8 ms·

CEO of Web Summit tech conference resigns over Israel comments

64 points by frob 3y ago

sysadm1n 3y ago
Trial by social media. Now CEOs have to walk on eggshells because their sponsors could pull out because of some cherry-picked tweet. Paddy is a smart guy who also revealed bias in the Irish Media not so long ago. He didn't need to resign IMHO.
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  He's a conference organiser who got an inflated ego. This tweet wasn't nefarious but his post history is so opinionated that this was bound to happen.
- codezero 3y ago
  This isn’t at all new. In training as a manager (> 7 years ago) and director even at a smaller company they made it clear my behavior in public may be associated with the company negatively and to be conscious of it. Maybe this guy didn’t get such training or wasn’t paying attention. That said, I agree, he didn’t need to resign but he may have done so to avoid further negative attention to avoid a Streisand effect.
  - sc68cal 3y ago
    So, free speech unless it hurts your employer?
    - codezero 3y ago
      Free speech is a protection relating to the government's ability to inhibit it, not a corporation's. Like, you can say what you want, unless that's also illegal (credible death threats, hate speech etc...) and the government won't stop you or imprison you, but no company is required to protect you or keep employing you based on that concept. There are other protections in place that limit corporations' ability to terminate you, just not relating to speech, at least in the US. I'm not sure how different the system in Ireland is.
- s_dev 3y ago
  He's more 'widely known' than respected in the Irish tech scene and I really wouldn't see him as a spokesperson. I don't disagree with what he said per se but he has been just spouting every opinion that pops in to his head for the past two decades and this habit has finally caught up with him. It's best practice to keep your cards close to your chest when promoting a brand or business -- so this isn't some new 'trial' by social media. The advantage lies with those who choose to be 'apolitical' rather than those who pick a side for their brand to align with.
- alphabettsy 3y ago
  A trial by social media where the evidence is a post he himself made and the result is companies choosing not to do business with him? Seems perfectly ok. His comments here seem relatively tame and seems like an overreaction, but other orgs are free to associate with whom they choose are they not?
  - bluish29 3y ago
    I wonder how many Palestinians need to be killed for you to consider this reaction normal and not overreaction? Note: You have the option to just say one of the following and not answer the question. - Isreal has the right to defend itself. - Hamas started this and isreal is defending itself - They elected hamas and isreal has the the right to defend itself - The jews people suffer is enormous and can justify anything.
    - alphabettsy 3y ago
      Take a chill pill. I was saying that resigning over these comments seems like an overreaction. I did not mention nor am I going to make any specific comments about the conflict.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  Now? People have been canceled due to comments on social media for more than a decade at this point. This is nothing new. This is the tree we got from the seeds that we let grow.
keepamovin 3y ago
Given Irish history, and this person's Irish origin, I can understand how, in an unguarded and possibly reflexive moment, he could see this as merely support for a smaller, inferior, insurgent force against a larger, militarily superior occupying force, as this can be argued to loosely parallel Irish 20C history involving Britain. At the same time, I'm surprised because this person organized a cosmopolitan gathering, and it seems likely that he would have adopted a more cosmopolitan and sensitive attitude. I suppose the old adage is true, "The tree may leave the forest, but its roots are still in the soil."
- et-al 3y ago
  For any public figure in the western world, this is the only approach: https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505 https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-becaus...
- potatopatch 3y ago
  I don't really agree with your summary of his position given the quote in the article: "War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are," That is a reminder that crimes against humanity are more serious than political sides. Israelis and Palestinians who have massacred civilians must equally face consequences. People who are angry at that quote are the ones to ostracize.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    It's certainly possible to read it as you portray it: a reminder of moral priorities and the importance of integrity in upholding those in an unbiased way. It's commendable that you take that constructive and positive view. However, the comment you provide lacks sufficient context to make that reading explicit, meaning it is at least open to interpretation. This vagueness could be seen as moral equivocation, insensitivity, or an indirect statement of a more extreme position. Crucially, the quote you provide is preceded by additional comments regarding the rhetoric of Western leaders except Ireland, which makes it clear that the subject of the comment is Israel, given the widespread support Israel has received from many Western leaders after Hamas' attack. It's wise to consider the quote in context of Mr Cosgrove's original and complete statement here: https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 Regarding ostracizing of people who were angry at the above tweet, your sentiment could itself be read as insensitive to the loss of life and indirectly supporting Hamas. In general, it's hard to argue that people who condemn Mr Cosgrove's statement should be ostracized, while simultaneously claiming a lack of bias. Finally, it's important to note that condemnation of the tweet was widespread with many companies boycotting the event.
throway20231022 3y ago
I wonder how the free speech absolutists will take this? On the one hand, this is clearly "online cancel culture" ruining someone's life, but on the other hand, support for Israel is very important for the evangelical right. (There's also the third hand which is the odd things free speech people seem to think about the Jewish people . . .)
