7 ms·

YC funded and PG defended a company whose entire business model is "let's spread crapware using opt-out checkboxes in installers that most people will not pay e

by nolok 13y ago

YC funded and PG defended a company whose entire business model is "let's spread crapware using opt-out checkboxes in installers that most people will not pay enough attention to". This is nothing new, I don't know why people seem to expect VC to be of better virtue than others means of founding a company.

danielweber 13y ago
Installing crapware, while a public blight, is not as categorically bad as this company (allegedly) is.
- nolok 13y ago
  While it is not an exact match, both cases are deceiving the user into getting something they don't want while pretending it's for their benefit.
jacquesm 13y ago
That would be this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 PG's response is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 It's not as strong as I would have liked but it is definitely a lot better than the one by the Matrix partner wrt justfab.com, for instance, PG actually leaned on the company to improve their practices somewhat.
- brador 13y ago
  It's interesting how that one borderline investment seems to have tainted PGs brand of percieved ethical investment. It's risk profile is no longer bounded by the company door, but affects the Ycombinator brand as a whole for future startups.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. He could have simply let it go but instead chose to stand up for his investment. This in turn led to a careful parsing of his words and as far as I can see short of divesting or distancing themselves from the investment (which would be unprecedented) still sent a strong message. In for a penny, in for a pound. I am assuming that future YC companies will be looked at a lot better from an ethics perspective and PG's personal and YC's investment involvement with Watsi more than makes up for whatever ethics dent he might have received here. On a set as large as YC's it should not be surprising there is at least one bad apple either. It's no excuse but it is also not nearly as damning as it could have been, witness that other justfab.com thread for a nice example.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
onebaddude 13y ago
>I don't know why people seem to expect VC to be of better virtue than others means of founding a company. Because they talk the game. For example, here's Reid Hoffman, another VC on a pedestal: "When I graduated from Stanford my plan was to become a professor and public intellectual. That is not about quoting Kant. It's about holding up a lens to society and asking 'who are we?' and 'who should we be, as individuals and a society?" But then he went on to be a major funder of Zynga, which in its heyday was a scummy, spam business. Everybody knew it. Made his money and got out. Now it seems LinkedIn resorts to many of these same deceptive tactics, as evidenced by recent HN articles. I don't understand why we hold these individuals in such high regard.

by nolok 13y ago

danielweber 13y ago

Installing crapware, while a public blight, is not as categorically bad as this company (allegedly) is.

nolok 13y ago
While it is not an exact match, both cases are deceiving the user into getting something they don't want while pretending it's for their benefit.

jacquesm 13y ago

That would be this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 PG's response is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 It's not as strong as I would have liked but it is definitely a lot better than the one by the Matrix partner wrt justfab.com, for instance, PG actually leaned on the company to improve their practices somewhat.

brador 13y ago
It's interesting how that one borderline investment seems to have tainted PGs brand of percieved ethical investment. It's risk profile is no longer bounded by the company door, but affects the Ycombinator brand as a whole for future startups.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. He could have simply let it go but instead chose to stand up for his investment. This in turn led to a careful parsing of his words and as far as I can see short of divesting or distancing themselves from the investment (which would be unprecedented) still sent a strong message. In for a penny, in for a pound. I am assuming that future YC companies will be looked at a lot better from an ethics perspective and PG's personal and YC's investment involvement with Watsi more than makes up for whatever ethics dent he might have received here. On a set as large as YC's it should not be surprising there is at least one bad apple either. It's no excuse but it is also not nearly as damning as it could have been, witness that other justfab.com thread for a nice example.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

onebaddude 13y ago

>I don't know why people seem to expect VC to be of better virtue than others means of founding a company. Because they talk the game. For example, here's Reid Hoffman, another VC on a pedestal: "When I graduated from Stanford my plan was to become a professor and public intellectual. That is not about quoting Kant. It's about holding up a lens to society and asking 'who are we?' and 'who should we be, as individuals and a society?" But then he went on to be a major funder of Zynga, which in its heyday was a scummy, spam business. Everybody knew it. Made his money and got out. Now it seems LinkedIn resorts to many of these same deceptive tactics, as evidenced by recent HN articles. I don't understand why we hold these individuals in such high regard.