3 ms·
I'm honestly not trying to take a potshot against PG or YC here, but it's kinda funny to see him saying this after I worked for a YC-backed startup years ago th
by thr0wawayf00 5y ago
I'm honestly not trying to take a potshot against PG or YC here, but it's kinda funny to see him saying this after I worked for a YC-backed startup years ago that built its core revenue streams around generating SEO spam, we just marketed it as something else. Just to be clear, I don't think PG or YC are responsible for all or even most SEO spam, but I know firsthand that they've profited from it through at least one of their incubated companies.
I never considered the possibility that an incubator would support a specific product, then later on call for alternatives that would essentially freeze out the original product that they supported. I'm sure this very rarely happens, but it's interesting to see a real-world example in action.
- awillen 5y agoI don't think it's as counterintuitive as it sounds - just because they're playing the game doesn't mean that they think it's right. If your options are to not be successful at SEO or to do the SEO spam thing, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to do the latter - it's your job to make your startup successful, not to make a stand against the way Google does things. I view it as something like the rich folks who call for additional taxation of the rich. They're not going to just pay extra money that they don't have to under the current tax rules, both because it's not particularly fair and because one person paying extra taxes, even if they're very wealthy, isn't going to make a big impact. That doesn't mean they can't lobby to change the rules and be totally fine with it if everyone is paying additional taxes.
- vlovich123 5y agoDon't know how rarely it happens. After all, weapons dealers frequently arm both sides of a conflict. They don't really need to care who wins - they're just making twice the amount of money.