6 ms·

I'll buck the trend and downvote. I dislike the hard-link comparison to startups. I personally know people who got sucked into MLMs and are almost exclusively

I'll buck the trend and downvote. I dislike the hard-link comparison to startups. I personally know people who got sucked into MLMs and are almost exclusively lower income families. There are literal playbooks, talking points from the organized MLM's themselves on how to "recruit" your families and get them to buy their own product so they raise in "status". If you're connected to military moms' or lower income groups you know how pervasive and destructive these MLMs can be to these families. Not sure if you have any idea, but it is incredibly frustrating, disheartening to talk to them about how it's hurting them. In my case, it was their own cousin who got them involved and ultimately into debt. Not a 20's single-no-attachment, but this friend has a family to care for. I get angry simply remembering this. The only thing worse was for profit education. Startups simply aren't at that level and even bringing this argument into play detracts from the focus of how destructive MLMs are.

maxbond 4y ago
I think it's all the same ocean and a lot of foul creatures swim in it. Some of them are getting you into an MLM where you shuck oysters on a TikTok Live, some of them are selling you grifty courses about flipping houses, and some of them are selling you grifty courses about getting a job in tech. They're not necessarily all morally equivalent, but they're drawing from the same well of rise and grind hustle culture. MLMs are especially pernicious and harmful, but we do ourselves a disservice if we blind ourselves to the toxic culture that enables them - one that extends far beyond just MLMs.
fxtentacle 4y ago
Apparently, you've never watched those start-up tutorials sold on YouTube. Half the course is spent on arguing that by paying $2000 to learn how to make your own iOS apps, you're "investing in yourself". And of course the people that run the course make most of their money from running the course and not from actually releasing iOS apps... I recommend "Contrepreneurs: The Mikkelsen Twins" by "Folding Ideas" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw
- Out_of_Characte 4y ago
  To be fair, any profession or field can be turned into a con. Just because deepak chopra advocates quantum healing doesn't mean the field itself is corrupt. MLM are by definition corrupt but startups aren't.
  - ozim 4y ago
    Maybe there is a tipping point where we start saying that "startup" is no longer a positive word. Amount of wannapreneurs loosing money on scams, amounts of young adults exploited to work for below market rates for years, amount of scammers hiding under "startup" banner getting money from VCs or small investors are not "one Deepak using quantum healing".
  - thewebcount 4y ago
    > Just because deepak chopra advocates quantum healing doesn't mean the field itself is corrupt. I must not be understanding what you mean. The field of quantum healing is entirely corrupt. There is no such thing, it's all bunk. Do you mean that quantum physics isn't corrupt? Because I doubt anybody thinks that.
- unmole 4y ago
  > Apparently, you've never watched those start-up tutorials sold on YouTube. I have not. Probably because they simply aren't a significant part of tech or startup culture.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Not to you. Kids starting will easily believe that is startup culture.
    - unmole 4y ago
      I don't understand how Kids have an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the world is supposed to be a rebuttal.
BoorishBears 4y ago
This feels like concern baiting. The comment you replied to wasn't "Startups are MLMs" and in fact goes out of its way to state that it's not implying they're identical, yet you still force your way into interpreting it in the least useful way possible. The fact is, of course startups are not MLMs: but there are shared threads in how they lead to fallacious thought that puts someone else's goals and profit ahead of your own time, money, and general sanity based on not much more than a vague promise of a future payout.
- irjustin 4y ago
  > This feels like concern baiting. I'll agree with you on this because I am trying to switch the concern - putting it back on how bad MLMs are in line with the article. If you read the article and then read the most upvoted comment, it says "Oh yeah that's terrible, and look at how startup's terrible too in really similar ways!" That is "what-about-ism" - This is bad, "but what about..." Focus shifting.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    It's the literal opposite of whataboutism. In no way, shape, or form, did the comment try to use startups to make MLMs look less bad, and in fact it did the exact opposite. You're on a site where a disproportionate number of people are involved in startups/startup culture, and are also disproportionately in socioeconomic positions further removed from the effects for an MLM than a random population sample*. (* I hesitate to even say this since I don't trust you won't try and build an enormous strawman argument out of it, trying to paint this as a "oh well readers here are to rich to care?!". I'm from a 3rd world country, so no, that's not it either.) - Drawing parallels to a topic that's relatable to the reader is exactly what you'd expect in any half decent comment section. At the end of the day you're saying you intentionally interpreted the comment in bad faith as a springboard to push your own take. A take which just repeats the literal contents of the article rather than interpreting it in a novel way.
    - irjustin 4y ago
      I appreciate the feedback but it looks like we won't see eye-to-eye. > did the comment try to use startups to make MLMs look less bad, and in fact it did the exact opposite. So you read OP's comment and thought "Wow, MLMs are even worse because startups have toxic culture."? I did not. I read that comment and thought "now the most upvoted thread will talk about startups" instead of MLMs and how they should be regulated like for profit schools. > Drawing parallels to a topic that's relatable to the reader is exactly what you'd expect in any half decent comment section. > At the end of the day you're saying you intentionally interpreted the comment in bad faith as a springboard to push your own take. Again, agreed, I do take the comment in bad faith, which is why I voiced my disagreement and downvoted. Because the parent comment did exactly what you state, drew parallels to something that "people understand" here by trying to make startups and MLMs morally equivalent with the phrase "You could easily change that to:". That surface deep parallelism detracts away how destructive MLMs are - hence my comment from personal experience. > I hesitate to even say this since I don't trust you won't try and build an enormous strawman argument out of it, trying to paint this as a "oh well readers here are to rich to care?!" Not sure what you're trying to preempt here, but quite a weird comment, sort of a strawman of strawman. It's interesting because we're starting from the same position. What you're accusing me of - I'm agreeing with you because that's what I'm trying to do, but the conclusions end up being different - thus, never eye-to-eye.
throwaway049 4y ago
I agree with the distinctions you've drawn. But this is hn so it's not unreasonable to make that startup comparison here, while it would be absurd if we had the same conversation on r/antimlm .
pjc50 4y ago
This is where we talk about the "accredited investor rule". Startups do not usually require the people brought in to put in actual money. They put in time, for which they are paid with a mixture of cash, and equity which is basically a lottery ticket. But they do not flow money back to the founders. Generally the only people putting in actual money are those who can afford to lose it. Occasionally on HN I've seen people complaining that they can't sell shares to friends and family - or buy a startup they "know" is going to take off. But this is why: it's too easy to be fraudulent. Now, what field has no such protections? ICOs and cryptocurrency. What field is rife with fraud that's been called "MLM for men"? ICOs and cryptocurrency.
FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
The word "startup" is used for multiple different things. One is funded by VCs, pays you a healthy salary, and gives you a shot, if you're lucky, at wheelbarrows of money from stock options. Another is a pretend job you do from the age of about 23 until 37, mostly by yourself, bouncing between "accelerators" and "mentors", paying yourself a wage that a graduate student would feel sorry for, slowly getting old, and eventually realizing, as you approach 40, that you are now actually unemployable. They're not the same.

