14 ms·

It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant. If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then wh

by pg 15y ago

It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant. If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you're saying is fuck the entire corporate world, because I'm sure Monsanto buys Apple computers and Chevrolets and Clorox too. It's sort of ridiculous to hold Cloudant to a standard that essentially zero other companies meet. There are frequently inane comments of this type at the bottom of HN threads. What's alarming is to see them at the top.

Kroem3r 15y ago
Fair opinion. But I found it refreshing; I was resigned to seeing a lot of preemptory 'separation of ethics and business' discussions.
- sitkack 15y ago
  I love the idea that ethics should be a hobby one does after their day job. We get angry about things like that because if a small group of really smart people strike out on their own to change the world and do good and yet put out a press release saying how "excited" they are to be working with such an amoral company, it just vacates our idealistic world view. We can't stop Apple selling MacBooks to Monstanto. Apple makes tools and doesn't ask how they get used (nor should it have to). But a small cloud startup, different picture. One is active and one is passive.
lbrandy 15y ago
I am -so- glad you said it. I've been resisting the urge for weeks to point out the /r/politics-ization of hacker news for fear of being "that guy" (you know, the one complaining about the good ol' days). Just to be clear about what that means, to me, is that not so much politics is involved, but completely uncritical and tribalist politics, where we just unthinkingly upvote anyone advocating any position in support of the "good guys" and downvote anyone that defends the "bad guys".
kongqiu 15y ago
It's an unfortunate sign for everyone that you (and/or Cloudant) wouldn't anticipate this reaction from going into business with Monsanto. As to the "content-free" claim, sometimes a rant is an appropriate reaction. If some YC company partnered with Al Qaida, would we really need to spell out all the heinous things AQ has done before writing, "F- that!"?!? EDIT: And to your "If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you're saying is fuck the entire corporate world, because I'm sure Monsanto buys Apple computers and Chevrolets and Clorox too. It's sort of ridiculous to hold Cloudant to a standard that essentially zero other companies meet." -- It's one thing if Monsanto buys iPhones and Macs from Apple; that would represent ~.0001% of Apple's overall business. It's another thing if Monsanto is responsible for a significant % of your revenue. (Of course, Cloudant's deal with Monsanto could represent only 2% of Cloudant's total revenue; but since it's a startup, the initial reaction people will have is that it's significantly higher than that.)
- andylei 15y ago
  the difference is that right now, you or anyone else in the thread can convincingly list a bunch of bad things they have done. so far, there is not a single convincing (and barely any substantive) comments about the bad things monsanto has done. if you disagree, please, let's discuss why monsanto is, as many here claim, "evil"
  - SkyMarshal 15y ago
    I don't have time to get into that discussion, but if you google "the most evil company in the world" you'll see they're fighting it out with De Beers and one or two others for the top spot. There's also plenty on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto They're basically 80s/90s Microsoft at its worst, but in agriculture of both the developed and developing world (the latter being particularly heinous).
    - 0x12 15y ago
      Monsanto makes Microsoft look pretty good.
thomasgerbe 15y ago
I think there's a difference between buying a product and working closely with a company in an intimate business relationship/partnership. Not to mention that I don't think Apple (nor it's employees) would be publicly joyous about partnering with an ethically questionable company.
cickpass_broken 15y ago
Such irony. Your comment seems much in the same style. Tho oldstrangers vague logic was "by association" I don't think you should assume "if x sells to Monsanto." You can be much more specific in this case, as Cloudant clearly states, "We’ve been working with them for a few weeks now ..." Has Apple, Chevy, Clorox been "working with" Monsanto, or are their products just freely available for purchase? I find it alarming that you think oldstrangers comment lacks sense. Food and water. That is the basis for human life. Monsanto threatens the freedom and right to access for those necessary things.
- david_p 15y ago
  Thank you. I totally agree. I rarely comment on HN but actually logged in just for this.
run4yourlives 15y ago
That's a bit of a cop-out. There's a difference between company A purchasing some of your product and actively bidding to be the sole-source supplier to a major project. As they put it, "Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new, company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business: the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops." You can bet that Apple's feet would be put to the fire in just the same way should they release a PR note suggesting they are impressed that Monsanto has decided to convert entirely to OSX/iOS. The top comment might be a little low on direct substance, but it's high on feedback. It's actually perfect for HN, because it shows that to many people, ethics in business DO matter.
- rohern 15y ago
