17y ago
  They had a small fraction of revenue from a questionable source (scammy sign ups). It was corrected immediately, Mark Pincus is an interesting guy, but I don't think of him as a scam artist. I think of him as a founder who wants to control the destiny of his company through revenue.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    I suppose my definition of "corrected" is different from yours. My definition of corrected means making the people you have wronged whole again. They took money from people and kept it and would have continued taking money from people in the same manner if Techcrunch hadn't have been so vocal about the zynga scam. There's a video floating around of Mark Pincus telling a group of startups that it's okay to rip off people as long as you're making money. It's atrocious behavior and I don't believe anything about it is at all acceptable. Until the situation really is corrected, this dude will have no respect from me.
    - messel 17y ago
      There's plenty more information out there about Mr. Pincus. He's not the monster he was made out to be.
- ghshephard 17y ago
  I think your point here is that this particular blog doesn't do ethical (according to your set of ethics, from my perspective, zynga is at least attempting to clean up their revenue model) analysis of companies prior to making investment recommendations. Honestly, though, ethical investments funds are somewhat of a niche (and I don't think most of them would have a problem with zynga anyways) - whereas most would not invest in tobacco - which in years past has been a favorite holding for Warren Buffet; I don't suppose you are going to besmirch him, are you?
  - fnid2 17y ago
    There's a big difference between exchanging money for a product that customers want (cigarettes) and taking money from people who don't know they are giving you money at all and who also receive nothing in exchange.

steveplace 17y ago

http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

fnid2 17y ago
You can say it is ad hominem or you can say it is a matter of trust. I don't trust this man or what he says. He has shown himself not to be trustworthy and that is a serious issue of character -- not just some flaw in an argument to be disagreed with. Look, humans can rationalize anything, so the rationality of the argument is less important than the motivations of the person making the arguments. Why are they saying what they are saying? At some point, you have to trust people and when someone justifies ripping off other people in the name of making a successful startup, then every argument after that becomes suspect. He has done just that. Said it is okay to build a business based on ripping people off -- it's not.
- messel 17y ago
  I have gotten the opposite vibe, that Fred has proven himself as someone I can trust. What makes you think otherwise (I've been reading his blog for a little over a year, and he's remained consistent).
  - fnid2 17y ago
    Before zynga was "outted" he lauded them as his best investment. After techcrunch wrote what they did about zynga's business model, he said nothing for a very long time, until one day he was like, "Zynga is a great company, they are awesome and what they are doing is fine as long as they are making money." Well, it's not fine in my opinion and he should have said it wasn't fine and they should have given back all the money they took from customers. Instead, he's excited about making more money by selling zynga to the public or some other member of the startup pyramid scheme.
    - fredwilson 17y ago
      fnid2 - you don't have your facts straight on Zynga read this post and see what really happened. http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/03/candid-camera.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/03/candid-camera.html calling me corrupt is strong language and inaccurate i have a reputation for being honest, respectful, and generous. i have worked for 25 years to build that reputation. i value it more than anything other than my wife and children. it is very hurtful to me to read hateful stuff like you spew out