9 ms·

I 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,

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Not 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.
adventured 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? The let part is very curious for its implication. What would the proposal be exactly, other than using violence and bureaucracy (every investment goes through an inherently corrupt government investment approval board) to curb free association and dictate capital flows through a command & control filter? Want to invest in Coca Cola? No you may not, they've killed millions of people with obesity, diabetes and cancer over decades. So says some government tyrant dictating what you're allowed to invest into. Want to start a marijuana company and take an investment from another marijuana company? No you may not, it's a schedule one drug that is evil, according to some government drug enforcement tyrant. They're not about to let you do such a thing. You'd have to isolate yourself from half the planet economically to follow it to its proper conclusion. That includes: China, most of Africa, most of the Middle East, half of South America, several Eastern European nations, Russia, along with plausibly India and the US. And really where would we draw the line (other than arbitrarily by previously mentioned government tyrants)? Let's review the historical slave trade practices of various European nations for example, surely that counts against them in this absurdist premise. No investments are to ever be allowed from the Netherlands accordingly.
- kakarot 9y ago
  I'm sorry, exactly what kind of socioeconomic policy do you support? You speak as if you are a proponent of free market capitalism. Is that so? We live in the real world, where things are not black and white, but that line you talk about? It's called law and we will be spending at least the next couple of centuries working out the kinks.
wsc981 9y ago
I would never knowingly take blood money from a dictator, even if it meant I lived an impoverished life. Even if you would need this money to keep your own wife and children alive?
- 59nadir 9y ago
  The point is made in the article that a lot of this money was not taken in order to stay alive at all. The concrete example is Slack taking $250 million that they haven't even earmarked for anything in particular, just "operational flexibility". It's a nice play on emotions to bring up "wife and children", but that's not reality here.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    The claim GP was responding to was a "never" claim, not a "not if it was just to bank $250MM without any specific allocation for it".
    - doktrin 9y ago
      There's not much to gain from spinning pedantic hypotheticals around the word "never" "But what if you were hanging from a cliff and only a job offer from Pol Pot could save you.. " Because that's not missing the point at all.
      - kakarot 9y ago
        It's hard for people to understand it, and this is not the first time I've been accused of lying about this very thing... But when I say never, I mean it. My principle on this matter is more important than any emotion I may have. Some people feel like it's ok to be selfish as long as they don't directly see the results of their selfishness. Yet imagine if every time you went to pick up your check, you were forced to watch a woman get stoned to death because someone raped her, and the ones doing the stoning were the ones handing you the check. Any person that is okay with this scenario is a scourge on this planet. Any person who isn't okay with this scenario, but is ok with taking blood money from foreign countries where they do not have to see the violence actually taking place, well honestly I just pity them for living their life in such a state of confusion.
dogma1138 9y ago
Which company you work for I’ll give you a reason to quit in 5 minutes.
- kakarot 9y ago
  I work for a small startup which has taken no such money. My career is aligned with my ethical principles.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    I really doubt it, not your virtue signaling but the fact that you think your money is even remotely clean. Did you take money from a VC? Heck did you take money from a Bank? Would you surprise you to know that virtually every bank actively launders money for drug lords, terrorists and every other sort of undesirables? Money by definition isn’t clean, Saudi Arabia, UAE and the likes have one of the largest investment funds in the world you can’t withdraw a dollar from a bank without touching that money.
    - kakarot 9y ago
      We have not taken VC money at this time. Do you think I'm an idiot? I know that basically half the things I own are at the expense of others, like my nice monitors and other electronics. However, this is a huge step away from taking money from dictatorships and slave traders. Let's be sure we are both talking about the same thing here. I hope to one day apply the skills I have gained at the expense of others to better the lives of the less fortunate to a much greater extent than I have harmed them. It is my ethical duty to do so. I'm not some confused idealist and I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. I do not personally have a bank account. It is unavoidable that my company has a bank account, and the fact that the money is dirty is a separate issue and needs to be addressed. On the other hand, it isn't unavoidable to turn down investments from bad characters. In the event that my company would knowingly accept such money, I would leave. So I don't understand your point. You're not the first person to try this angle, and honestly others have made a better argument than you. Stop playing devil's advocate, and let's talk about the reality we actually live in.
Chris2048 9y ago
> why do we let this happen in a country that boasts about its commitment to democracy and human rights? Because talk is cheap, but comfortable lies work. The case can easily be made that part of the American rise to power was basically war profiteering. Even Russia enjoys whataboutism wrt to American morality...