  The large-scale computational analysis of genomes both animal and vegetable is going to create an epoch in which it will be possible to cure or make chronic cancer, HIV, and some genetic disorders. Whether or not Monsanto's the devil, that large companies are adopting this technology and providing financial succor to the companies creating the technologies used in this analysis is of benefit to everyone.
  - run4yourlives 15y ago
    In essense, the ends justify the means. I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain the major ethical quandaries that arise from this type of thinking.
biznickman 15y ago
I agree that the comment is content-free but honestly what did the company expect when they're boasting about their partnership with one of the world's most hated companies? I'm not exactly alarmed to see this comment at the top because it's ridiculous that the company was dumb enough to issue this press release. We all need to pay our bills but to boast about working with a hated company is just a stupid PR move. Apple, Facebook, Google, Chevorlet, Clorox, etc, are all not stupid enough to write a press release like this one. Whoever advised them to do so should immediately be fired b/c they clearly don't get PR. You know what else is hilarious is that they're not only admitting to power one of the most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds), but they're actually touting it as a win for the company.
- biznickman 15y ago
  As a follow-on, Paul, based on your standards, "everybody" accepts money from anybody even if they're evil. This is also a policy that YCombinator apparently supports?? I would have preferred to be voting up a post about "Why Cloudera turned down Monsanto's business" to illustrate the fact that they have ethical standards and believe that those are important in business.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    So you would rather every YC company shared your politics, and vote up stories about how they made business decisions to boost those politics.
- viggity 15y ago
  "most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds)" 1. Genetic manipulation of seeds is going to feed the world. And at the rate our population is growing, we're going to need it. 2. They weren't talking about genetic insertions, instead they said "Genome Analysis". Genome analysis helps plant breeders find plants that already have advantageous genes and try to quantify their effect of these genes. 3. I don't particularly like Monsanto (I worked for a competitor) but I'm not sure Monsanto is "one of the world's most hated companies" outside hacker and hippie circles.
pornel 15y ago
It's a false analogy. Monsanto unilaterally buying generally-available products is a different thing than getting into business partnership and sending happy press release about it. You don't jail shoe salesman who happened to sell shoes to a criminal, but you jail people who planned the crime together. If someone is actively, consciously supporting Monsanto at the core of their shady business, then they certainly deserve the hatred that Monsanto gets.
WiseWeasel 15y ago
You won't see Apple, GM or Clorox touting a partnership with Monsanto, as they are aware of the negative impact it would have on their own brand. I think there is a good lesson in this for other companies.
- castewart 15y ago
  We don't discuss PR on HN. Public relations is beneath PG.
  - puredemo 15y ago
    What an ignorant thing to say. HN essentially is social publicity and PR for YC startups.
    - WiseWeasel 15y ago
      I do believe that was sarcasm.
nirvana 15y ago
I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc. Some threads attract one crowd and the comments go one way, other threads attract the other crowd and the comments go the other way. I really wish Hacker News was about startups, and if there was any debate, we were all capitalists debating it. I'm tired of the seemingly endless stream of leftist propaganda that gets promoted to the front page (e.g.: anything by Krugman, for example.) I'd hate this just as much if it were all rightest propaganda. IF it was balanced, I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be irritating. When almost all the discussions are of one mindset, and posting something outside that mindset gets you down voted to oblivion, I feel like intellectual discussion is much more difficult. This isn't always the case here, obviously, but sometimes it is. I don't really care for Amazon, but at least when Amazon is on the front page its because they did something relevant to the site. I can just ignore those threads. Amazon' announcing that they've got a new finger service in AWS doesn't add anything for me, but it doesn't detract like the political topics do. Cloudant, a company that takes CouchDB and turns it into a dynamo style ring, has produced something significant in their platform. We should be talking about this. Cloudant provides a very useful tool that should be very highly relevant to people who are doing startups. The thing is, I suspect a major population of HN commenters aren't really doing startups or planning to.
- kongqiu 15y ago
  Monsanto is an extreme case, and therefore inspires a lot of passion. I'd say the vast majority of people on HN are pro-capitalism and pro-innovation, but have disparate views on business ethics and the efficacy of various regulations. In the eyes of many, Monsanto crosses the line between "good honest competition" and "dangerous and malevolent would-be monopolist." Also: Way to paint people you disagree with on this issue as "very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes..."
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
davidw 15y ago
That's the sort of debate you get when you leave all those juicy articles about this that and the other political thing out for the flies to land on.
seven_stones 15y ago
