4 ms·

I 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,

by pork 15y ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  It 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.

by pork 15y ago

DavidSJ 15y ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
It 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.