7 ms·

Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are focusing on the weakest part of Greenspan's argument - the point where he comes closest

Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are focusing on the weakest part of Greenspan's argument - the point where he comes closest to bitterness - I was wondering if you'd like to invest $20,000 in my new venture. I'd like to sell crack heroin to junkies in Detroit. I'm sure as a fellow champion of guilt-free founder consciences, you will support my endeavour as I give gangbangers the chance to flock to this exciting new industry and do something they scarcely thought possible - to help give people a diversion from life's burdens and problems. And don't worry, I'll do it with plenty of integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just like Zynga : )

dmansen 14y ago
Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant. Ugh.
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  I think the point that his rousing hand-waving passes conveniently (and at great length) over is that the internet is a novel medium and legal ideas about what is and is not ethical business practice are very poorly defined if they are defined at all. For instance at what point can we argue that the rights of Facebook users and the "stickyness" of the service should limit the autonomy of Facebook as an independent company? E.g. perhaps at some point, if Facebook becomes nigh-on-ineradicable from the fabric of our lives, should we nationalise (globalise) it? The argument would be that it's not just "another service" and it's too important to leave in the hands of private individuals interested primarily in profit, and thus the rihts of its many users outweigh the prerogatives of its "owners".
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    I am a big proponant of nationalising the services that should be - see the total farce over UK rail networks for example. I strongly suspect most countries will put in place some forms of regulation or nationalisation over IP connectivity to the house - but once connected the very DNA of the Internet means that such monopolies are as trivially bypassable as any service provider has ever been. Myspace is probably the best counter example to this threat there can be. And it also cost Rupert Murdoch 1/2 billion so there was a silver lining.
homosaur 14y ago
I want to invest in your startup. Sounds like a great opportunity, definitely profits from day one.
- saalweachter 14y ago
  Due diligence, man! Before investing in his crack heroin distribution scheme, you should get documentation detailing his supply chain, his on-hand inventory, his distribution intents, and so forth. Written documentation, pictures if possible, with names and addresses for all of his business associates.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
In a free society, he is free to write as much as he likes and you are free to neither read nor reply to it. The base of his argument is offending a persons preferences is not sufficient to self censor ones own actions - and I agree. I also agree where he said any legal start up is fine and free of guilt - but don't worry I would be behind any start up or government initiative that gave away heroin to Junkies. The so called British System worked very well for many years, until the Puritan guilt pressure ended it in spite of empirical evidence that harm reduction did in fact reduce harm so convert your start up to social entrpreneur status, and go make something to be proud of the only reason to feel guilty is to have talent to create and not do so.
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  As I argue in my other reply, legal and ethical boundaries on the internet are still poorly if at all defined.
  - zingahgud 14y ago
    That is the understatement of the century.
- moocow01 14y ago
  "I also agree where he said any legal start up is fine and free of guilt - but don't worry I would be behind any start up or government initiative that gave away heroin to Junkies" And if the government does make it legal to give away heroin? While that is seemingly improbable I think it can get dangerous to assume that laws are representative of ethics or humane behavior.
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    Err - the British system was a compromise where it wa legal for doctors to prescribe herion to patients under their care - ie junkies, so they stopped petty crime to feed their habit and started getting some strucutres back in their lives so I was in favour of that system, and think it ethical to look to harm reduction as opposed to all out prohibition. Which I think means we agree - but maybe not. I am not too sure
mattmanser 14y ago
Careful, you'll bring the HN grellas lovers down on you. While I always despair at his inability to say something succinctly, he generally always makes an excellent point. Facebook provides an excellent service to most people in the world and it does so at a level that your $20,000 cannot buy. While we as a more discerning social customer may see it as extremely low value, the production values are actually extremely high. I always think of my national rag the Sun in these instances, it's utter trash, but they really worked hard on making it extremely good trash. Alas for the article, to be honest the whole thing reads of bitterness, not unjustified if we are looking at 'justice'. But Zuck is a complete $&!t, and an extremely lucky one at that, but in business that's just the way it works. Moaning about it is futile. The only way to end up playing at that level is probably ending up being a complete $&!t as well. There are few big founders who haven't done very dodgy things in their time.
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  I just don't understand why HN readers are so eager to paint Greenspan as a whiner and Zuckerberg as a rightful victor, as if that's the only thing worth saying about this whole commotion. It seems like a very dim view of human potential to me - winning is all that counts, if being a shit means you win, good on ya, and anyone that challenges that is just a whiner. After all, Greenspan doesn't say that M -shouldn't- have been successful - he does not argue with moral absolutes (or maybe he does and I need to re-read the piece). He argues that eventually that sort of shitty behaviour will catch up with you, no matter what, even if you are the CEO of Facebook. Like I've said in other comments, it sounds like a warning. Plus shouldn't HN readers be interested in more than just raw victory? If you view the modern tech world as a zero-sum arena, I feel bad for you son. Modern tech is about collaboration, synergy, and finding an approach that authentically makes sense for you in relation to what others are doing. This bloodthirsty power stuff is just a juvenile phase. (NB: not to take away from all of that Zuck has clearly accomplished at Facebook; its had a huge and rightful impact on the world and our lives.)
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    We are eager because I think the only things I have ever heard from Greenspan on this site are posts which are still whining about how he got screwed out of lots of fame and fortune in Facebook, or how everyone else is spamming and breaking the law over at AirBnB. Want me to not paint him as a whiner? How about a Show HN post of a cool new tech company he just started that actually will be useful. Failing that all I hear is someone who is mad he too doesn't have a billion in the bank.
Apocryphon 14y ago
Given the current popularity of certain cable serial dramas, your proposal has excellent mindshare.
tptacek 14y ago
Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better. Do it and I'll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways to Partners In Health. There's an idea common to forums that I don't frequent that I recently learned of called an "ideological Turing test". The idea is to take a group of people divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a coherent argument that capture's the other side's perspective. Then everyone tries to tell, "which is the real argument, and which is the cunning fake?". In that spirit: if you think you understand what 'grellas is trying to say so well, go ahead and take a whack at saying it better, and demonstrate that you actually grok his perspective.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  Sorry, I am being dense: and, given the two possible results of the Turing test (population correctly/incorrectly guesses which is real/fake for each side), what are the implications for the argument, if any?
  - cuergas 14y ago
    One implication is that people making arguments do not necessarily have to believe in them. And that anyone with adequate rhetorical skills can make any argument, even one that is not consistent with what they truly believe. Example: Readers might believe some rambling gibberish about there being no need for any startup founder to have a conscience, and they might attribute it to the poster's own beliefs (it's ok not to have a conscience), when truthfully the poster might believe otherwise (he does not really believe in screwing people over, to the point of having no friends or a lifelong reputation as a con artist) and might just be advancing an idea that would benefit his business: the more social networking startups and the more money flowing into them, the better for those who take a cut. The other implication is that you have to first understand a position in order to argue it effectively. The claim here is that one commenter does not actually comprehend the other commenter's position. And an easy way to show this is to ask each commenter to argue for the other's position, instead of against it.
- intended 14y ago
  We have the freedom to build what we see fit - without the need to to justify the act by saying it improves humanity. If it doesn't improve humanity like a cure for cancer, but ends up creating happiness in the lives of its users, is that wrong? I tried to get the spirit of the words. How did I do? Quibbles: I thought several issues were conflated in the original post by grellas, so honestly I don't think I could possibly do justice to all the unstated assumptions.

