3 ms·

As a developer and therefore a person who benefits when lots of companies have demand for the field I work in, it's unclear to me why I should want "Startup Dra

As a developer and therefore a person who benefits when lots of companies have demand for the field I work in, it's unclear to me why I should want "Startup Drano". I'm not a VC nor an LP, I don't mind if VCs waste their money funding "Uber for dog food" or whatever. People starting businesses with bad business models don't offend me on a moral level. It's their funeral, let them make bad decisions if they want.

Analemma_ 10y ago
> People starting businesses with bad business models don't offend me on a moral level. It's their funeral, let them make bad decisions if they want. If you want a good explanation of why you should be offended and why you should want Startup Drano, try: http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm. Here's the key quote: "But investor storytime is a cancer on our industry. Because to make it work, to keep the edifice of promises from tumbling down, companies have to constantly find ways to make advertising more invasive and ubiquitous. Investor storytime only works if you can argue that advertising in the future is going to be effective and lucrative in ways it just isn't today. If the investors stop believing this, the money will dry up. And that's the motor destroying our online privacy. Investor storytime is why you'll see facial detection at store shelves and checkout counters. Investor storytime is why garbage cans in London are talking to your cell phone, to find out who you are." When all the free money is chasing advertising-driven business models, the advertising has to get ever more invasive in order to justify valuations. I'm all for letting business stand or fail on their merits if no one but the investors are harmed, but this is a very destructive externality that affects everyone.
- draw_down 10y ago
  Hmm. Indeed that is bad, but I have a feeling what we're really talking about here is capitalism.
  - Urbanxassassin 10y ago
    Yes, that is a good portion of America's capitalism perspective.
  - sedachv 10y ago
    Eben Moglen said the same thing during the Q&A at his HOPE 2012 talk: I don't think that the problem of collecting too much is now primarily a byproduct of careless regulation. The problem of collecting too much arises from the fact that the future of capitalism is in the data mining and control of its customers. When capitalist societies begin to depend more on consumption than they do on production for their overall economic health, and the GDP of the United States has been primarily consumption for more than 15 years now, then knowing how to control consumers becomes as important as knowing how to control productive machines was when the GDP was primarily based upon production rather than consumption. What is happening is that we are automating and instrumenting the portion of the economy which is most powerfully important, namely consumption. Collecting information about consumers is the same thing as knowing how the mill machines worked to the capitalists of the 19th century. So what we are confronting is not the accident of perverse incentives created as a byproduct of unintended consequences of regulation. We are facing the fact that doing the wrong thing is the basis of future economic growth. We are not trying to destroy future economic growth, we are trying to compromise among values. That's what regulation is. It's a messy process. Of course it has unintended consequences. Naturally it creates perverse incentives, because it's imperfect. But understanding the objective has to be clear: productive capitalism met ecological constraints. It dirtied the water too much, it dirtied the air too much, it created too many difficulties that had to be constrained as negative externalities produced by production. The attempt to regiment and govern consumption through data mining raises ecologic problems we must solve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY43zF_eHu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY43zF_eHu4 at 54:20
Spooky23 10y ago
Because you're an engineer in a boom-bust industry that hasn't had a real bust in a long time, and is about due. 75% of startups today are at best Facebook features. Engineers get fucked hard when that happens. Ask a former aerospace guy what the 90s were like.
- sah2ed 10y ago
  > Because you're an engineer in a boom-bust industry that hasn't had a real bust in a long time, and is about due. How does anyone determine with certainty that a bust is "about due" as you have?
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Business tends to be cyclic. Tech has been in a big upswing since the early 2000s.
rodgerd 10y ago
> People starting businesses with bad business models don't offend me on a moral level. In a pure sense, I'd like to agree with you, but there are a couple of things I see as being problematic at the moment: 1/ In many countries businesses or investors are often able to aquire political support to prop up failing businesses at the expense of broader society. When my pirate-themed restaurant goes broke, well, such is life. When someone like, say, a venture capitalist with the ear of the president of the US has a bunch of endangered investments you may well find your pockets being picked to prop up his bank balance. 2/ The trend for "disruption" means that the failing businesses may well have already destroyed previously-viable businesses (often as a result of running at a huge loss, not necessarily because they offer better product); that's an especially huge hazard in areas like education. The collapse of the VC-funded punt after it's already demolished what already existed leaves a smoking hole in the ground. If that's "one less restaurant in town", that's one thing. If that's "we ran down public transport and education because unicorns told us they'd solve the problem and now we have neither transport nor schools", well, that's a bit different.
accountface 10y ago
If all you want to do is acquire money in the short-term that makes sense.

