4 ms·
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certai
by DavidSJ 15y ago
I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certain opinions?
- smokinn 15y agoProbably not but I personally have no problem with this. pg runs an investment firm that invests to a large extent in internet-based companies. To "blacklist" the companies that want to hurt his investment opportunities and returns (really, just no longer help profit from his work) seems like a no-brainer. It gets you positive press from the group you want to attract and hopefully denies some revenue from the ones that would use that revenue against you in the future.
- pork 15y agoIf you think about it, hunters are rarely invited to wildlife fundraisers, fur clothing manufacturers to PETA meetings, and creationists to NAS meetings -- all because of opinions expressed by each party. Dissent is part of a modern life, and not inviting people to private events is a perfectly legitimate way of voicing that dissent.
- DavidSJ 15y agoThe examples you gave are all of events which are defined by some belief or cause, whose opponents would simply be out of place if present. That's very different from what's going on here, where the bearers of a particular opinion are being excluded from a business relationship as a punishment for expressing an opinion which is only circuitously related to that business relationship.
- pork 15y agoI don't see how SOPA is "circuitously" related, since YC deals with Internet companies and SOPA is damaging to fundamental bits of Internet infrastructure. IMO, it's no different from the PETA/fur manufacturer analogy in that the viewpoints are almost diametrically opposed.
- DavidSJ 15y agoI did not say SOPA was merely circuitously related to YC. I said it was merely circuitously related to YC's relationship with the blacklisted company. On the one hand, we may have: A) Avoiding a business arrangement because the counter party has behaved unethically. or B) Avoiding a business arrangement because it would make poor business sense. On the other hand, we may have: C) Avoiding a business arrangement because the counter party has expressed views you disapprove of. I am advocating against (C) on the grounds that it is an attempt to intimidate people into silence. Your scenarios are all of the form (A) or (B). Hunters and clothing manufacturers have acted in ways which some judge to be unethical, and hence they may be ostracized for their actions (A). Anti-evolutionists have demonstrated by their words a misunderstanding of science, and hence their participation in NAS would make poor "business sense" (B). All GoDaddy and others have done, in this case, is express an opinion. Now, if the reason were, as Paul Graham says, that "these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, [so they cannot] be good investors", then this would be an example of avoiding an arrangement for making poor business sense (B), rather than punishing others for expressing their views (C). But do you really believe this is what's going on here, as opposed to merely a post-hoc rationalization? I'll certainly concede that support for SOPA reasonably calls into question an organization's understanding of the Internet and therefore their merit as a business partner, but an outright boycott, as opposed to mere caution, clearly goes beyond what is warranted by simple concern for one's own business, and becomes an attempt to silence others.
- sycren 15y agoI would say though that in addition to C) you should change to ..has expressed views you disapprove of that have direct consequences to your business. I think though you would be right if C) was more simplistic and ineffectual to you like.. I would not do business with x because they use goDaddy for hosting. No?
- sandman223 15y agoIt wouldn't be a stretch to say that this action by YC would fall under (A) in this case. GoDaddy has taken this stance simply because they think they can gain long-term competitive advantage by doing so. Supporting legislation that limits freedom in order to gain strategic advantage is inherently unethical.
- wtallis 15y agoSOPA is an attempt to fight copyright infringement by breaking the whole internet. It's crazy overkill, but that doesn't mean people and businesses shouldn't try to avoid becoming collateral damage.
- philwelch 15y agoJust a slight quibble: hunters are actually among the most consistent supporters of wildlife conservation. Ducks Unlimited, for instance, is largely an organization of duck hunters.
- eigenvector 15y agoIt makes sense. Hunters are among the few who derive actual material benefit from sustainable animal populations.
- brown9-2 15y agoWho is blacklisting individuals? It's blacklisting the corporate entity.
- mark_up 15y agoOne would hope so. It's democracy in action. A list is made of organisations who lend support to a bill that would badly damage our industry and livelihoods. We boycott those organizations in hopes that they might see the error of their ways and withdraw their support for the bill.
- gsmaverick 15y agoNope, that's what you are supposed to do in a market system. You as a citizen are under no obligation to engage in business with corporations you feel are harming society/
- forensic 15y agoThe Democracy-destroying government-subsidized corporations are already playing hardball with you. Why do you refuse to play hardball back? Try getting hired to be a VP at Pfizer while publicly supporting patent-reform. Try spreading the gospel of universal healthcare while being employed by Blue Cross. Try getting corporate advertisers for your online newspaper that presents a favorable view of WikiLeaks, or is willing to stand up for corporate whistleblowers who expose fraud. Individuals are already excluded from many, many activities based on their opinions. Non-violent non-cooperation with Democracy-destroying organizations is absolutely fundamental if you want to defend freedom in your country.
- biot 15y agoDo you mean "vehemently", or is your anti-SOPA position actually contagious?