4 ms·
Arguing against the supposed behaviors of a "current breed of silicon valley wunderkinds" seems, at best, like a straw man. Do Paul Carr or Sara Lacy really kn
by rguzman 15y ago
Arguing against the supposed behaviors of a "current breed of silicon valley wunderkinds" seems, at best, like a straw man. Do Paul Carr or Sara Lacy really know founders and their companies that well? Pieces like this make my blood boil a little bit -- Carr, Lacy, and the like profit from being the peanut-gallery for the "wunderkids" while taking cheap shots against them without complete information. So much for basic human decency.
- rdl 15y agoI assure you, vastly more sketchiness existed among founders in 1996-2000 (mainly, the MBA types) than either web 2.0 boom 1.0 (2004-2007) or now.
- palish 15y agoYou say that like it's an excuse for the current behavior.
- rguzman 15y agoWhat current behavior? Can you be specific?
- palish 15y agoAirbnb saying the word "funding" to EJ was damning. But they didn't just do that. They asked her to shut down her blog post, or put a positive spin to "complete the story". And they did that because they were more concerned about their funding than about her home being utterly destroyed via their service.
- rguzman 15y agoOkay, so they made a very bad PR mistake in asking her to put a positive spin on her writing. That seems to be mostly bad for themselves and their investors. Not sure where the lack of human decency is in that. Also, there is no applicable generalization here -- this is one very unfortunate instance, not a current breed of wunderkids.
- rdl 15y agoTheir issue, like most other startups, is that they're focused on growth, building cool stuff, changing the world, etc., and probably have a hard time slowing down to handle an exception successfully. Also maybe having a hard time empathizing with a really distraught person (which isn't really a skill set most people outside the clergy, ER, military, etc. are going to need, at least professionally). For most startups, handling the worst case as well as possible (i.e. above a minimum standard) isn't the goal; it's to handle the best cases exceptionally well, or to handle the average or 90th percentile or whatever really well.
- jcc80 15y agoThe point was that he doesn't need to know the founders and companies that well - asking the woman to take down her blog post or change it was a sleezy move. Carr is saying that they could be awesome people but that they clearly lost their way here. Unless you think the woman is a complete liar...which I for one - with incomplete information, do not.
- rguzman 15y ago> The point was that he doesn't need to know the founders and companies that well - asking the woman to take down her blog post or change it was a sleezy move. My point is that he does not have complete information about the situation. Neither do I. Neither do you. I don't really get why airbnb is on trial here. Something very unfortunate happened. They might've made a PR blunder. Maybe they could have a system with more emphasis on security, probably at the expense of volume. Whatever... it is their company, it makes us hosts good money and us travelers have better experiences. Nobody is obligated to use airbnb. We the users are not the victims of startup founders, like Carr dramatizes in the post, we're just users. We use the services because we derive more value from them than they cost. There is no "social contract" between founders and users.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jcc80 15y agoPersonally, I do not need "complete information" - whatever that is. I doubt I could express another opinion again if that was the standard. Airbnb is on trial, I think, because people think they acted like jerks in trying to get someone to be quiet. Internet folk generally do not like people who try to silence others. Regarding their actual obligations - as far as I'm concerned and legally, the risk is on the host. Of course, for their own benefit it'd probably be a good idea to help her out.