9 ms·
The article is really asking "why does the tech industry accept Saudi money?", not "why does Saudi Arabia invest in tech companies?"
by zodiac 9y ago
The article is really asking "why does the tech industry accept Saudi money?", not "why does Saudi Arabia invest in tech companies?"
- harryh 9y agoSame answer: simple avarice. There is a lot of Saudi money and they are willing to invest it. And their money is just as good for hiring programmers and renting servers as anyone else's.
- icantdrive55 9y agoSo--money is money? I was going to bring up ethics/morality, but maybe it's all basically dirty?
- zodiac 9y agoYeah, of course that's probably the reason.
- Barrin92 9y agoyep kind of confused to. The silicon valley is a for-profit sector, when they write "diversity, inclusiveness, fairness" and so forth on their banners they are very much qualifying this within a business context. People need to be a little more honest and accept that those slogans are marketing messages, nobody in the valley is seriously going to turn an investment away for moral reasons
- harryh 9y agoI wouldn't say "nobody." I am personally aware of people who have, for example, turned down money from Yuri Milner/DST for reasons that were at least somewhat moral in nature. So it does happen. But these people had other good options so it was really a choice of who they were going to take money from. It's when you don't have a choice or a questionably moral party offers significantly better terms that it's hard to turn it down.
- 0xbear 9y agoMeh. Probably the term sheet wasn’t good enough.
- skrebbel 9y agoJust curious, what's the moral problem with Yuri Milner? I don't know much about him except that he's Russian, which I sure hope isn't considered a moral problem in its own right.
- harryh 9y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner-facebook-twitter-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner-faceboo...
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoThere was a lively discussion yesterday surrounding Milner and a NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner-facebook-twitter-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner-faceboo... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15631084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15631084
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoSometimes moral reasons can be the profitable decision if those morales are something that includes peoples economic decisions.
- wallace_f 9y agoThe problem is that even if you have benevolent leaders in charge of the major players in a market, all it does is create opportunity for some immoral actor to enter the market to realize the profit opportunity. I can't think of an example that a modern corporation has done something against their benefit for purely for moral reasons. This is the responsibility of effective government regulation and consumer choice. If we leave it up to the market, we will be continually disappointed.
- rixed 9y agoGoogle leaving China may be such an exemple, although it's always possible that there were other reasons.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoGoogle leaving china might be an example in favor of my point...the moral decision there may have also been the profitable decision.
- kavalg 9y agoThe question that comes to mind then is whether moral or profit (or something else not on the moral end of the scale) was the driver of that decision ...
- d10r 9y agoWell, then maybe something's wrong with the very concept of "modern corporation" itself.
- wallace_f 9y ago
- kakarot 9y agoI took that as people need to be a little more honest and accept that those slogans are lies and bullshit. This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. Sure, they are for profit, but since when is that the only thing that matters? I would never knowingly take blood money from a dictator, even if it meant I lived an impoverished life. If the company I worked for took such money, I would begin looking for alternate employment. No one is asking why do people take money from bad people, no one is that naive and it's naive to think that they are. We're all familiar with the concept of greed. What they're asking is why do we let this happen in a country that boasts about its commitment to democracy and human rights?
- dba7dba 9y agoI guess some people see it troubling that the guardians of human rights of modern world are so willing to take funding from nations that doesn't value such rights. Basically Silicon Valley companies are very vocal about protecting human rights (which is good), and turn around and accept funding from nations that don't value them. And it's not like these SV Companies didn't have any other source of funding.
- lostboys67 9y agoNot really a lot of SV companies will be selective in which human rights they apply if it doesn't cost them that much
- Barrin92 9y ago> What they're asking is why do we let this happen in a country that boasts about its commitment to democracy and human rights? don't get me wrong, I care about this as much as you do. I'm just saying that the valley itself is not the right place for this, it's a political matter. we shouldn't waste our time going on a deep introspection tour into 'tech values', they have a duty towards their shareholders as much as BP or Exxon.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago> they have a duty towards their shareholders as much as BP or Exxon Or as little. The concept of fiduciary duty is just a hack to keep corporations working in the service of capital, rather than, you know, the common good or whatever. It's neither a legal standard nor an economic imperative, just a convenient myth. I guess it can be encoded into the charter of a company, in which case it is their imperative, but I digress. But I totally agree that it's absurd that this debate is being scoped to the tech industry.