hunglee2 3y ago
Very real possibility this is the end of Web Summit, which is crazy when you consider the size and significance of the event vs the incident which triggered the outcry. Next event after Lisbon? Doha 2024. Qatar of course the main financial backers of Hamas (not Iran, contrary to MSM conflation)
- orwin 3y ago
  The 30 millions per month 'from' Qatar is likely given by Netanyahu's government [0], or at least exchanged against contracts and political clout from Netanyahu (according to a French middle-east 'expert'). Iran is linked to Hamas post irak war, when sunni and chia fundamentalists decided they were circumstancial allies, and have ideological links. Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west. The recent expropriations in east Jerusalem (including the catholic hospital/orphanage my father was born in) were a signal Netanyahu's government gave that it would rather deal with Hamas than Fatah. It was a failure in leadership and humanity that coalesced into this very situation (not blaming the numerous victims here, who asked nothing: they're like people downstream a dam failure: their government failed them.) [0] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-israel-mossad-chief-doha-qatar-continue-hamas-gaza-money-transfer/0000017f-ded8-d856-a37f-ffd88a960000 https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-artic...
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west. That's why Israel early on actively nurtured the Islamist network that became Hamas in Gaza (I mean, besides “division among Palestinians is good”, which itself is a major factor); they wanted a face for their opposition that was less sympathetic to the West. Netanyahu's governments active undermining of the Fatah-led PLO, enabling of Hamas, and sabotaging of plans to hold new Palestinian elections all feeds into that desire to avoid having an opposition that looks democratic and is otherwise sympathetic to the West, to maintain Western support, or at least acquiescence, for the necessity of Israel not moving toward peace.
CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
Anyone that tells the truth, that Israel is an apartheid regime that is openly committing war crimes, and has a free pass for both, should expect to be cancelled since Israel's supporters own all of the media and all of the means of doing business. This shouldn't be news to anyone that has consumed the news (ever).
- gataca 3y ago
  Thought-terminating cliché detected
diggan 3y ago
Curious about the forbidden words he used, it seems to have been the following: > I’m shocked at the rhetoric and actions of so many Western leaders & governments, with the exception in particular of Ireland’s government, who for once are doing the right thing. War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are. https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 > To repeat: War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies & should be called out for what they are. > I will not relent. https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713964519884513446 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713964519884513446 Removing the fact that this is about the Israel-Palestine situation, makes this look like relatively sane and balanced viewed of war crimes that I think most people could agree with. But since this is about Israel and Palestine, that somehow makes his statements anti-Israeli I suppose?
- megous 3y ago
  Should be rather un-controversial, given that many UN organizations were/are publishing statements warning about possible war crimes (and other international crimes) commited by Israel, and Israel is certainly capable of commiting them. Some Israeli-Palestinian organizations are also calling out against war crimes. https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20231019_one_crime_does_not_justify_anothert_he_attack_against_civilians_in_gaza_must_end https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20231019_one_crime_does_n... When Israel is killing people by hundreds every day, and thretening millions to level their cities, while bombarding them and cutting them of from humanitarian aid, and basic living necessities, it's a very bad look for some moralizing companies to stand up against someone who just points out that this may be basically pretty bad, inhumane, even a war crime, no matter which side you like.
- shashashasha___ 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - isignal 3y ago
    He did condemn the attacks, not sure why you think he didn’t take the context into account. https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713659060153618680 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713659060153618680
jessenaser 3y ago
I don't get why he resigned? (Question). a. Either you're actually wrong and need to reflect and change your future behavior. (Still CEO). b. Either you're correct and need to stand up for what you said. (Still CEO). You only could resign if you did something so egregious that reflection is not going to help the situation right now (either to the business or to others); or you did not believe or have the courage to stand up for what you said (virtue signal or mob rule). And fact 2, if he owns 80% of Web Summit, it won't change the fact of the next CEO that is put in place? He could clarify his statements so the context of his Twitter feed could not be framed to say he supports terrorists. Even if you think he didn't say something to get framed that way, others do, so he could Tweet extra Tweets and clarify what he means. Then move forward next year at the next Web Summit with everyone there, after they understand the situation.
- megous 3y ago
  It's not about being right. It's about not having a summit if he doesn't placate the data slurping amoral corporate overlord sponsors.
victornomad 3y ago
Why is this flagged? I think it is a relevant piece of information.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  Is it because the person is saying the thing we're not supposed to say in these times?
- BizyDev 3y ago
  This is what censorship looks like.
- frob 3y ago
  It's pretty akin to why anything critical of Elon Musk is fairly quickly flagged and hidden. Despite all the protestations otherwise by the denizens, hacker news is not a free-speech haven, but a PR forum for a highly influential venture capital firm.
tamarlikesdata 3y ago
[flagged]

