4 ms·
> And then you can work to punish malicious actors in Silicon Valley who violate important investing norms. That's a pretty generous way of framing it. It's n
by shkkmo 2y ago
> And then you can work to punish malicious actors in Silicon Valley who violate important investing norms.
That's a pretty generous way of framing it. It's not like this was a concerted effort to protect all small start ups or change employment law to protect founders from legal action from former employers. The article pretty clearly posits that it was a retaliatory exercise of power that was executed to serve the interests of YC. I would argue that the kinds of anticompetitive tactics described in this article are not economically healthy and are thus ethically, if not legally wrong.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y agoIt's possible an action is in YC's self-interest, and also that action is the right thing to do. Just because you're acting in your self-interest doesn't mean you're doing wrong. >It's not like this was a concerted effort to protect all small start ups or change employment law to protect founders from legal action from former employers. Imagine you volunteer at a local soup kitchen feeding homeless people. My response: "It's not like this was a concerted effort to feed all homeless people or end the problem of homelessness."