dba7dba 9y ago

I 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 ago
Not 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.

adventured 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? The let part is very curious for its implication. What would the proposal be exactly, other than using violence and bureaucracy (every investment goes through an inherently corrupt government investment approval board) to curb free association and dictate capital flows through a command & control filter? Want to invest in Coca Cola? No you may not, they've killed millions of people with obesity, diabetes and cancer over decades. So says some government tyrant dictating what you're allowed to invest into. Want to start a marijuana company and take an investment from another marijuana company? No you may not, it's a schedule one drug that is evil, according to some government drug enforcement tyrant. They're not about to let you do such a thing. You'd have to isolate yourself from half the planet economically to follow it to its proper conclusion. That includes: China, most of Africa, most of the Middle East, half of South America, several Eastern European nations, Russia, along with plausibly India and the US. And really where would we draw the line (other than arbitrarily by previously mentioned government tyrants)? Let's review the historical slave trade practices of various European nations for example, surely that counts against them in this absurdist premise. No investments are to ever be allowed from the Netherlands accordingly.

kakarot 9y ago
I'm sorry, exactly what kind of socioeconomic policy do you support? You speak as if you are a proponent of free market capitalism. Is that so? We live in the real world, where things are not black and white, but that line you talk about? It's called law and we will be spending at least the next couple of centuries working out the kinks.

wsc981 9y ago

I would never knowingly take blood money from a dictator, even if it meant I lived an impoverished life. Even if you would need this money to keep your own wife and children alive?

59nadir 9y ago
The point is made in the article that a lot of this money was not taken in order to stay alive at all. The concrete example is Slack taking $250 million that they haven't even earmarked for anything in particular, just "operational flexibility". It's a nice play on emotions to bring up "wife and children", but that's not reality here.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  The claim GP was responding to was a "never" claim, not a "not if it was just to bank $250MM without any specific allocation for it".
  - doktrin 9y ago
    There's not much to gain from spinning pedantic hypotheticals around the word "never" "But what if you were hanging from a cliff and only a job offer from Pol Pot could save you.. " Because that's not missing the point at all.
    - kakarot 9y ago
      It's hard for people to understand it, and this is not the first time I've been accused of lying about this very thing... But when I say never, I mean it. My principle on this matter is more important than any emotion I may have. Some people feel like it's ok to be selfish as long as they don't directly see the results of their selfishness. Yet imagine if every time you went to pick up your check, you were forced to watch a woman get stoned to death because someone raped her, and the ones doing the stoning were the ones handing you the check. Any person that is okay with this scenario is a scourge on this planet. Any person who isn't okay with this scenario, but is ok with taking blood money from foreign countries where they do not have to see the violence actually taking place, well honestly I just pity them for living their life in such a state of confusion.

dogma1138 9y ago

Which company you work for I’ll give you a reason to quit in 5 minutes.

kakarot 9y ago
I work for a small startup which has taken no such money. My career is aligned with my ethical principles.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  I really doubt it, not your virtue signaling but the fact that you think your money is even remotely clean. Did you take money from a VC? Heck did you take money from a Bank? Would you surprise you to know that virtually every bank actively launders money for drug lords, terrorists and every other sort of undesirables? Money by definition isn’t clean, Saudi Arabia, UAE and the likes have one of the largest investment funds in the world you can’t withdraw a dollar from a bank without touching that money.
  - kakarot 9y ago
    We have not taken VC money at this time. Do you think I'm an idiot? I know that basically half the things I own are at the expense of others, like my nice monitors and other electronics. However, this is a huge step away from taking money from dictatorships and slave traders. Let's be sure we are both talking about the same thing here. I hope to one day apply the skills I have gained at the expense of others to better the lives of the less fortunate to a much greater extent than I have harmed them. It is my ethical duty to do so. I'm not some confused idealist and I don't appreciate your condescending attitude. I do not personally have a bank account. It is unavoidable that my company has a bank account, and the fact that the money is dirty is a separate issue and needs to be addressed. On the other hand, it isn't unavoidable to turn down investments from bad characters. In the event that my company would knowingly accept such money, I would leave. So I don't understand your point. You're not the first person to try this angle, and honestly others have made a better argument than you. Stop playing devil's advocate, and let's talk about the reality we actually live in.

Chris2048 9y ago

> why do we let this happen in a country that boasts about its commitment to democracy and human rights? Because talk is cheap, but comfortable lies work. The case can easily be made that part of the American rise to power was basically war profiteering. Even Russia enjoys whataboutism wrt to American morality...