64 points by frob 3y ago

Trial by social media. Now CEOs have to walk on eggshells because their sponsors could pull out because of some cherry-picked tweet. Paddy is a smart guy who also revealed bias in the Irish Media not so long ago. He didn't need to resign IMHO.

gardenhedge 3y ago
He's a conference organiser who got an inflated ego. This tweet wasn't nefarious but his post history is so opinionated that this was bound to happen.
codezero 3y ago
This isn’t at all new. In training as a manager (> 7 years ago) and director even at a smaller company they made it clear my behavior in public may be associated with the company negatively and to be conscious of it. Maybe this guy didn’t get such training or wasn’t paying attention. That said, I agree, he didn’t need to resign but he may have done so to avoid further negative attention to avoid a Streisand effect.
- sc68cal 3y ago
  So, free speech unless it hurts your employer?
  - codezero 3y ago
    Free speech is a protection relating to the government's ability to inhibit it, not a corporation's. Like, you can say what you want, unless that's also illegal (credible death threats, hate speech etc...) and the government won't stop you or imprison you, but no company is required to protect you or keep employing you based on that concept. There are other protections in place that limit corporations' ability to terminate you, just not relating to speech, at least in the US. I'm not sure how different the system in Ireland is.
s_dev 3y ago
He's more 'widely known' than respected in the Irish tech scene and I really wouldn't see him as a spokesperson. I don't disagree with what he said per se but he has been just spouting every opinion that pops in to his head for the past two decades and this habit has finally caught up with him. It's best practice to keep your cards close to your chest when promoting a brand or business -- so this isn't some new 'trial' by social media. The advantage lies with those who choose to be 'apolitical' rather than those who pick a side for their brand to align with.
alphabettsy 3y ago
A trial by social media where the evidence is a post he himself made and the result is companies choosing not to do business with him? Seems perfectly ok. His comments here seem relatively tame and seems like an overreaction, but other orgs are free to associate with whom they choose are they not?
- bluish29 3y ago
  I wonder how many Palestinians need to be killed for you to consider this reaction normal and not overreaction? Note: You have the option to just say one of the following and not answer the question. - Isreal has the right to defend itself. - Hamas started this and isreal is defending itself - They elected hamas and isreal has the the right to defend itself - The jews people suffer is enormous and can justify anything.
  - alphabettsy 3y ago
    Take a chill pill. I was saying that resigning over these comments seems like an overreaction. I did not mention nor am I going to make any specific comments about the conflict.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
surgical_fire 3y ago
Now? People have been canceled due to comments on social media for more than a decade at this point. This is nothing new. This is the tree we got from the seeds that we let grow.

keepamovin 3y ago

Given Irish history, and this person's Irish origin, I can understand how, in an unguarded and possibly reflexive moment, he could see this as merely support for a smaller, inferior, insurgent force against a larger, militarily superior occupying force, as this can be argued to loosely parallel Irish 20C history involving Britain. At the same time, I'm surprised because this person organized a cosmopolitan gathering, and it seems likely that he would have adopted a more cosmopolitan and sensitive attitude. I suppose the old adage is true, "The tree may leave the forest, but its roots are still in the soil."

et-al 3y ago
For any public figure in the western world, this is the only approach: https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505 https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-becaus...
potatopatch 3y ago
I don't really agree with your summary of his position given the quote in the article: "War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are," That is a reminder that crimes against humanity are more serious than political sides. Israelis and Palestinians who have massacred civilians must equally face consequences. People who are angry at that quote are the ones to ostracize.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  It's certainly possible to read it as you portray it: a reminder of moral priorities and the importance of integrity in upholding those in an unbiased way. It's commendable that you take that constructive and positive view. However, the comment you provide lacks sufficient context to make that reading explicit, meaning it is at least open to interpretation. This vagueness could be seen as moral equivocation, insensitivity, or an indirect statement of a more extreme position. Crucially, the quote you provide is preceded by additional comments regarding the rhetoric of Western leaders except Ireland, which makes it clear that the subject of the comment is Israel, given the widespread support Israel has received from many Western leaders after Hamas' attack. It's wise to consider the quote in context of Mr Cosgrove's original and complete statement here: https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 Regarding ostracizing of people who were angry at the above tweet, your sentiment could itself be read as insensitive to the loss of life and indirectly supporting Hamas. In general, it's hard to argue that people who condemn Mr Cosgrove's statement should be ostracized, while simultaneously claiming a lack of bias. Finally, it's important to note that condemnation of the tweet was widespread with many companies boycotting the event.

throway20231022 3y ago

I wonder how the free speech absolutists will take this? On the one hand, this is clearly "online cancel culture" ruining someone's life, but on the other hand, support for Israel is very important for the evangelical right. (There's also the third hand which is the odd things free speech people seem to think about the Jewish people . . .)