> It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant. To the contrary, the tenor of the majority of comments makes it clear that the context is well-understood already, and this is encouraging. Users evidencing a strong moral compass is a reason to rejoice, not despair. If you want some context, try Wikipedia. Monsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites, attempts to clean up Monsanto Chemical's formerly uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.[27] The Center for Food Safety[108] listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[27] The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.[27] It's a combination of a major environmental polluter and a patent troll. Dumping of toxic waste in the UK Between 1965 and 1972, Monsanto paid contractors to illegally dump thousands of tons of highly toxic waste in UK landfill sites, knowing that their chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. The Environment Agency said the chemicals were found to be polluting groundwater and the atmosphere 30 years after they were dumped.[71] The Brofiscin quarry, near Cardiff, erupted in 2003, spilling fumes over the surrounding area, but the local community was unaware that the quarry housed toxic waste. A UK government report shows that 67 chemicals, including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and PCBs exclusively made by Monsanto, are leaking from one unlined porous quarry that was not authorized to take chemical wastes. It emerged that the groundwater has been polluted since the 1970s.[72] The government was criticised for failing to publish information about the scale and exact nature of this contamination. According to the Environment Agency it could cost £100m to clean up the site in south Wales, called "one of the most contaminated" in the UK.[73] One thing to remember is that patents are fundamentally at odds with food availability. You can either have Big Pharma-like profits, or cheap food that feeds billions. As it is, countries with functional governments already overproduce food. Zimbabwe used to be called the "Breadbasket of Africa" before Mugabe.
white_devil 15y ago
Oh boo-hoo. You're not exactly an impartial observer here. Besides, it's one thing for Apple to manufacture a computer that gets bought by a Monsanto employee somewhere, and another for a YC startup to decide to work with Monsanto and help them with whatever pure evil they're up to next.
pbreit 15y ago
I disagree. The rant contained at least as much content as a press release announcing one new customer. And I think the disappointment has to do more with the boasting than the simple customer relationship.
oldstrangers 15y ago
No, I'm saying fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck anyone that celebrates doing business with them. This was one of those little cash cows that Cloudant should have kept to themselves. Any PR person probably could've saw this coming. I'm sure there are many evil corporate dealings in the world that would warrant such a "content-free rant"; however, those companies are smart enough not to celebrate their evil doings on a site as popular as HN. Perhaps YC should provide media training: Item 1; keep your skeletons in the closet. EDIT: Furthermore, Cloudant isn't supplying Monsanto with something as simple as a car. They, as they themselves put it, are fundamentally helping shape the way Monsanto does business. I also find it troubling that instead of addressing the issue at hand, or at least providing a defense for this company, you instead ridicule your own userbase for putting my "content-free" rant at the top of this thread. That seems infinitely more content-free than anything I've added/not added to the discussion.
- pg 15y ago
  Any PR person probably could've saw this coming. The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here. Don't you see that you're insulting yourself by saying that you need to have news spun/censored for you in the way PR firms do? I noticed this in the comments about the recent Airbnb and Dropbox controversies too. People did not seem to grasp the irony of complaining that Airbnb and Dropbox were bad at PR.
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    > The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here. So, companies shouldn't spin, but people commenting here should? That's not what you mean, I'm sure. But I'm pretty sure you can see how it would be easy to say the same thing you just said with the roles of company and commenter reversed and it would make the same amount of sense.
  - oldstrangers 15y ago
    "The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here." A couple of things. Why are we talking about the "PR issue"? I offered Cloudant an alternative reality where, if they insisted on being evil, that their evil doings be kept in the closet. It makes wise business sense if you're going to accept money from anyone under the sun. That has nothing to do with thinking like a PR person, nor does it have anything to do with having this article spun or censored. You seem to think this deal is ok, so I tried to provide a solution that suited your own interests. However, it is perhaps ironic that by spinning your own comments to focus on these PR irrelevancies, you have successfully avoided providing any significant contribution. Worse yet, was the "PR spin" of yours by comparing Cloudant's strategic and "fundamentally business shaping" partnership with Monsanto to someone selling a car or a computer... I guess though that's not PR talk, that's politician talk. Expert level diversion. Monsanto is a disgusting, despicable, horrible company of the worst variety. Should we give Cloudant a pass for dealing with these people because you have a vested interest? I will happily leave HN forever if you think that is the case. Google started their company with the motto "Do No Evil." Ethics have a substantial place in business practice, so I don't see why they shouldn't have a place on HN.
