14 ms·

""If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?"" That is a brilliant point.

staunch 15y ago
Unless they're different people in the organization, which is likely the usual case. Not that I disagree with the sentiment.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  If that is the case, then the organization is ill. Best to stay away from it, in case it happens to be contagious.
  - evan_ 15y ago
    An organization is ill if it tolerates its employees having differing political and/or ideological beliefs?
    - brown9-2 15y ago
      That's not what is at play here. "The company" is the one supporting SOPA, and "the company" is sending representatives to YC demo day. It doesn't sound like you would be banned for merely working for the company and being interested in YC - it's keeping that company out of the process.
    - rmc 15y ago
      These are not organisations that have individual employees who, on their own time, support SOPA. This is organisations that's policy is to support SOPA.
  - maaku 15y ago
    That's a little naïve.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Maybe, but why take the risk?
philh 15y ago
I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. So I'm not convinced by the argument here. It makes too many unstated assumptions. I support this boycott, and this argument might make good rhetoric, but I wouldn't use it directly to evaluate investors.
- Iv 15y ago
  > nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. Considering that 95% of the National Academy of Science is atheist, the correlation is still pretty relevant. Clueless people can be successful investors, luck is always a factor, but someone who supports SOPA probably lacks a certain technical background or ethics.
  - estevez 15y ago
    >Considering that 95% of the National Academy of Science is atheist, the correlation is still pretty relevant. Since the Academy elects its own members there might be some bias lurking in that number.
    - Iv 15y ago
      In USA, a scientist is three times more likely to be an atheist than the national average. (It used to be more but ahteism became more prevalent in the last decade).
- gnaritas 15y ago
  > I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. And there exists Catholic priests who are pedophiles, that doesn't make Catholicism and pedophilia compatible. Nor are science and religion compatible. Those people just have an ability to tolerate or ignore their own cognitive dissonance because their religious beliefs are so strong.
mynameishere 15y ago
how could they be good investors Because they have a checkbook? Does General Dynamics care if pacifists buy their stock? Since YC doesn't seem to sell to media-providers I suppose they won't be losing much, but seriously? If GE wrote me a billion dollar check, I'd take it no matter my politics.
- Shorel 15y ago
  Dumb money vs smart money. Sometimes dumb money will kill a startup.
hnsmurf 15y ago
That's not really fair. The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. (There are of course caveats, and we can argue all day over whether or not SOPA is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, but you get the point.) If you are a movie studio, SOPA is a great idea for your bottom line. I don't think it's fair to call everyone who is in favor of SOPA either evil or stupid, even if SOPA itself is both. I can understand why YC wouldn't want them around, but I can't necessarily say they wouldn't be good investors.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- forensic 15y ago
  Why do you bring "fairness" into this discussion? YC has a fiduciary responsibility as well. Corporations that are pro-SOPA don't make PR statements saying, "We are pro-SOPA because it will make us money." Instead they say, "SOPA is good for America! Anyone opposed is a misinformed basement dweller!" When pg says, "Anyone pro-SOPA is stupid" why don't you interpret it as pg discharging his fiduciary duty? Why do you apologize for sociopathic lies in large corporations, but then criticize self-interested statements from small corporations? I'm questioning the basic assumptions you take toward this issue. I find your attitude here baffling and, honestly, horrifying. If corporations are supposed to tell PR-friendly lies to benefit their bottom line, shouldn't Paul Graham be telling PR-friendly lies to benefit his bottom line? By extension, when you write that, are you telling PR-friendly lies? Which fiduciary duty are you discharging when you write that? Does SOPA benefit your bottom-line? If SOPA benefits your bottom-line, shouldn't you be going around telling sociopathic lies to stop it? That's what the CEO of Pfizer is doing... you are your own CEO and you have a fiduciary duty to yourself. If it's socially acceptable for corporations to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, then it must be made socially acceptable for individuals to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, and any appeal to "you're not being fair!" must be recognized as pure rhetoric designed to fool the gullible. "Guuuuyyyys! Be nice to the SOPA supporters! They're only acting like Democracy-destroying sociopaths for their own personal profit! It's just not fair if you call them mean names!"
- dspeyer 15y ago
j_s 15y ago
I'm curious: does not allowing SOPA-supporting companies at YC Demo Day mean the SOPA-supporting companies won't be investing in YC companies? I am not familiar with the process; is this just cutting them out of the very first round, or is something being done to prevent SOPA-supporting companies from investing at all?
abalashov 15y ago
No, it's a demagogical argument, but it makes for great press, and PG's making it displays keen awareness of that fact. I applaud him on that! :-)

staunch 15y ago

Unless they're different people in the organization, which is likely the usual case. Not that I disagree with the sentiment.