maxbond 4y ago

I think it's all the same ocean and a lot of foul creatures swim in it. Some of them are getting you into an MLM where you shuck oysters on a TikTok Live, some of them are selling you grifty courses about flipping houses, and some of them are selling you grifty courses about getting a job in tech. They're not necessarily all morally equivalent, but they're drawing from the same well of rise and grind hustle culture. MLMs are especially pernicious and harmful, but we do ourselves a disservice if we blind ourselves to the toxic culture that enables them - one that extends far beyond just MLMs.

fxtentacle 4y ago

Apparently, you've never watched those start-up tutorials sold on YouTube. Half the course is spent on arguing that by paying $2000 to learn how to make your own iOS apps, you're "investing in yourself". And of course the people that run the course make most of their money from running the course and not from actually releasing iOS apps... I recommend "Contrepreneurs: The Mikkelsen Twins" by "Folding Ideas" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw

Out_of_Characte 4y ago
To be fair, any profession or field can be turned into a con. Just because deepak chopra advocates quantum healing doesn't mean the field itself is corrupt. MLM are by definition corrupt but startups aren't.
- ozim 4y ago
  Maybe there is a tipping point where we start saying that "startup" is no longer a positive word. Amount of wannapreneurs loosing money on scams, amounts of young adults exploited to work for below market rates for years, amount of scammers hiding under "startup" banner getting money from VCs or small investors are not "one Deepak using quantum healing".
- thewebcount 4y ago
  > Just because deepak chopra advocates quantum healing doesn't mean the field itself is corrupt. I must not be understanding what you mean. The field of quantum healing is entirely corrupt. There is no such thing, it's all bunk. Do you mean that quantum physics isn't corrupt? Because I doubt anybody thinks that.
unmole 4y ago
> Apparently, you've never watched those start-up tutorials sold on YouTube. I have not. Probably because they simply aren't a significant part of tech or startup culture.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Not to you. Kids starting will easily believe that is startup culture.
  - unmole 4y ago
    I don't understand how Kids have an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the world is supposed to be a rebuttal.