dmansen 14y ago

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant. Ugh.

corporalagumbo 14y ago
I think the point that his rousing hand-waving passes conveniently (and at great length) over is that the internet is a novel medium and legal ideas about what is and is not ethical business practice are very poorly defined if they are defined at all. For instance at what point can we argue that the rights of Facebook users and the "stickyness" of the service should limit the autonomy of Facebook as an independent company? E.g. perhaps at some point, if Facebook becomes nigh-on-ineradicable from the fabric of our lives, should we nationalise (globalise) it? The argument would be that it's not just "another service" and it's too important to leave in the hands of private individuals interested primarily in profit, and thus the rihts of its many users outweigh the prerogatives of its "owners".
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  I am a big proponant of nationalising the services that should be - see the total farce over UK rail networks for example. I strongly suspect most countries will put in place some forms of regulation or nationalisation over IP connectivity to the house - but once connected the very DNA of the Internet means that such monopolies are as trivially bypassable as any service provider has ever been. Myspace is probably the best counter example to this threat there can be. And it also cost Rupert Murdoch 1/2 billion so there was a silver lining.

homosaur 14y ago

I want to invest in your startup. Sounds like a great opportunity, definitely profits from day one.

saalweachter 14y ago
Due diligence, man! Before investing in his crack heroin distribution scheme, you should get documentation detailing his supply chain, his on-hand inventory, his distribution intents, and so forth. Written documentation, pictures if possible, with names and addresses for all of his business associates.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

In a free society, he is free to write as much as he likes and you are free to neither read nor reply to it. The base of his argument is offending a persons preferences is not sufficient to self censor ones own actions - and I agree. I also agree where he said any legal start up is fine and free of guilt - but don't worry I would be behind any start up or government initiative that gave away heroin to Junkies. The so called British System worked very well for many years, until the Puritan guilt pressure ended it in spite of empirical evidence that harm reduction did in fact reduce harm so convert your start up to social entrpreneur status, and go make something to be proud of the only reason to feel guilty is to have talent to create and not do so.