burgerbrain 15y ago
If that is the case, then the organization is ill. Best to stay away from it, in case it happens to be contagious.
- evan_ 15y ago
  An organization is ill if it tolerates its employees having differing political and/or ideological beliefs?
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    That's not what is at play here. "The company" is the one supporting SOPA, and "the company" is sending representatives to YC demo day. It doesn't sound like you would be banned for merely working for the company and being interested in YC - it's keeping that company out of the process.
  - rmc 15y ago
    These are not organisations that have individual employees who, on their own time, support SOPA. This is organisations that's policy is to support SOPA.
- maaku 15y ago
  That's a little naïve.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Maybe, but why take the risk?

philh 15y ago

I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. So I'm not convinced by the argument here. It makes too many unstated assumptions. I support this boycott, and this argument might make good rhetoric, but I wouldn't use it directly to evaluate investors.

Iv 15y ago
> nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. Considering that 95% of the National Academy of Science is atheist, the correlation is still pretty relevant. Clueless people can be successful investors, luck is always a factor, but someone who supports SOPA probably lacks a certain technical background or ethics.
- estevez 15y ago
  >Considering that 95% of the National Academy of Science is atheist, the correlation is still pretty relevant. Since the Academy elects its own members there might be some bias lurking in that number.
  - Iv 15y ago
    In USA, a scientist is three times more likely to be an atheist than the national average. (It used to be more but ahteism became more prevalent in the last decade).
gnaritas 15y ago
> I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science. And there exists Catholic priests who are pedophiles, that doesn't make Catholicism and pedophilia compatible. Nor are science and religion compatible. Those people just have an ability to tolerate or ignore their own cognitive dissonance because their religious beliefs are so strong.

mynameishere 15y ago

how could they be good investors Because they have a checkbook? Does General Dynamics care if pacifists buy their stock? Since YC doesn't seem to sell to media-providers I suppose they won't be losing much, but seriously? If GE wrote me a billion dollar check, I'd take it no matter my politics.

Shorel 15y ago
Dumb money vs smart money. Sometimes dumb money will kill a startup.

hnsmurf 15y ago

That's not really fair. The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. (There are of course caveats, and we can argue all day over whether or not SOPA is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, but you get the point.) If you are a movie studio, SOPA is a great idea for your bottom line. I don't think it's fair to call everyone who is in favor of SOPA either evil or stupid, even if SOPA itself is both. I can understand why YC wouldn't want them around, but I can't necessarily say they wouldn't be good investors.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
forensic 15y ago
Why do you bring "fairness" into this discussion? YC has a fiduciary responsibility as well. Corporations that are pro-SOPA don't make PR statements saying, "We are pro-SOPA because it will make us money." Instead they say, "SOPA is good for America! Anyone opposed is a misinformed basement dweller!" When pg says, "Anyone pro-SOPA is stupid" why don't you interpret it as pg discharging his fiduciary duty? Why do you apologize for sociopathic lies in large corporations, but then criticize self-interested statements from small corporations? I'm questioning the basic assumptions you take toward this issue. I find your attitude here baffling and, honestly, horrifying. If corporations are supposed to tell PR-friendly lies to benefit their bottom line, shouldn't Paul Graham be telling PR-friendly lies to benefit his bottom line? By extension, when you write that, are you telling PR-friendly lies? Which fiduciary duty are you discharging when you write that? Does SOPA benefit your bottom-line? If SOPA benefits your bottom-line, shouldn't you be going around telling sociopathic lies to stop it? That's what the CEO of Pfizer is doing... you are your own CEO and you have a fiduciary duty to yourself. If it's socially acceptable for corporations to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, then it must be made socially acceptable for individuals to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, and any appeal to "you're not being fair!" must be recognized as pure rhetoric designed to fool the gullible. "Guuuuyyyys! Be nice to the SOPA supporters! They're only acting like Democracy-destroying sociopaths for their own personal profit! It's just not fair if you call them mean names!"
dspeyer 15y ago

j_s 15y ago

I'm curious: does not allowing SOPA-supporting companies at YC Demo Day mean the SOPA-supporting companies won't be investing in YC companies? I am not familiar with the process; is this just cutting them out of the very first round, or is something being done to prevent SOPA-supporting companies from investing at all?

abalashov 15y ago

No, it's a demagogical argument, but it makes for great press, and PG's making it displays keen awareness of that fact. I applaud him on that! :-)