5 ms·

That comment is not wishing for "personal harm to a new product's creator." It's wishing that the market rejects a business. There's a deeply reasoned argument

by geofft 6y ago

That comment is not wishing for "personal harm to a new product's creator." It's wishing that the market rejects a business. There's a deeply reasoned argument in that comment about the merits of the business model and it is anti-intellectual to dismiss it the way you would dismiss unhinged claims for violence. I understand that a side effect of a business failing is that the people working for the business lose their jobs. But if anything, that argument would apply primarily to the employees of the new product, not the creator. The creator understands that a new business is a venture - an attempt, not a guarantee - and that for many reasons it could fail. And, more generally, it seems like an awful slippery slope to characterize wanting some other business to not succeed as a desire to harm anyone. Suppose I agree with Suhail's goals but also I think I can execute on the idea better and I start a competitor. If there's only enough room in the market for one winner, and I want to be that winner, am I now wishing harm on Suhail too? Suppose I start a business that competes with some old-school giant ripe for disruption. Am I attempting to cause personal harm to the C-suite of that business? This is exactly what people are concerned about with Paul's article. Once you get comfortable painting some critics as "haters," it's easy to dismiss all critics that way. Haters and fanboys do not spring up from the quantum foam; they might not present their arguments in the best way, but if you have an overwhelming number of one or the other, there's quite possibly a reason for it.

tomhoward 6y ago
There's all the difference in the world between saying you hope the company "fails and fails hard", vs saying "I understand what the company is trying to do, here's how I think they can do it better". What could be more hateful that wishing someone "fails hard" vs hoping for them to find a way to succeed in a way you think is worthy? Anyway, it doesn't matter what you or I think about this. As I said in another comment, the ability to discern between valid criticism and hate is one of the most important skills a founder/executive can have, so real world outcomes matter far more than arguments about it here. All the essay is saying is that some critics cross over into being haters, and where that is the case they can be ignored. It's up to practitioners to discern what is and isn't hateful. People chiming in here saying "some criticism is valid and shouldn't all be dismissed as hate" are not disproving the article's thesis or saying anything PG would dispute.
- geofft 6y ago
  OK, but what if the criticism is "I understand what the company is trying to do, and I think it simply should not be done and certainly should not be done better"? Is such criticism prima facie invalid? Why? I think there's a clear answer for what can be more hateful - hoping that the person fails hard because of who they are. I saw none of that in the comment you linked. The hope is that the company fails. That is a valid position to hold! Again - if I say that I'm going to enter your industry and do a better job of it than you have such that my company succeeds, is that "hateful"?
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    What Mighty is trying to do is make the web faster for people who really need it to be really fast, and offering people the opportunity to voluntarily pay a modest monthly fee for that service. If there is a reasonable way of saying this should not be done, sure have at it. Or just let customers decide. Whatever you like. I get that much of the rage is focused on the some variant of the complaint that the web is slow because of JS cruft or advertising or whatever. Fine, there's a place for a discussion about that. Mighty didn't create that problem. They're just offering a solution that problem for people who need the solution enough to be willing to pay for it. No need to wish for Mighty to "crash and burn" just for trying to offer one kind of remedy. As I said, it doesn't matter what you do - the good founders will either read your criticism as helpful feedback and improve, or they'll recognise it as being from a "hater" and ignore it - perhaps being a little bit more spurred on to succeed. It's just up to you as to what kind of help you want to offer that founder. As for your last sentence: in this discussion we're talking specifically about the kind of feedback that is levelled at the founders of nascent products/companies when they launch, when they're just trying to offer something new to people who might want to try it. But even aside from that, in my experience, people running companies aren't usually hoping their competitors "crash and burn" - people who think like that are ego-driven and don't make it very far. There's generally a sense of respectful rivalry between competitors in an industry, and usually one company hopes to succeed at the products they make, whilst other companies in the space focus on different products or market segments. I guess it's all about whether your outlook is constructive or destructive. Ultimately, if we're generally in agreement that it's not commendable to be a "hater", then all other discussion is fairly arbitrary.

by geofft 6y ago

tomhoward 6y ago

There's all the difference in the world between saying you hope the company "fails and fails hard", vs saying "I understand what the company is trying to do, here's how I think they can do it better". What could be more hateful that wishing someone "fails hard" vs hoping for them to find a way to succeed in a way you think is worthy? Anyway, it doesn't matter what you or I think about this. As I said in another comment, the ability to discern between valid criticism and hate is one of the most important skills a founder/executive can have, so real world outcomes matter far more than arguments about it here. All the essay is saying is that some critics cross over into being haters, and where that is the case they can be ignored. It's up to practitioners to discern what is and isn't hateful. People chiming in here saying "some criticism is valid and shouldn't all be dismissed as hate" are not disproving the article's thesis or saying anything PG would dispute.

geofft 6y ago
OK, but what if the criticism is "I understand what the company is trying to do, and I think it simply should not be done and certainly should not be done better"? Is such criticism prima facie invalid? Why? I think there's a clear answer for what can be more hateful - hoping that the person fails hard because of who they are. I saw none of that in the comment you linked. The hope is that the company fails. That is a valid position to hold! Again - if I say that I'm going to enter your industry and do a better job of it than you have such that my company succeeds, is that "hateful"?
- tomhoward 6y ago
  What Mighty is trying to do is make the web faster for people who really need it to be really fast, and offering people the opportunity to voluntarily pay a modest monthly fee for that service. If there is a reasonable way of saying this should not be done, sure have at it. Or just let customers decide. Whatever you like. I get that much of the rage is focused on the some variant of the complaint that the web is slow because of JS cruft or advertising or whatever. Fine, there's a place for a discussion about that. Mighty didn't create that problem. They're just offering a solution that problem for people who need the solution enough to be willing to pay for it. No need to wish for Mighty to "crash and burn" just for trying to offer one kind of remedy. As I said, it doesn't matter what you do - the good founders will either read your criticism as helpful feedback and improve, or they'll recognise it as being from a "hater" and ignore it - perhaps being a little bit more spurred on to succeed. It's just up to you as to what kind of help you want to offer that founder. As for your last sentence: in this discussion we're talking specifically about the kind of feedback that is levelled at the founders of nascent products/companies when they launch, when they're just trying to offer something new to people who might want to try it. But even aside from that, in my experience, people running companies aren't usually hoping their competitors "crash and burn" - people who think like that are ego-driven and don't make it very far. There's generally a sense of respectful rivalry between competitors in an industry, and usually one company hopes to succeed at the products they make, whilst other companies in the space focus on different products or market segments. I guess it's all about whether your outlook is constructive or destructive. Ultimately, if we're generally in agreement that it's not commendable to be a "hater", then all other discussion is fairly arbitrary.