- mayneack 9y agoSurely there's some people they'd turn down money from. I doubt anyone in the valley is gonna accept a check publicly from harvey weinstein right now. You're right that it's a business decision more than moral, but given enough pressure, the business decision will tilt the other way.
- jacobush 9y agoAnyone? Please. Show me a startup still a ways to go from Ramen profitable and I’ll show you a startup which would accept H. Weinstein money.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- coliveira 9y agoA very good explanation of why capitalism is an imoral system. Anyone who can't understand this simple fact is just losing their times. The shadier your scheme for making money, the further away you get (as long as you don't go to jail) because that's the whole nature of the beast.
- hj34 9y agoYou can't blame a cow for doing what all the other cows are doing. It is in the nature of the cow.
- 59nadir 9y agoYeah, I'm not sure what the fruit of this is going to be. It's a nice reminder that most business/industry is outside of morals. It's not that all of it is immoral, but rather that it exists without any moral requirement and most of the times not having morals is an advantage. Also, if people really thought SV had any care at all for ethics and morals even before this they must've missed pretty much all of the news about SV for years and years. Not caring about what's right is expected, as long as you don't get caught. It's just a risk/reward thing.
- PeachPlum 9y agoamoral, not immoral but even then I disagree, just look at the life expectancy of the billions of people under capitalism. Milton Friedman - Is Capitalism Humane? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHPI1emZFVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHPI1emZFVg
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago"The least of several evils" is not the same thing as "good".
- jamesrcole 9y agoBut what if it's the least evil of all the available options? That doesn't itself make it "good" but that does make it the best option available.
- akoncius 9y agowhy they should’t?
- clairity 9y ago> And their money is just as good for hiring programmers and renting servers as anyone else's. maybe you didn't mean it this way, but i was struck by the nonchalance of this statement, as if being able to spend money justifies taking the investment. and i presume that's exactly why the article was written, to question that kind of stance. now i love tech, and will defend our ability to progress and advance and make new things where there were none. and sometimes that requires compromise, like taking money from flawed people and institutions (as we all are). but none of us gets a free pass from morality, not even in business. these need to be considered, weighed and balanced decisions. just because we codify our morality in law and abdicate enforcement to police doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold each other acccountable as well. in fact, holding each other accountable is crucial to ensuring a fair and just society. sometimes we must sacrifice a bit today to make sure we have justice tomorrow. a functioning society requires that we keep each others' avarice in check.
- hedonistbot 9y ago> but none of us gets a free pass from morality, not even in business What? That's news to me. What about the entire defence industry? What about all the politicians that take a cushy job in the companies they helped during their time in office and who can be directly held accountable by the electorate? And why should anyone question the Saudis when they just signed a multi billion dollar weapon deal with the US government. Your statement sounds very naive.
- eikenberry 9y agoSo you are saying you don't have any use for the idea of morality. Luckily most people don't think that way and think being good is a desirable trait.
- notheguyouthink 9y ago> So you are saying you don't have any use for the idea of morality. To a degree I agree with this statement though. Morality in politics and corporations seems to be purely a tool for those without morality. That is to say, "X would never do that, why do we need laws for it?" As far as I'm concerned, morality is for a person, unique and without power. If any (meaningful, I guess) power is obtained, such as in companies and politicians, checks and balances need to be in place to prevent abuse, corruption, etc. We seriously need vast and in depth auditing in politics, because morality is long failed the world.
- Kurtz79 9y agoAs the ancient Romans said, "Pecunia non olet". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunia_non_olet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunia_non_olet