lwat 15y ago
If I had Monsanto as a major client I'd make them sign a confidentiality agreement.
johngalt 15y ago
The problem with aggregators like Digg/Reddit/HN is that anger will unite a mob quicker than discussion. Eventually you end up with an angry echo chamber populated with the worst sort of content. HN opened my eyes to a group of problem solving people who could generate a discussion that was better than any linked article. Originally the commenter attitude was "HN vs the problem presented". This slowly gravitated towards "My solution to the problem vs. your solution" with the associated rudeness, arrogance, and appeals to authority. Now it's headed towards an "Us vs. Them" kind of attitude similar to r/politics. Where you're wrong just for your identity or associations.
Sato 15y ago
I rather see freedom from censorship here.
rjstatic 15y ago
Paul, while I do see your point, you aren't looking deep enough here. Please let me explain. Yes, this comment is missing some crucial content, yet, it is not a contentless comment as proven by the up votes. It is a war cry against those who seek to end this world in a fit of greed. It seems contentless to you because you are unaware of the game Monsanto is playing. I'm not just talking about giving a few kids Asthma by pumping chemicals into the air, I'm talking about risking the collapse of our life support systems for the sake of profit. Please read up on Monsanto, our survival depends on us to do the right thing. http://www.right2knowmarch.org/about-2/educational-links/ http://www.right2knowmarch.org/about-2/educational-links/
zallarak 15y ago
Here is a potential reason why some are upset. Its obvious that large corporations like Chevy, Clorox, Apple sell to Monstanto [and other corporations some could consider "bad" or whatever you want to label it]. But when startups do it [especially YC startups who I generally believe have smarter people involved relative to large corporations] it is felt because people generally hold them to higher standards [not just in situations like this, it applies for operational, financial and strategic measures as well]. I worked at a YC startup for a while, and saw some pretty generous things done by YC founders for society. Another way to look at it (if it helps you understand the other perspective): You frequently see YC funded companies help each other out. Why do they do it? Is it just to accumulate more wealth/raise a valuation? Or is it because they've developed meaningful relationships and care for each other? I use this example to show how empathy and relationships can impact business decisions in a general sense, and that this same logic could be used to apply to a YC company NOT being proud of serving a large corporation known to use tactics that harm farmers in underdeveloped nations. The fact that you use the term 'hold to a standard' at least implies that some could perceive the action as 'slimy'. Finally, as someone wise once said, "be the change you want to see in the world" -- of course we hold YC companies to a higher standard :), many are made up of brilliant and compassionate individuals whose products make the world a better place. /cheese
- csallen 15y ago
  > You frequently see YC funded companies help each other out. Why do they do it? Is it just to accumulate more wealth/raise a valuation? Or is it because they've developed meaningful relationships and care for each other? Those two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people generally act out of self-interest. There are plenty of YC (and non-YC) companies who help each other out, yet whose founders have never met.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - zallarak 15y ago
    True, agreed - they do not need to be mutually exclusive and its a wonderful thing if they do indeed align. Thanks for pointing that out. Now maybe I'm trying too hard to make a connection here, but it is in our self-interest to not exploit people in non-industrialized nations for profit - I think America most definitely suffers from the ill treatment it inflicted on some nations in the past. Look at anti-Americanism in parts of the Middle East. Other examples include: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende - the CIA overthrew him because he socialized some private assets, and installed a brutal dictator who was disastrous for Chile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company], etc. [I think you get the idea] I guess what I'm trying to say in this post we're sacrificing collectively as a people for the actions of some people who will do anything to profit. I know Cloudant isn't perpetrating those actions directly, but I truly wonder what the consequences of Monsanto's actions will be. Consider the farmer or person whose family will go hungry because of Monstanto - will they grow up to love America or hate it (and in turn, us, the citizens)? Will these nations breed terrorists or economic opportunities? TLDR; I think that actions like this are sacrificing long term benefits, including sustainable corporate profit for some quick short term gain.
abbasmehdi 15y ago
pg, I understand your frustration. The OP starts off in a tone that is way over the top, and the language is completely unnecessary. However, wouldn't you appreciate the distinction of a “partner” (a conscious relationship) from a “consumer” (unconscious)? They might be consumers of Apple/Chevy/Clorox products, but this seems more like a partnership.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by pg 15y ago

