4 ms·

The claim we’re addressing in this subthread is that in 2012 YC knowingly invested in a company that intended to be predatory towards military personnel, such

The claim we’re addressing in this subthread is that in 2012 YC knowingly invested in a company that intended to be predatory towards military personnel, such that it would end up being shut down by regulators, implying that YC was both deeply unethical and deeply stupid. Are we really to believe that YC was being as unethical and stupid as this claim requires us to?

emodendroket 5y ago
"Knowing," "intended [at the time]", "would end up being shut down by regulators" are all your embellishments. The claim is "YC funded a payday lender that targeted active duty military service members." As far as I can tell, that is true, regardless of how pure anyone's intentions were at the time. The defense on offer is that the founders left the company between funding and now, but it is not very compelling given the timelines.
- tomhoward 5y ago
  The last part of that comment is quite obtuse. Can you state simply and clearly, what, if anything, YC did that was unethical?
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    "Unethical" again another embellishment. Perhaps this was simply a case of poor judgment, which isn't unethical to have.
    - tomhoward 5y ago
      OK then. You weren't the root commenter, but it's pretty clear the root comment and the reply to dang were attempting to pin an accusation of unethical conduct on YC. But never mind. There of course is another possibility: the founding team in 2011 was proposing a concept that seemed ethical and an improvement over payday lending options that existed at the time, but over time the company's idea or execution changed for some reason, in which case, there was neither poor ethics nor poor judgement on YC's part. Occam's razor would require us to accept this explanation unless there was substantive evidence for another scenario.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        I don’t see the Occam’s razor requires us to accept that over someone simply misrepresenting what their plans were.
        tomhoward 5y ago
        By definition, Occam's razor requires us to believe that founders sincerely intended to do what they said they planned to do, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        It is not self evident to me that someone sincerely intending to do kinder, gentler lending and ending up through some confluence of circumstances doing something else is a “simpler” explanation than the same person just lying about their intent.
        tomhoward 5y ago
        Without evidence that they lied in 2011-12, it requires an explanation as to why they would lie, and for us to believe that a strategy to lie to investors then defraud customers and get shut down by regulators is more plausible than to have set out with high-minded ambitions that later turned out to be fanciful.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        The lofty goals are pretty much always puffery we can discount because most people find it distasteful to say "well, the main reason I want to go into this business is I think it's high-margin and I can make a lot of money at it." I doubt they openly set out with an intention to flagrantly violate the law, but I don't find it unlikely that they didn't have much qualm about skating close to where they imagined the line was on the theory that they could establish themselves before the regulators caught up with them -- after all, this is precisely the strategy that worked well for YouTube, Uber, or AirBnb.

emodendroket 5y ago

"Knowing," "intended [at the time]", "would end up being shut down by regulators" are all your embellishments. The claim is "YC funded a payday lender that targeted active duty military service members." As far as I can tell, that is true, regardless of how pure anyone's intentions were at the time. The defense on offer is that the founders left the company between funding and now, but it is not very compelling given the timelines.

tomhoward 5y ago
The last part of that comment is quite obtuse. Can you state simply and clearly, what, if anything, YC did that was unethical?
- emodendroket 5y ago
  "Unethical" again another embellishment. Perhaps this was simply a case of poor judgment, which isn't unethical to have.
  - tomhoward 5y ago
    OK then. You weren't the root commenter, but it's pretty clear the root comment and the reply to dang were attempting to pin an accusation of unethical conduct on YC. But never mind. There of course is another possibility: the founding team in 2011 was proposing a concept that seemed ethical and an improvement over payday lending options that existed at the time, but over time the company's idea or execution changed for some reason, in which case, there was neither poor ethics nor poor judgement on YC's part. Occam's razor would require us to accept this explanation unless there was substantive evidence for another scenario.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      I don’t see the Occam’s razor requires us to accept that over someone simply misrepresenting what their plans were.
      - tomhoward 5y ago
        By definition, Occam's razor requires us to believe that founders sincerely intended to do what they said they planned to do, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        It is not self evident to me that someone sincerely intending to do kinder, gentler lending and ending up through some confluence of circumstances doing something else is a “simpler” explanation than the same person just lying about their intent.
        tomhoward 5y ago
        Without evidence that they lied in 2011-12, it requires an explanation as to why they would lie, and for us to believe that a strategy to lie to investors then defraud customers and get shut down by regulators is more plausible than to have set out with high-minded ambitions that later turned out to be fanciful.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        The lofty goals are pretty much always puffery we can discount because most people find it distasteful to say "well, the main reason I want to go into this business is I think it's high-margin and I can make a lot of money at it." I doubt they openly set out with an intention to flagrantly violate the law, but I don't find it unlikely that they didn't have much qualm about skating close to where they imagined the line was on the theory that they could establish themselves before the regulators caught up with them -- after all, this is precisely the strategy that worked well for YouTube, Uber, or AirBnb.