corporalagumbo 14y ago
As I argue in my other reply, legal and ethical boundaries on the internet are still poorly if at all defined.
- zingahgud 14y ago
  That is the understatement of the century.
moocow01 14y ago
"I also agree where he said any legal start up is fine and free of guilt - but don't worry I would be behind any start up or government initiative that gave away heroin to Junkies" And if the government does make it legal to give away heroin? While that is seemingly improbable I think it can get dangerous to assume that laws are representative of ethics or humane behavior.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  Err - the British system was a compromise where it wa legal for doctors to prescribe herion to patients under their care - ie junkies, so they stopped petty crime to feed their habit and started getting some strucutres back in their lives so I was in favour of that system, and think it ethical to look to harm reduction as opposed to all out prohibition. Which I think means we agree - but maybe not. I am not too sure

mattmanser 14y ago

Careful, you'll bring the HN grellas lovers down on you. While I always despair at his inability to say something succinctly, he generally always makes an excellent point. Facebook provides an excellent service to most people in the world and it does so at a level that your $20,000 cannot buy. While we as a more discerning social customer may see it as extremely low value, the production values are actually extremely high. I always think of my national rag the Sun in these instances, it's utter trash, but they really worked hard on making it extremely good trash. Alas for the article, to be honest the whole thing reads of bitterness, not unjustified if we are looking at 'justice'. But Zuck is a complete $&!t, and an extremely lucky one at that, but in business that's just the way it works. Moaning about it is futile. The only way to end up playing at that level is probably ending up being a complete $&!t as well. There are few big founders who haven't done very dodgy things in their time.

corporalagumbo 14y ago
I just don't understand why HN readers are so eager to paint Greenspan as a whiner and Zuckerberg as a rightful victor, as if that's the only thing worth saying about this whole commotion. It seems like a very dim view of human potential to me - winning is all that counts, if being a shit means you win, good on ya, and anyone that challenges that is just a whiner. After all, Greenspan doesn't say that M -shouldn't- have been successful - he does not argue with moral absolutes (or maybe he does and I need to re-read the piece). He argues that eventually that sort of shitty behaviour will catch up with you, no matter what, even if you are the CEO of Facebook. Like I've said in other comments, it sounds like a warning. Plus shouldn't HN readers be interested in more than just raw victory? If you view the modern tech world as a zero-sum arena, I feel bad for you son. Modern tech is about collaboration, synergy, and finding an approach that authentically makes sense for you in relation to what others are doing. This bloodthirsty power stuff is just a juvenile phase. (NB: not to take away from all of that Zuck has clearly accomplished at Facebook; its had a huge and rightful impact on the world and our lives.)
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  We are eager because I think the only things I have ever heard from Greenspan on this site are posts which are still whining about how he got screwed out of lots of fame and fortune in Facebook, or how everyone else is spamming and breaking the law over at AirBnB. Want me to not paint him as a whiner? How about a Show HN post of a cool new tech company he just started that actually will be useful. Failing that all I hear is someone who is mad he too doesn't have a billion in the bank.

Apocryphon 14y ago

Given the current popularity of certain cable serial dramas, your proposal has excellent mindshare.

tptacek 14y ago

Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better. Do it and I'll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways to Partners In Health. There's an idea common to forums that I don't frequent that I recently learned of called an "ideological Turing test". The idea is to take a group of people divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a coherent argument that capture's the other side's perspective. Then everyone tries to tell, "which is the real argument, and which is the cunning fake?". In that spirit: if you think you understand what 'grellas is trying to say so well, go ahead and take a whack at saying it better, and demonstrate that you actually grok his perspective.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago
Sorry, I am being dense: and, given the two possible results of the Turing test (population correctly/incorrectly guesses which is real/fake for each side), what are the implications for the argument, if any?
- cuergas 14y ago
  One implication is that people making arguments do not necessarily have to believe in them. And that anyone with adequate rhetorical skills can make any argument, even one that is not consistent with what they truly believe. Example: Readers might believe some rambling gibberish about there being no need for any startup founder to have a conscience, and they might attribute it to the poster's own beliefs (it's ok not to have a conscience), when truthfully the poster might believe otherwise (he does not really believe in screwing people over, to the point of having no friends or a lifelong reputation as a con artist) and might just be advancing an idea that would benefit his business: the more social networking startups and the more money flowing into them, the better for those who take a cut. The other implication is that you have to first understand a position in order to argue it effectively. The claim here is that one commenter does not actually comprehend the other commenter's position. And an easy way to show this is to ask each commenter to argue for the other's position, instead of against it.
intended 14y ago
We have the freedom to build what we see fit - without the need to to justify the act by saying it improves humanity. If it doesn't improve humanity like a cure for cancer, but ends up creating happiness in the lives of its users, is that wrong? I tried to get the spirit of the words. How did I do? Quibbles: I thought several issues were conflated in the original post by grellas, so honestly I don't think I could possibly do justice to all the unstated assumptions.