5 ms·

Throwaway on this one for obvious reasons. Everyone makes mistakes and it is clearly a mistake to take money from repressive regimes. The #metoo movement shoul

Throwaway on this one for obvious reasons. Everyone makes mistakes and it is clearly a mistake to take money from repressive regimes. The #metoo movement should take a look at some of these companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

enraged_camel 8y ago
How easy or even feasible is it to track where the money is coming from? Let's say you're a startup and a VC wants to invest in you. Can you ask for that information?
- ISL 8y ago
  If a question is important, it can always be asked. One must be prepared, of course, for the ramifications of asking a question and getting an unpleasant answer.
- qaq 8y ago
  Given the fact that SoftBank dwarfs all other funds (even combined) is it a realistic scenario?
  - gcb0 8y ago
    who are softbanks stakeholders?
    - dejv 8y ago
      Saudi prince invested huge amounts, not sure if personal or state money.
    - thatoneyouthrow 8y ago
      Masayoshi Son https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/10/16/business/softbank-ceo-saudis-prince-22-billion-test-values/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/10/16/business/softba...
      - gcb0 8y ago
        that's the CEO... not the stakeholder.
- supercanuck 8y ago
  Or they could go public and avoid the problem entirely. Let's not pretend there aren't other alternatives. Public, Open markets are there for a reason. They cost more, but are more ethical.
  - vkou 8y ago
    > They cost more, but are more ethical. They aren't. If you go public, you have zero control of who owns your company. It's not more ethical - it just launders your ethical responsibility. There are plenty of people or organizations - who also happen to have a horrific ethical record - who can buy shares in a private company. And there's nothing you can do to stop that.
    - tartoran 8y ago
      I'd argue in this case with Saudi money that zero control is better than blood money
vkou 8y ago
> Everyone makes mistakes and it is clearly a mistake to take money from repressive regimes. Is it clearly a mistake to take money from the CIA? The DoD? A couple of current Silicon Valley giants have been seeded by that money.
- supercanuck 8y ago
  You are comparing the CIA/DOD with the Saudi Kingdom? Really? One still answers to a democratically, elected president and Congress. One does not. This isn't comparable.
  - vkou 8y ago
    I don't care who they answer to, I care about what they do. The CIA has a history of torture and terrorism. The DOD has most recently, caused the deaths of a couple hundred thousand people in the Middle East. Just because you live in a democracy doesn't mean you can wash your hands of it. The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures. I mean, I would prefer ethical sources of funding, but drawing the line at "Sadui bad, China bad, Russia bad, American agencies/companies/individuals good" is tribalism.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures. A detail: They had a monarch with real power in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as a parliament.
      - vkou 8y ago
        The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head. If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall. The empire was governed by Parliament. The queen/king had some power, sure. Today, Larry Page has some power. Rupert Murdoch has power. The Koch brothers have power. Aristocrats, throughout history have had power, even if they have no formal posts in government. Just because a few well-connected individuals have power in a country, doesn't mean that it isn't a democracy.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
matrixmultiply 8y ago
#metoo is focused on witch hunting.
- xemoka 8y ago
  This is ridiculous. The #metoo movement is not focused on "witch hunting", there are many different people associated with this "movement" and there is no real guiding person or organization that is focused on it. Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive).
  - matrixmultiply 8y ago
    > Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive). Most are against due process, so it is difficult for me to take the movement seriously.
    - xemoka 8y ago
      Most are against due process? As in most supporters of #metoo or as in the most visible and loudest supporters that you have focused on? Do you have any kind of real statistics about the supporters of #metoo or are you making an inference from what makes the headlines from your chosen media?
  - legostormtroopr 8y ago
    Except the figure head of #metoo was found to be as guilty as the rest of them [1]. Every actor or celebrity screaming #metoo is a hypocrite who was happy for the status quo to be a culture of assault and degradation, until it became convenient for them to say otherwise. Then they passed it on the culture-at-large saying everyone has this problem, when it is vastly concentrated in Hollywood, which has lead to social breakdown [2]. [1] https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/asia-argento-metoo-actress-now-admits-to-sex-with-underage-boy-20180823-p4zz75.html https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/asia-argento-... [2] http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/lean-in-sheryl-sandberg/ http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/lean-in-sheryl-sandberg/

enraged_camel 8y ago

How easy or even feasible is it to track where the money is coming from? Let's say you're a startup and a VC wants to invest in you. Can you ask for that information?