BoorishBears 4y ago

This feels like concern baiting. The comment you replied to wasn't "Startups are MLMs" and in fact goes out of its way to state that it's not implying they're identical, yet you still force your way into interpreting it in the least useful way possible. The fact is, of course startups are not MLMs: but there are shared threads in how they lead to fallacious thought that puts someone else's goals and profit ahead of your own time, money, and general sanity based on not much more than a vague promise of a future payout.

irjustin 4y ago
> This feels like concern baiting. I'll agree with you on this because I am trying to switch the concern - putting it back on how bad MLMs are in line with the article. If you read the article and then read the most upvoted comment, it says "Oh yeah that's terrible, and look at how startup's terrible too in really similar ways!" That is "what-about-ism" - This is bad, "but what about..." Focus shifting.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  It's the literal opposite of whataboutism. In no way, shape, or form, did the comment try to use startups to make MLMs look less bad, and in fact it did the exact opposite. You're on a site where a disproportionate number of people are involved in startups/startup culture, and are also disproportionately in socioeconomic positions further removed from the effects for an MLM than a random population sample*. (* I hesitate to even say this since I don't trust you won't try and build an enormous strawman argument out of it, trying to paint this as a "oh well readers here are to rich to care?!". I'm from a 3rd world country, so no, that's not it either.) - Drawing parallels to a topic that's relatable to the reader is exactly what you'd expect in any half decent comment section. At the end of the day you're saying you intentionally interpreted the comment in bad faith as a springboard to push your own take. A take which just repeats the literal contents of the article rather than interpreting it in a novel way.
  - irjustin 4y ago
    I appreciate the feedback but it looks like we won't see eye-to-eye. > did the comment try to use startups to make MLMs look less bad, and in fact it did the exact opposite. So you read OP's comment and thought "Wow, MLMs are even worse because startups have toxic culture."? I did not. I read that comment and thought "now the most upvoted thread will talk about startups" instead of MLMs and how they should be regulated like for profit schools. > Drawing parallels to a topic that's relatable to the reader is exactly what you'd expect in any half decent comment section. > At the end of the day you're saying you intentionally interpreted the comment in bad faith as a springboard to push your own take. Again, agreed, I do take the comment in bad faith, which is why I voiced my disagreement and downvoted. Because the parent comment did exactly what you state, drew parallels to something that "people understand" here by trying to make startups and MLMs morally equivalent with the phrase "You could easily change that to:". That surface deep parallelism detracts away how destructive MLMs are - hence my comment from personal experience. > I hesitate to even say this since I don't trust you won't try and build an enormous strawman argument out of it, trying to paint this as a "oh well readers here are to rich to care?!" Not sure what you're trying to preempt here, but quite a weird comment, sort of a strawman of strawman. It's interesting because we're starting from the same position. What you're accusing me of - I'm agreeing with you because that's what I'm trying to do, but the conclusions end up being different - thus, never eye-to-eye.

throwaway049 4y ago

I agree with the distinctions you've drawn. But this is hn so it's not unreasonable to make that startup comparison here, while it would be absurd if we had the same conversation on r/antimlm .

pjc50 4y ago

This is where we talk about the "accredited investor rule". Startups do not usually require the people brought in to put in actual money. They put in time, for which they are paid with a mixture of cash, and equity which is basically a lottery ticket. But they do not flow money back to the founders. Generally the only people putting in actual money are those who can afford to lose it. Occasionally on HN I've seen people complaining that they can't sell shares to friends and family - or buy a startup they "know" is going to take off. But this is why: it's too easy to be fraudulent. Now, what field has no such protections? ICOs and cryptocurrency. What field is rife with fraud that's been called "MLM for men"? ICOs and cryptocurrency.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago

The word "startup" is used for multiple different things. One is funded by VCs, pays you a healthy salary, and gives you a shot, if you're lucky, at wheelbarrows of money from stock options. Another is a pretend job you do from the age of about 23 until 37, mostly by yourself, bouncing between "accelerators" and "mentors", paying yourself a wage that a graduate student would feel sorry for, slowly getting old, and eventually realizing, as you approach 40, that you are now actually unemployable. They're not the same.