3 ms·
It's deeply bizarre to me that there are so many posters on here who think a fund that: 1) invests in, 2) advises, and 3) provides free job advertising to; vari
by yamtaddle 4y ago
It's deeply bizarre to me that there are so many posters on here who think a fund that: 1) invests in, 2) advises, and 3) provides free job advertising to; various startups, has no responsibility to advise them to follow the law when posting those job advertisements on that fund's own job board.
I understand the ones who raise the possibility that some of these aren't, in fact, breaking the law, for one reason or another, but the ones who seem to take offense at the notion that YC might have even a sliver of responsibility here in the first place are really surprising.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoSqueaky wheel gets the grease. Never assume someone will do the right or legal thing, regardless of status or PR. Can’t explain the Stockholm Syndrome (“but the ones who seem to take offense at the notion that YC might have even a sliver of responsibility here”), people can be emotional, irrational creatures due to life experience and belief systems. But Sequoia lost $200M on a fraud having done zero due diligence, so perhaps it’s simply different shades of apathy all the way down.
- roflyear 4y agoI'm glad this took off. I think some of the posts were fixed!! :)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rchaud 4y agoin Silicon Valley style "first principles thinking", you start from the premise that laws don't exist. Airbnb and Uber wouldn't exist if their backers urged them to comply with state laws.
- edanm 4y agoJust out of curiosity - how do you know that YC doesn't advise startups to do exactly that? Advice can be ignored, after all. (Note: I'm not saying they are or aren't, I have no idea either way.)