3 ms·

This is a bit tangential: Every start-up that YC funds is potentially worth an essay. Isn't that why they are funded? They solve a problem that nags many. So I

This is a bit tangential: Every start-up that YC funds is potentially worth an essay. Isn't that why they are funded? They solve a problem that nags many. So I am not surprised to see Rescue Time linked in there (The title itself is a sure bet that it would). However, given the wide reach of pg's articles (beyond news.YC), should the link merit a disclosure? There's a fuzzy notion of when that needs to be done and I am intrigued by what these notions are. People would be baying for Michael Arrington's blood if he was found responsible for such an omission, but I am guessing it is a non-issue here. So what's the difference? A higher implicit trust-ranking for pg? An assumption that everyone already knows about the linkages between YC and RescueTime? Or the fact that these essays aren't actively promoted by pg. That could be a factor even if the probability of his latest essay being posted within hours, here or elsewhere, is now close to one.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
I think it's because nobody imagines pg would be lame enough to fund a bad product, and then promote it with his name. That would turn off lots of good potential YC applicants.
- ChaitanyaSai 18y ago
  That it is a good product and appeals to many goes without saying no matter who the investor is. Presumably, every investor is behind a product because he/she sees some merit.
  - byrneseyeview 18y ago
    Yeah, hence the part about Paul Graham. Some people have audiences but not credibility. Paul Graham seems to have gotten his audience because of his credibility . It wouldn't be evil to do what you're worried about. It would just be dumb.
linhares 18y ago
You are right on spot. PG really should update with full disclosure. I didn't click on the link, and it crossed my mind that it could be that Dilbertesque piece of software, but PG's credibility with me made me discredit the thought. This is an obviously blatant conflict of interest... isn't it supposed to be just an "essay"?
- randallsquared 18y ago
  Where's the "conflict"?

byrneseyeview 18y ago

I think it's because nobody imagines pg would be lame enough to fund a bad product, and then promote it with his name. That would turn off lots of good potential YC applicants.

ChaitanyaSai 18y ago
That it is a good product and appeals to many goes without saying no matter who the investor is. Presumably, every investor is behind a product because he/she sees some merit.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  Yeah, hence the part about Paul Graham. Some people have audiences but not credibility. Paul Graham seems to have gotten his audience because of his credibility . It wouldn't be evil to do what you're worried about. It would just be dumb.

linhares 18y ago

You are right on spot. PG really should update with full disclosure. I didn't click on the link, and it crossed my mind that it could be that Dilbertesque piece of software, but PG's credibility with me made me discredit the thought. This is an obviously blatant conflict of interest... isn't it supposed to be just an "essay"?

randallsquared 18y ago
Where's the "conflict"?