4 ms·

> writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing

• Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  > Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". It was unclear to me whether you were suggesting sexism was under the domain of "normal imperfect human behavior" or not. If you weren't, then I apologize, I misread. > I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. I agree with this premise, but I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word and are using hyperbolic rhetoric to both appeal to a cultural standard in the industry and to convince their employees to work harder for less compensation and more uncertainty. If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Admirable attempts no doubt, but changing the world they are not. > So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. Because these people employ others who are convinced by their rhetoric. Gambling laws and Ponzi Scheme laws exist to stop greedy actors from exploiting human failings. My argument here is that joining a startup is akin to gambling, and giving them a free pass is akin to taking an amoral stance on gambling. > Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? Yeah apologies I wasn't super cogent here. > There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games and other such gambling because it's widely recognized that high risk gambling can be exploitative and ruinous. I don't see any such urge in tech.
  • smsm42 9y ago
    > I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word I have no idea. How would you know? And then, who cares - if they do change the world, it doesn't matter if they really really wanted it or jus kinda, and if they don't, truly nobody cares. > If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Vast majority of startups also don't make claims about changing the world. In fact, we, on average, know absolutely nothing about vast majority of startups, because there's just too many of them. Everybody knows about Juicero, because that's in the press, but nobody knows about 10000 non-Juiceros. If you want to discuss the hyped ones - then let's not lose the focus. > Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. If people with funding make decision on whether somebody uses rhetoric or not, only, then the rhetoric is not a problem. But frankly, I don't believe it. People who professionally invest money are not stupider than you or me, if you can see it, they can see it. So I don't think "we're too honest with our rhetoric and too beautiful for this cruel world" is a real industry-wise problem. Lack of communicative or marketing skills to clearly explain the idea behind the startup may very well be, but that's a different one. > Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games Wait, so the whole problem is that there's no Big Dude from Big Government overseeing it and protecting poor investors from themselves? The the whole thing is even less substance than I expected. I think exploitation of angel investor billionaires by overhyped startups is not the problem we should be too worried about, and probably not in the first 1000 of the problems that our society faces.
• YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> High risk investment is in no way unique to SV. There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. They can afford it, and they are the lifeblood of innovation and invention. All power to them. I literally can't think of anything bad coming from a billionaire spending some promilles of his outsized bank account on some weird innovative project, that may or may not change the world. Some of those would be stupid, so what. You can't make innovation without doing a couple of stupid tries on the way. Could I ask you (and hopefully, others) for a few examples of SV startups that have, in your opinion, changed the world? I would like to impose some criteria however - and I don't know if you'll agree with them. I'll number them for easy reference but you don't have to respond with a respectively numbered list. You might contest my criteria, of course. 1. The change brought on must contribute to the wellbeing of a wider community, i.e., not just to the bottom line of the company. This is probably an obvious requirement. 2. The change must be a clear net benefit to the community. For instance, if a firm is selling millions of a device that "make the world a better place" but these millions of devices end up as unrecyclable garbage soon after, that's not an obvious net benefit- it's doing some good here, some harm there and it's hard to tell which is bigger. I think we should be able to agree on this being a reasonable requirement, too. 3. The change must not fulfill a need that didn't exist beforehand. For instance, insurance is not strictly needed until one is offered the opportunity to buy some, at which point there is a (conditional) benefit that was never expected before it. 4. The change must not fulfill a need that was adequately satisfied beforehand. For instance -this might be controversial- a smartphone fulfills the need of "communication" but people could communicate just fine without smartphones. Uber fulfills the need of transportation, but people had transportation long before Uber; etc. I'm asking you specifically because you seem to believe that SV firms really want to change the world. I agree with Karrot_Kream that it's just marketing. So I am interested to hear why you think this.