Kroem3r 15y ago

Fair opinion. But I found it refreshing; I was resigned to seeing a lot of preemptory 'separation of ethics and business' discussions.

sitkack 15y ago
I love the idea that ethics should be a hobby one does after their day job. We get angry about things like that because if a small group of really smart people strike out on their own to change the world and do good and yet put out a press release saying how "excited" they are to be working with such an amoral company, it just vacates our idealistic world view. We can't stop Apple selling MacBooks to Monstanto. Apple makes tools and doesn't ask how they get used (nor should it have to). But a small cloud startup, different picture. One is active and one is passive.

lbrandy 15y ago

I am -so- glad you said it. I've been resisting the urge for weeks to point out the /r/politics-ization of hacker news for fear of being "that guy" (you know, the one complaining about the good ol' days). Just to be clear about what that means, to me, is that not so much politics is involved, but completely uncritical and tribalist politics, where we just unthinkingly upvote anyone advocating any position in support of the "good guys" and downvote anyone that defends the "bad guys".

kongqiu 15y ago

It's an unfortunate sign for everyone that you (and/or Cloudant) wouldn't anticipate this reaction from going into business with Monsanto. As to the "content-free" claim, sometimes a rant is an appropriate reaction. If some YC company partnered with Al Qaida, would we really need to spell out all the heinous things AQ has done before writing, "F- that!"?!? EDIT: And to your "If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you're saying is fuck the entire corporate world, because I'm sure Monsanto buys Apple computers and Chevrolets and Clorox too. It's sort of ridiculous to hold Cloudant to a standard that essentially zero other companies meet." -- It's one thing if Monsanto buys iPhones and Macs from Apple; that would represent ~.0001% of Apple's overall business. It's another thing if Monsanto is responsible for a significant % of your revenue. (Of course, Cloudant's deal with Monsanto could represent only 2% of Cloudant's total revenue; but since it's a startup, the initial reaction people will have is that it's significantly higher than that.)

andylei 15y ago
the difference is that right now, you or anyone else in the thread can convincingly list a bunch of bad things they have done. so far, there is not a single convincing (and barely any substantive) comments about the bad things monsanto has done. if you disagree, please, let's discuss why monsanto is, as many here claim, "evil"
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  I don't have time to get into that discussion, but if you google "the most evil company in the world" you'll see they're fighting it out with De Beers and one or two others for the top spot. There's also plenty on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto They're basically 80s/90s Microsoft at its worst, but in agriculture of both the developed and developing world (the latter being particularly heinous).
  - 0x12 15y ago
    Monsanto makes Microsoft look pretty good.

thomasgerbe 15y ago

I think there's a difference between buying a product and working closely with a company in an intimate business relationship/partnership. Not to mention that I don't think Apple (nor it's employees) would be publicly joyous about partnering with an ethically questionable company.

cickpass_broken 15y ago

Such irony. Your comment seems much in the same style. Tho oldstrangers vague logic was "by association" I don't think you should assume "if x sells to Monsanto." You can be much more specific in this case, as Cloudant clearly states, "We’ve been working with them for a few weeks now ..." Has Apple, Chevy, Clorox been "working with" Monsanto, or are their products just freely available for purchase? I find it alarming that you think oldstrangers comment lacks sense. Food and water. That is the basis for human life. Monsanto threatens the freedom and right to access for those necessary things.

david_p 15y ago
Thank you. I totally agree. I rarely comment on HN but actually logged in just for this.

run4yourlives 15y ago

That's a bit of a cop-out. There's a difference between company A purchasing some of your product and actively bidding to be the sole-source supplier to a major project. As they put it, "Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new, company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business: the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops." You can bet that Apple's feet would be put to the fire in just the same way should they release a PR note suggesting they are impressed that Monsanto has decided to convert entirely to OSX/iOS. The top comment might be a little low on direct substance, but it's high on feedback. It's actually perfect for HN, because it shows that to many people, ethics in business DO matter.