Analemma_ 10y ago

> People starting businesses with bad business models don't offend me on a moral level. It's their funeral, let them make bad decisions if they want. If you want a good explanation of why you should be offended and why you should want Startup Drano, try: http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm. Here's the key quote: "But investor storytime is a cancer on our industry. Because to make it work, to keep the edifice of promises from tumbling down, companies have to constantly find ways to make advertising more invasive and ubiquitous. Investor storytime only works if you can argue that advertising in the future is going to be effective and lucrative in ways it just isn't today. If the investors stop believing this, the money will dry up. And that's the motor destroying our online privacy. Investor storytime is why you'll see facial detection at store shelves and checkout counters. Investor storytime is why garbage cans in London are talking to your cell phone, to find out who you are." When all the free money is chasing advertising-driven business models, the advertising has to get ever more invasive in order to justify valuations. I'm all for letting business stand or fail on their merits if no one but the investors are harmed, but this is a very destructive externality that affects everyone.

draw_down 10y ago
Hmm. Indeed that is bad, but I have a feeling what we're really talking about here is capitalism.
- Urbanxassassin 10y ago
  Yes, that is a good portion of America's capitalism perspective.
- sedachv 10y ago
  Eben Moglen said the same thing during the Q&A at his HOPE 2012 talk: I don't think that the problem of collecting too much is now primarily a byproduct of careless regulation. The problem of collecting too much arises from the fact that the future of capitalism is in the data mining and control of its customers. When capitalist societies begin to depend more on consumption than they do on production for their overall economic health, and the GDP of the United States has been primarily consumption for more than 15 years now, then knowing how to control consumers becomes as important as knowing how to control productive machines was when the GDP was primarily based upon production rather than consumption. What is happening is that we are automating and instrumenting the portion of the economy which is most powerfully important, namely consumption. Collecting information about consumers is the same thing as knowing how the mill machines worked to the capitalists of the 19th century. So what we are confronting is not the accident of perverse incentives created as a byproduct of unintended consequences of regulation. We are facing the fact that doing the wrong thing is the basis of future economic growth. We are not trying to destroy future economic growth, we are trying to compromise among values. That's what regulation is. It's a messy process. Of course it has unintended consequences. Naturally it creates perverse incentives, because it's imperfect. But understanding the objective has to be clear: productive capitalism met ecological constraints. It dirtied the water too much, it dirtied the air too much, it created too many difficulties that had to be constrained as negative externalities produced by production. The attempt to regiment and govern consumption through data mining raises ecologic problems we must solve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY43zF_eHu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY43zF_eHu4 at 54:20

Spooky23 10y ago

Because you're an engineer in a boom-bust industry that hasn't had a real bust in a long time, and is about due. 75% of startups today are at best Facebook features. Engineers get fucked hard when that happens. Ask a former aerospace guy what the 90s were like.

sah2ed 10y ago
> Because you're an engineer in a boom-bust industry that hasn't had a real bust in a long time, and is about due. How does anyone determine with certainty that a bust is "about due" as you have?
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Business tends to be cyclic. Tech has been in a big upswing since the early 2000s.

rodgerd 10y ago

> People starting businesses with bad business models don't offend me on a moral level. In a pure sense, I'd like to agree with you, but there are a couple of things I see as being problematic at the moment: 1/ In many countries businesses or investors are often able to aquire political support to prop up failing businesses at the expense of broader society. When my pirate-themed restaurant goes broke, well, such is life. When someone like, say, a venture capitalist with the ear of the president of the US has a bunch of endangered investments you may well find your pockets being picked to prop up his bank balance. 2/ The trend for "disruption" means that the failing businesses may well have already destroyed previously-viable businesses (often as a result of running at a huge loss, not necessarily because they offer better product); that's an especially huge hazard in areas like education. The collapse of the VC-funded punt after it's already demolished what already existed leaves a smoking hole in the ground. If that's "one less restaurant in town", that's one thing. If that's "we ran down public transport and education because unicorns told us they'd solve the problem and now we have neither transport nor schools", well, that's a bit different.

accountface 10y ago

If all you want to do is acquire money in the short-term that makes sense.