  • smsm42 9y ago
    Some notes about your requirements: 1. What you mean by "wellbeing"? A company - outside of government investment, like defense company - can only exist if people pay for their product. If they voluntarily pay for it, doesn't it mean they want it? Or are you allowed to argue that they may want it, but you think they shouldn't so it doesn't qualify as wellbeing? If so, you basically define what "wellbeing" is and I can't hope to guess what it is. 2. Again, what is "net benefit" - how you count it? I know one way, see above. You probably know about it too, and yet added two separate special requirements - so you probably have something else in mind. Again, it would be hard for me to see what. 3. Why not? I didn't have an urge to learn Spanish until I learned about Duolingo and an urge to learn about variety of subjects until I read Coursera catalog. It just didn't come to my attention it's possible for me to do it that easily. Now I can. We can go further - before air travel existed, I'd probably never thought I want to visit another continent. Now I know I do. Does it mean air travel didn't change the world? Of course it did. 4. What is "adequately"? Obviously, if people are paying money for the new provider, they find something in it that wasn't covered by the old provider. Again, you can claim people "don't need it" - like, they don't need smartphones, just sending ravens to each other and occasionally having a maester write a long letter is perfectly fine, but who decides that? You do. And I can't hope to match your criteria here. Of course, people lived lives in 600 BC, and by all indications were not hellishly unhappy, at least most of them, so should we claim all that happened since was unnecessary and didn't really change the world? Makes no sense to me. > examples of SV startups that have, in your opinion, changed the world? OK, here are some examples that made the world be different for me. Note I don't consider how good the change was and how good are the companies at day-to-day operations, only whether they did something that changed something in a big way. And I only consider relatively new companies, e.g. IBM won't qualify even if they invent time travel. Also, I do not discuss Google, because a) obvious, b) not a startup for a while. Twitter. I mean, US president is using it and everybody in the world is jumping around it. You may not like it, but you have to admit this is happening. It's a different world now. Square. The enablement of small businesses driven by it is phenomenal. And it certainly changes my patterns of behavior - I no longer need to run around looking for ATM (or, in many cases, just not patronize that particular business because it's too much trouble). Yelp. Completely changed how people choose where to eat and who to hire and so on. Uber. Changed the world for me - now in any city on the planet that has Uber I can be sure I can get whereever I want. Bus broke down? Train has 2 hour delay? Car in the shop and I need to go somewhere right now? I know what to do. Yes, taxis existed before - and my experience with them sucked (once I was stranded in the middle of pretty large US city and was told by dispatcher no cabs are available in the next hour or so. I had to call the only person I knew in the whole city - which was barely an acquaintance - and beg him to take me to the hotel. Very unpleasant). Facebook. It is criticized a lot, and deservedly. But I now am talking to people that I literally haven't seen for decades. Yes, it's not "real" talking like sitting in the same room etc. This would probably never happen - we are too far from each other, and too busy, and too... well, a lot of things, but at least we're not 100% disconnected as it would be before. Automattic. This is the company behind WordPress, which made publishing accessible to common people. Now everybody can do what in the past only major newspapers and writers could do. Coursera (also Udemy) - not unique, but hugely game-changing thing, you can now get an several degrees worth of education completely free, not leaving your home and needing nothing but an internet connection. Of course, yes, getting a formal degree in a college has its benefits, but now it's not the only way. BitTorrent (along with predecessors, copycats, etc.). This can be arguable whether it's good or bad, but the way that content is consumed online has been changed forever when peer-sharing networks appeared. Netflix, as a complement to the above. Changed how people consume entertainment, and more. I mean, netflix and chill, right? Mozilla - without it existing, Internet probably would be owned by Microsoft now, and Chrome would have much chance to happen either because everybody would think there's no chance to beating Microsoft there. Apple, of course, may not qualify as a startup, but deserves a honorable mention by making the concept of smartphone finally work. One can argue that'd happen even without them, but somebody would have done it, and mobile computing has changed the world, and Apple took a huge part in it. Wikipedia (not your regular "startup", but can be seen as part of SV) - need I explain anything here? Of course, the geographic criterion here - only SV ones - is kinda limiting and arbitrary, but I guess it's a decent sample anyway. And probably missed a lot of viable candidates, it's just a list that I could make without starting a doctoral thesis on it.