rohern 15y ago
The large-scale computational analysis of genomes both animal and vegetable is going to create an epoch in which it will be possible to cure or make chronic cancer, HIV, and some genetic disorders. Whether or not Monsanto's the devil, that large companies are adopting this technology and providing financial succor to the companies creating the technologies used in this analysis is of benefit to everyone.
- run4yourlives 15y ago
  In essense, the ends justify the means. I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain the major ethical quandaries that arise from this type of thinking.

biznickman 15y ago

I agree that the comment is content-free but honestly what did the company expect when they're boasting about their partnership with one of the world's most hated companies? I'm not exactly alarmed to see this comment at the top because it's ridiculous that the company was dumb enough to issue this press release. We all need to pay our bills but to boast about working with a hated company is just a stupid PR move. Apple, Facebook, Google, Chevorlet, Clorox, etc, are all not stupid enough to write a press release like this one. Whoever advised them to do so should immediately be fired b/c they clearly don't get PR. You know what else is hilarious is that they're not only admitting to power one of the most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds), but they're actually touting it as a win for the company.

biznickman 15y ago
As a follow-on, Paul, based on your standards, "everybody" accepts money from anybody even if they're evil. This is also a policy that YCombinator apparently supports?? I would have preferred to be voting up a post about "Why Cloudera turned down Monsanto's business" to illustrate the fact that they have ethical standards and believe that those are important in business.
- tptacek 15y ago
  So you would rather every YC company shared your politics, and vote up stories about how they made business decisions to boost those politics.
viggity 15y ago
"most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds)" 1. Genetic manipulation of seeds is going to feed the world. And at the rate our population is growing, we're going to need it. 2. They weren't talking about genetic insertions, instead they said "Genome Analysis". Genome analysis helps plant breeders find plants that already have advantageous genes and try to quantify their effect of these genes. 3. I don't particularly like Monsanto (I worked for a competitor) but I'm not sure Monsanto is "one of the world's most hated companies" outside hacker and hippie circles.

pornel 15y ago

It's a false analogy. Monsanto unilaterally buying generally-available products is a different thing than getting into business partnership and sending happy press release about it. You don't jail shoe salesman who happened to sell shoes to a criminal, but you jail people who planned the crime together. If someone is actively, consciously supporting Monsanto at the core of their shady business, then they certainly deserve the hatred that Monsanto gets.

WiseWeasel 15y ago

You won't see Apple, GM or Clorox touting a partnership with Monsanto, as they are aware of the negative impact it would have on their own brand. I think there is a good lesson in this for other companies.

castewart 15y ago
We don't discuss PR on HN. Public relations is beneath PG.
- puredemo 15y ago
  What an ignorant thing to say. HN essentially is social publicity and PR for YC startups.
  - WiseWeasel 15y ago
    I do believe that was sarcasm.

nirvana 15y ago

I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc. Some threads attract one crowd and the comments go one way, other threads attract the other crowd and the comments go the other way. I really wish Hacker News was about startups, and if there was any debate, we were all capitalists debating it. I'm tired of the seemingly endless stream of leftist propaganda that gets promoted to the front page (e.g.: anything by Krugman, for example.) I'd hate this just as much if it were all rightest propaganda. IF it was balanced, I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be irritating. When almost all the discussions are of one mindset, and posting something outside that mindset gets you down voted to oblivion, I feel like intellectual discussion is much more difficult. This isn't always the case here, obviously, but sometimes it is. I don't really care for Amazon, but at least when Amazon is on the front page its because they did something relevant to the site. I can just ignore those threads. Amazon' announcing that they've got a new finger service in AWS doesn't add anything for me, but it doesn't detract like the political topics do. Cloudant, a company that takes CouchDB and turns it into a dynamo style ring, has produced something significant in their platform. We should be talking about this. Cloudant provides a very useful tool that should be very highly relevant to people who are doing startups. The thing is, I suspect a major population of HN commenters aren't really doing startups or planning to.

kongqiu 15y ago
Monsanto is an extreme case, and therefore inspires a lot of passion. I'd say the vast majority of people on HN are pro-capitalism and pro-innovation, but have disparate views on business ethics and the efficacy of various regulations. In the eyes of many, Monsanto crosses the line between "good honest competition" and "dangerous and malevolent would-be monopolist." Also: Way to paint people you disagree with on this issue as "very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes..."
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

davidw 15y ago

That's the sort of debate you get when you leave all those juicy articles about this that and the other political thing out for the flies to land on.

