4 ms·

> > Y Combinator was the sort of unforgiving power player that remembered the names of investors who had crossed portfolio companies in the past, or who had dis

• jf 2y ago
  Not any more than you need to in any public forum
  • adastra22 2y ago
    Not the point. One should be allowed to be critical of the institutions of the valley without getting their name written down in a secret blacklist.
    • tomhoward 2y ago
      YC will fund anyone who is building a company that looks like it could be highly successful. There's one case I'm thinking of now where someone was as critical of YC (both the org and individual leaders) as anyone could possibly be, in a highly public and sustained way, and their startup later got funded by YC.
      • adastra22 2y ago
        Well that is contrary to what is stated in the article/book.
        • tomhoward 2y ago
          What in the article (sentence or paragraph) contradicts what I wrote? The article is about how YC defended one of its funded companies against a legal attack. It doesn’t say anything about YC refusing to fund someone who criticized it.
          • adastra22 2y ago
            > Y Combinator was the sort of unforgiving power player that remembered the names of investors who had crossed portfolio companies in the past, *or who had disseminated unflattering portraits of YC*, and blacklisted them from any YC dealings, or from the minds of YC founders If you said something unflattering about YC once and got uninvited from demo day, that's on you. But being black listed from ever investing in any YC-backed startup even if you reach out to founders directly is taking things too far. And potentially an antitrust issue. Cabals are illegal, after all.
            • tomhoward 2y ago
              The quoted book was being purposefully colorful and inflammatory for literary effect, but it still doesn’t make any claims of investors being “blacklisted” just because they said something unflattering about YC. (“Disseminating unflattering portraits” implies some kind of organised campaign to damage YC, and I have no idea if that really happened or if it’s just part of the colorful/exaggerated writing). The only cases I know of where an investor was banished from Demo Day/YC’s network was for acting in bad faith towards founders. If YC banished investors who had a track record of being great to founders, they would be doing a disservice to founders, and therefore acting against YC’s own interests. That aside, my original comment doesn’t contradict anything in the article (I can’t speak for the entire book - honestly when I tried reading it I couldn’t get past the first few pages).
              • adastra22 2y ago
                That's good to know, thanks.
      • JoshTriplett 2y ago
        Which case was that?
    • acdha 2y ago
      That’s an ideal but how would that work short of stringent government regulation? It’s never been easier to mine text and since YC is giving people large sums of money they have both a valid reason and broad deference to their assessment of applicants. VC isn’t like a car or home loan so I don’t think there’s anyway you could cut out bias less blatant than circulating a list of racial slurs or explicit threats of retaliation for funding people: since they’re basically making a large unsecured loan there’s simply too much justifiable discretion to exclude something like reviewing posting history.
      • adastra22 2y ago
        This is the traditional role of regulation, yes. Note that if what they were filter out for were things like union sympathies, it would be illegal.
        • acdha 2y ago
          Yes, but how would you tell? Unless they straight up tell you why you were turned down it’s really hard to know what someone was thinking when they say “I just didn’t think they had the right idea”.
    • breck 2y ago
      [dead]
• ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  Not because of YC. I think that what people say here, is only a fairly small data point, for them. But I would encourage folks to consider their approach, in general, whenever we are in a professional context (and, despite the casual nature of HN, this is very much a “professional context”). I think that some few people here, are able to post in a truly anonymous fashion, but most folks could be doxxed fairly easily, if they piss off the wrong people (not always movers and shakers; we have some truly amazing talent, hereabouts). In my case, I just make it clear who I am, and post carefully (I know it may not seem so, but look closer). I learned, long ago, that I’m not actually able to maintain true anonymity, so I don’t even try.
  • kmmlng 2y ago
    I think it's important to distinguish between two directions here: 1) can someone figure out who I am based on my profile and 2) can someone find my profile if they know who I am. I care much more about the second, because the odds of someone attempting the second are much higher.
    • ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
      Well, back when I was looking for work, a couple of companies asked for my HN handle (actually, it's one of the reasons that I got an account, here). It was fairly obvious, that I would not be considered, if I didn't have one.
      • RGamma 2y ago
        That explains a lot.
        • ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
          Eh. We all have our origin stories. Turned out that I didn't really feel like working with companies that require HN handles, and they didn't feel like working with past-their-prime engineers, so it's all good. I stuck around, and folks generally seem to feel I'm a decent member, here. A few curmudgeons don't like me, but, when you're "on the spectrum," you get pretty used to folks not liking you, for no discernible reason. I've found that being true to myself, means that it doesn't really matter, all that much. I've had really dangerous people not like me, IRL, so this joint is Amateur Hour. I try to be a decent member here, and not bring darkness (I'm quite capable of it). Some folks think that makes me "stuffy," or "snobby." Whatever creams your Twinkie. I'm actually a pretty decent person, and it's probably worth it, to get to know me. I won't make you rich, but I'm also no threat to anyone (and have no desire to be). I believe in helping folks, and trying to keep humanity first and foremost. HN handles are people, not NPCs (for the most part -Ed.), and I try to keep that in mind, when I post, here.
• fallingknife 2y ago
  So they won't do business with people that have crossed them or insulted them in the past? Regardless of whether they were in the right that's kind of just how people act, but phrased in a way to sound dramatic. You are not entitled to invest in whatever company you want.
• brudgers 2y ago
  If you want to associate with the people at YC, it probably makes some sense to behave like the kind of person that people at YC are likely to want to associate with. The Adchemy’s investors were funding a lawsuit against a startup. I imagine from YC’s perspective, that kind of thing was considered bad for the ecosystem. By which I mean nobody involved was going to make money. There’s no blood in a stone. The lawsuit was not in anyone’s business interest. The article states it was even contrary to an unwritten rule of the startup culture.
• propoganda 2y ago
  [flagged]
• breck 2y ago
  [dead]
• propoganda 2y ago
  [dead]