hunglee2 3y ago

Very real possibility this is the end of Web Summit, which is crazy when you consider the size and significance of the event vs the incident which triggered the outcry. Next event after Lisbon? Doha 2024. Qatar of course the main financial backers of Hamas (not Iran, contrary to MSM conflation)

orwin 3y ago
The 30 millions per month 'from' Qatar is likely given by Netanyahu's government [0], or at least exchanged against contracts and political clout from Netanyahu (according to a French middle-east 'expert'). Iran is linked to Hamas post irak war, when sunni and chia fundamentalists decided they were circumstancial allies, and have ideological links. Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west. The recent expropriations in east Jerusalem (including the catholic hospital/orphanage my father was born in) were a signal Netanyahu's government gave that it would rather deal with Hamas than Fatah. It was a failure in leadership and humanity that coalesced into this very situation (not blaming the numerous victims here, who asked nothing: they're like people downstream a dam failure: their government failed them.) [0] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-israel-mossad-chief-doha-qatar-continue-hamas-gaza-money-transfer/0000017f-ded8-d856-a37f-ffd88a960000 https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-artic...
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west. That's why Israel early on actively nurtured the Islamist network that became Hamas in Gaza (I mean, besides “division among Palestinians is good”, which itself is a major factor); they wanted a face for their opposition that was less sympathetic to the West. Netanyahu's governments active undermining of the Fatah-led PLO, enabling of Hamas, and sabotaging of plans to hold new Palestinian elections all feeds into that desire to avoid having an opposition that looks democratic and is otherwise sympathetic to the West, to maintain Western support, or at least acquiescence, for the necessity of Israel not moving toward peace.

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago

Anyone that tells the truth, that Israel is an apartheid regime that is openly committing war crimes, and has a free pass for both, should expect to be cancelled since Israel's supporters own all of the media and all of the means of doing business. This shouldn't be news to anyone that has consumed the news (ever).

gataca 3y ago
Thought-terminating cliché detected

diggan 3y ago

Curious about the forbidden words he used, it seems to have been the following: > I’m shocked at the rhetoric and actions of so many Western leaders & governments, with the exception in particular of Ireland’s government, who for once are doing the right thing. War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are. https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 > To repeat: War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies & should be called out for what they are. > I will not relent. https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713964519884513446 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713964519884513446 Removing the fact that this is about the Israel-Palestine situation, makes this look like relatively sane and balanced viewed of war crimes that I think most people could agree with. But since this is about Israel and Palestine, that somehow makes his statements anti-Israeli I suppose?

megous 3y ago
Should be rather un-controversial, given that many UN organizations were/are publishing statements warning about possible war crimes (and other international crimes) commited by Israel, and Israel is certainly capable of commiting them. Some Israeli-Palestinian organizations are also calling out against war crimes. https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20231019_one_crime_does_not_justify_anothert_he_attack_against_civilians_in_gaza_must_end https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20231019_one_crime_does_n... When Israel is killing people by hundreds every day, and thretening millions to level their cities, while bombarding them and cutting them of from humanitarian aid, and basic living necessities, it's a very bad look for some moralizing companies to stand up against someone who just points out that this may be basically pretty bad, inhumane, even a war crime, no matter which side you like.
shashashasha___ 3y ago
[flagged]
- isignal 3y ago
  He did condemn the attacks, not sure why you think he didn’t take the context into account. https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713659060153618680 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713659060153618680

jessenaser 3y ago

I don't get why he resigned? (Question). a. Either you're actually wrong and need to reflect and change your future behavior. (Still CEO). b. Either you're correct and need to stand up for what you said. (Still CEO). You only could resign if you did something so egregious that reflection is not going to help the situation right now (either to the business or to others); or you did not believe or have the courage to stand up for what you said (virtue signal or mob rule). And fact 2, if he owns 80% of Web Summit, it won't change the fact of the next CEO that is put in place? He could clarify his statements so the context of his Twitter feed could not be framed to say he supports terrorists. Even if you think he didn't say something to get framed that way, others do, so he could Tweet extra Tweets and clarify what he means. Then move forward next year at the next Web Summit with everyone there, after they understand the situation.

megous 3y ago
It's not about being right. It's about not having a summit if he doesn't placate the data slurping amoral corporate overlord sponsors.

victornomad 3y ago

Why is this flagged? I think it is a relevant piece of information.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
Is it because the person is saying the thing we're not supposed to say in these times?
BizyDev 3y ago
This is what censorship looks like.
frob 3y ago
It's pretty akin to why anything critical of Elon Musk is fairly quickly flagged and hidden. Despite all the protestations otherwise by the denizens, hacker news is not a free-speech haven, but a PR forum for a highly influential venture capital firm.

tamarlikesdata 3y ago

[flagged]