seven_stones 15y ago

> It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant. To the contrary, the tenor of the majority of comments makes it clear that the context is well-understood already, and this is encouraging. Users evidencing a strong moral compass is a reason to rejoice, not despair. If you want some context, try Wikipedia. Monsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites, attempts to clean up Monsanto Chemical's formerly uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.[27] The Center for Food Safety[108] listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[27] The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.[27] It's a combination of a major environmental polluter and a patent troll. Dumping of toxic waste in the UK Between 1965 and 1972, Monsanto paid contractors to illegally dump thousands of tons of highly toxic waste in UK landfill sites, knowing that their chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. The Environment Agency said the chemicals were found to be polluting groundwater and the atmosphere 30 years after they were dumped.[71] The Brofiscin quarry, near Cardiff, erupted in 2003, spilling fumes over the surrounding area, but the local community was unaware that the quarry housed toxic waste. A UK government report shows that 67 chemicals, including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and PCBs exclusively made by Monsanto, are leaking from one unlined porous quarry that was not authorized to take chemical wastes. It emerged that the groundwater has been polluted since the 1970s.[72] The government was criticised for failing to publish information about the scale and exact nature of this contamination. According to the Environment Agency it could cost £100m to clean up the site in south Wales, called "one of the most contaminated" in the UK.[73] One thing to remember is that patents are fundamentally at odds with food availability. You can either have Big Pharma-like profits, or cheap food that feeds billions. As it is, countries with functional governments already overproduce food. Zimbabwe used to be called the "Breadbasket of Africa" before Mugabe.

white_devil 15y ago

Oh boo-hoo. You're not exactly an impartial observer here. Besides, it's one thing for Apple to manufacture a computer that gets bought by a Monsanto employee somewhere, and another for a YC startup to decide to work with Monsanto and help them with whatever pure evil they're up to next.

pbreit 15y ago

I disagree. The rant contained at least as much content as a press release announcing one new customer. And I think the disappointment has to do more with the boasting than the simple customer relationship.

oldstrangers 15y ago

No, I'm saying fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck anyone that celebrates doing business with them. This was one of those little cash cows that Cloudant should have kept to themselves. Any PR person probably could've saw this coming. I'm sure there are many evil corporate dealings in the world that would warrant such a "content-free rant"; however, those companies are smart enough not to celebrate their evil doings on a site as popular as HN. Perhaps YC should provide media training: Item 1; keep your skeletons in the closet. EDIT: Furthermore, Cloudant isn't supplying Monsanto with something as simple as a car. They, as they themselves put it, are fundamentally helping shape the way Monsanto does business. I also find it troubling that instead of addressing the issue at hand, or at least providing a defense for this company, you instead ridicule your own userbase for putting my "content-free" rant at the top of this thread. That seems infinitely more content-free than anything I've added/not added to the discussion.

pg 15y ago
Any PR person probably could've saw this coming. The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here. Don't you see that you're insulting yourself by saying that you need to have news spun/censored for you in the way PR firms do? I noticed this in the comments about the recent Airbnb and Dropbox controversies too. People did not seem to grasp the irony of complaining that Airbnb and Dropbox were bad at PR.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  > The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here. So, companies shouldn't spin, but people commenting here should? That's not what you mean, I'm sure. But I'm pretty sure you can see how it would be easy to say the same thing you just said with the roles of company and commenter reversed and it would make the same amount of sense.
- oldstrangers 15y ago
  "The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here." A couple of things. Why are we talking about the "PR issue"? I offered Cloudant an alternative reality where, if they insisted on being evil, that their evil doings be kept in the closet. It makes wise business sense if you're going to accept money from anyone under the sun. That has nothing to do with thinking like a PR person, nor does it have anything to do with having this article spun or censored. You seem to think this deal is ok, so I tried to provide a solution that suited your own interests. However, it is perhaps ironic that by spinning your own comments to focus on these PR irrelevancies, you have successfully avoided providing any significant contribution. Worse yet, was the "PR spin" of yours by comparing Cloudant's strategic and "fundamentally business shaping" partnership with Monsanto to someone selling a car or a computer... I guess though that's not PR talk, that's politician talk. Expert level diversion. Monsanto is a disgusting, despicable, horrible company of the worst variety. Should we give Cloudant a pass for dealing with these people because you have a vested interest? I will happily leave HN forever if you think that is the case. Google started their company with the motto "Do No Evil." Ethics have a substantial place in business practice, so I don't see why they shouldn't have a place on HN.