ISL 8y ago
If a question is important, it can always be asked. One must be prepared, of course, for the ramifications of asking a question and getting an unpleasant answer.
qaq 8y ago
Given the fact that SoftBank dwarfs all other funds (even combined) is it a realistic scenario?
- gcb0 8y ago
  who are softbanks stakeholders?
  - dejv 8y ago
    Saudi prince invested huge amounts, not sure if personal or state money.
  - thatoneyouthrow 8y ago
    Masayoshi Son https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/10/16/business/softbank-ceo-saudis-prince-22-billion-test-values/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/10/16/business/softba...
    - gcb0 8y ago
      that's the CEO... not the stakeholder.
supercanuck 8y ago
Or they could go public and avoid the problem entirely. Let's not pretend there aren't other alternatives. Public, Open markets are there for a reason. They cost more, but are more ethical.
- vkou 8y ago
  > They cost more, but are more ethical. They aren't. If you go public, you have zero control of who owns your company. It's not more ethical - it just launders your ethical responsibility. There are plenty of people or organizations - who also happen to have a horrific ethical record - who can buy shares in a private company. And there's nothing you can do to stop that.
  - tartoran 8y ago
    I'd argue in this case with Saudi money that zero control is better than blood money

vkou 8y ago

> Everyone makes mistakes and it is clearly a mistake to take money from repressive regimes. Is it clearly a mistake to take money from the CIA? The DoD? A couple of current Silicon Valley giants have been seeded by that money.

supercanuck 8y ago
You are comparing the CIA/DOD with the Saudi Kingdom? Really? One still answers to a democratically, elected president and Congress. One does not. This isn't comparable.
- vkou 8y ago
  I don't care who they answer to, I care about what they do. The CIA has a history of torture and terrorism. The DOD has most recently, caused the deaths of a couple hundred thousand people in the Middle East. Just because you live in a democracy doesn't mean you can wash your hands of it. The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures. I mean, I would prefer ethical sources of funding, but drawing the line at "Sadui bad, China bad, Russia bad, American agencies/companies/individuals good" is tribalism.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures. A detail: They had a monarch with real power in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as a parliament.
    - vkou 8y ago
      The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head. If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall. The empire was governed by Parliament. The queen/king had some power, sure. Today, Larry Page has some power. Rupert Murdoch has power. The Koch brothers have power. Aristocrats, throughout history have had power, even if they have no formal posts in government. Just because a few well-connected individuals have power in a country, doesn't mean that it isn't a democracy.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

matrixmultiply 8y ago

#metoo is focused on witch hunting.

xemoka 8y ago
This is ridiculous. The #metoo movement is not focused on "witch hunting", there are many different people associated with this "movement" and there is no real guiding person or organization that is focused on it. Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive).
- matrixmultiply 8y ago
  > Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive). Most are against due process, so it is difficult for me to take the movement seriously.
  - xemoka 8y ago
    Most are against due process? As in most supporters of #metoo or as in the most visible and loudest supporters that you have focused on? Do you have any kind of real statistics about the supporters of #metoo or are you making an inference from what makes the headlines from your chosen media?
- legostormtroopr 8y ago
  Except the figure head of #metoo was found to be as guilty as the rest of them [1]. Every actor or celebrity screaming #metoo is a hypocrite who was happy for the status quo to be a culture of assault and degradation, until it became convenient for them to say otherwise. Then they passed it on the culture-at-large saying everyone has this problem, when it is vastly concentrated in Hollywood, which has lead to social breakdown [2]. [1] https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/asia-argento-metoo-actress-now-admits-to-sex-with-underage-boy-20180823-p4zz75.html https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/asia-argento-... [2] http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/lean-in-sheryl-sandberg/ http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/lean-in-sheryl-sandberg/