lwat 15y ago

If I had Monsanto as a major client I'd make them sign a confidentiality agreement.

johngalt 15y ago

The problem with aggregators like Digg/Reddit/HN is that anger will unite a mob quicker than discussion. Eventually you end up with an angry echo chamber populated with the worst sort of content. HN opened my eyes to a group of problem solving people who could generate a discussion that was better than any linked article. Originally the commenter attitude was "HN vs the problem presented". This slowly gravitated towards "My solution to the problem vs. your solution" with the associated rudeness, arrogance, and appeals to authority. Now it's headed towards an "Us vs. Them" kind of attitude similar to r/politics. Where you're wrong just for your identity or associations.

Sato 15y ago

I rather see freedom from censorship here.

rjstatic 15y ago

Paul, while I do see your point, you aren't looking deep enough here. Please let me explain. Yes, this comment is missing some crucial content, yet, it is not a contentless comment as proven by the up votes. It is a war cry against those who seek to end this world in a fit of greed. It seems contentless to you because you are unaware of the game Monsanto is playing. I'm not just talking about giving a few kids Asthma by pumping chemicals into the air, I'm talking about risking the collapse of our life support systems for the sake of profit. Please read up on Monsanto, our survival depends on us to do the right thing. http://www.right2knowmarch.org/about-2/educational-links/ http://www.right2knowmarch.org/about-2/educational-links/

zallarak 15y ago

Here is a potential reason why some are upset. Its obvious that large corporations like Chevy, Clorox, Apple sell to Monstanto [and other corporations some could consider "bad" or whatever you want to label it]. But when startups do it [especially YC startups who I generally believe have smarter people involved relative to large corporations] it is felt because people generally hold them to higher standards [not just in situations like this, it applies for operational, financial and strategic measures as well]. I worked at a YC startup for a while, and saw some pretty generous things done by YC founders for society. Another way to look at it (if it helps you understand the other perspective): You frequently see YC funded companies help each other out. Why do they do it? Is it just to accumulate more wealth/raise a valuation? Or is it because they've developed meaningful relationships and care for each other? I use this example to show how empathy and relationships can impact business decisions in a general sense, and that this same logic could be used to apply to a YC company NOT being proud of serving a large corporation known to use tactics that harm farmers in underdeveloped nations. The fact that you use the term 'hold to a standard' at least implies that some could perceive the action as 'slimy'. Finally, as someone wise once said, "be the change you want to see in the world" -- of course we hold YC companies to a higher standard :), many are made up of brilliant and compassionate individuals whose products make the world a better place. /cheese

csallen 15y ago
> You frequently see YC funded companies help each other out. Why do they do it? Is it just to accumulate more wealth/raise a valuation? Or is it because they've developed meaningful relationships and care for each other? Those two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people generally act out of self-interest. There are plenty of YC (and non-YC) companies who help each other out, yet whose founders have never met.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- zallarak 15y ago
  True, agreed - they do not need to be mutually exclusive and its a wonderful thing if they do indeed align. Thanks for pointing that out. Now maybe I'm trying too hard to make a connection here, but it is in our self-interest to not exploit people in non-industrialized nations for profit - I think America most definitely suffers from the ill treatment it inflicted on some nations in the past. Look at anti-Americanism in parts of the Middle East. Other examples include: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende - the CIA overthrew him because he socialized some private assets, and installed a brutal dictator who was disastrous for Chile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company], etc. [I think you get the idea] I guess what I'm trying to say in this post we're sacrificing collectively as a people for the actions of some people who will do anything to profit. I know Cloudant isn't perpetrating those actions directly, but I truly wonder what the consequences of Monsanto's actions will be. Consider the farmer or person whose family will go hungry because of Monstanto - will they grow up to love America or hate it (and in turn, us, the citizens)? Will these nations breed terrorists or economic opportunities? TLDR; I think that actions like this are sacrificing long term benefits, including sustainable corporate profit for some quick short term gain.

abbasmehdi 15y ago

pg, I understand your frustration. The OP starts off in a tone that is way over the top, and the language is completely unnecessary. However, wouldn't you appreciate the distinction of a “partner” (a conscious relationship) from a “consumer” (unconscious)? They might be consumers of Apple/Chevy/Clorox products, but this seems more like a partnership.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]