4 ms·

Twitter’s female “problem”

57 points by kposehn 13y ago

nonchalance 13y ago
> Particularly one Twitter screed that said I only successfully raised venture capital for Pando because of how I look and who I know. Gender issues aside, Why exactly did Pando raise money, and how are they spending it? AFAICT it's a tech blog like many others
- fleitz 13y ago
  Let's assume PandoDaily will never make money, and in a few years will be back for another few million in funding. Lets assume that PandoDaily will continue to write articles about VC funded tech startups, now why would a company that stands to gain potentially billions of dollars from positive press of its portfolio companies invest in a money losing business like Pando? Especially if Pando can't continue operations with out more funding? Do you ever wonder why companies you can't buy anything from advertise on CNN? I have no idea whether this is true, but if we're making up conspiracy theories, this seems at least plausible.
  - nonchalance 13y ago
    What's not obvious to me is your implicit assumption that press from PandoDaily is a positive signal. If it is understood that PD is sponsored by the very VC companies whose portfolio companies are being pumped, isn't it conceivable that the articles in the future could be a negative signal?
    - fleitz 13y ago
      That's the nature of risk. Being able to associate negative perceptions around a company isn't exactly worthless either.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  Because Sarah Lacy knows VCs, and VCs like investing in the projects of people they know, whether they're a tech blog or a grilled cheese sandwich restaurant (http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/06/01/jonathan-kaplan-from-flip-cams-to-flipping-grilled-cheese/ http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/06/01/jonathan-kapl...). Which does sort of undermine the point she tries so heatedly to make about how women don't need connections to get funded -- a woman with connections can get funding even for something as far outside the standard venture portfolio as a tech blog.
joe_the_user 13y ago
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that the Twitter board is a men's club. If this was merely a chance phenomena, that would be one thing but this is platform that has something of a history of being a mob-enablement tool in a bad way. That's not to say Twitter hasn't done or couldn't do good. But a company like Twitter or Facebook is doing two things - making a significant amount of money and changing the world "social terrain". It seems reasonable that Twitter should be aware that they're doing this and should send signals showing they considering their impact. Now, the number of women on the board is probably a pretty poor marker by itself of whether a group is aiming to be sensitive. But one's willingness to send even a poor signal is different matter.
adamnemecek 13y ago
I don't think that I will ever get tired of articles about gender and diversity in tech.
smacktoward 13y ago
It's fascinating how, in an article that's ostensibly about Twitter, Sarah Lacy manages to write so many more words about Sarah Lacy than she does about Twitter.
- daemin 13y ago
  I think in the first half she makes her point about Twitter, while the second half is devoted to defending herself from the attacks that will come her way.
- phoward 13y ago
  I noticed that as well. A critique turned into self-affirmation. Stuart Smalley would be proud.
parennoob 13y ago
[EDIT]: Also, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This is the NYTimes Board of Directors http://www.nytco.com/company/board_of_directors/ http://www.nytco.com/company/board_of_directors/ Quite the diverse bunch, aren't they? (I'm focusing on the NYTimes, where the original article appeared instead of PandoDaily because PandoDaily is our standard tech industry rag that tacks on three pages of superfluous rubbish onto what someone else wrote first.) --- This is a 100% non-issue. As a person of colour, if I started raising a hue and cry every time there was a tech company (or, for that matter, any company) board full of white men/women, people would go bonkers. No one says "there should be X Asian, Y Hispanic, and Z African-American members on the board" because it simply isn't practical to implement without cast-iron Government controls (which are themselves susceptible to favoritism, corruption, etc.) If this Claire Cain Miller person on the NYTimes doesn't like it so much, maybe she should be in tech instead of spouting vitriol about Silicon Valley during the day and then going to a journalists' cocktail party in the evening where you would get laughed out and never asked again if you talked about apache v/s nginx. Her ilk of pseudo-intellectuals and outrage artists are making reporting into more of a theatre play. For an example of a (young) woman who is actually making a difference -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a35XINnYFtA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a35XINnYFtA
- felipe 13y ago
  I don't think it's right that Twitter is being singled-out as the evil chauvinistic company out there, but it is undeniable that positions of power in Silicon Valley are indeed reserved for the privileged white-male, and that's the focus of the NYT article [1], although it does use Twitter as a high-profile example. Would you deny that Silicon Valley's VC community is not a "old boys’ club" as the article describes? Would you deny that things are not tougher for women, persons of colour such as yourself, or latinos such as myself? You are right: It is not practical to force companies to distribute opportunities equally among genders / sexual preferences / ethnicities / races and whatnot. However, we cannot also simply ignore the problem in our industry because a solution is not available at first sight. Also, your own answer shows a bias against the author, dismissing her kind as "pseudo-intellectuals". That's exactly the kind of comment that makes technology such an unfriendly field for diversity in general. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/technology/as-tech-start-ups-surge-ahead-women-seem-to-be-left-behind.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/technology/as-tech-start-u...
newnewnew 13y ago
Is it just me, or has there been a recent explosion in the number of east coast "tech journalists" who couldn't code a hello world website who earn paychecks and page views by attacking tech startups with social-justice warrior type articles? This is what happens to a country with too many worthless bachelor's degrees floating around.
- voodoomagicman 13y ago
  what have you ever done that is worthwhile?
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  It's not just tech journalism, it's a phenomenon that echoes in Western media. I'm waiting for an article on how Silicon Valley discriminates against otherkin.
The_DHC 13y ago
Outrage is a growth industry. Go long on Outrage futures.

57 points by kposehn 13y ago

> Particularly one Twitter screed that said I only successfully raised venture capital for Pando because of how I look and who I know. Gender issues aside, Why exactly did Pando raise money, and how are they spending it? AFAICT it's a tech blog like many others

fleitz 13y ago
Let's assume PandoDaily will never make money, and in a few years will be back for another few million in funding. Lets assume that PandoDaily will continue to write articles about VC funded tech startups, now why would a company that stands to gain potentially billions of dollars from positive press of its portfolio companies invest in a money losing business like Pando? Especially if Pando can't continue operations with out more funding? Do you ever wonder why companies you can't buy anything from advertise on CNN? I have no idea whether this is true, but if we're making up conspiracy theories, this seems at least plausible.
- nonchalance 13y ago
  What's not obvious to me is your implicit assumption that press from PandoDaily is a positive signal. If it is understood that PD is sponsored by the very VC companies whose portfolio companies are being pumped, isn't it conceivable that the articles in the future could be a negative signal?
  - fleitz 13y ago
    That's the nature of risk. Being able to associate negative perceptions around a company isn't exactly worthless either.
smacktoward 13y ago
Because Sarah Lacy knows VCs, and VCs like investing in the projects of people they know, whether they're a tech blog or a grilled cheese sandwich restaurant (http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/06/01/jonathan-kaplan-from-flip-cams-to-flipping-grilled-cheese/ http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/06/01/jonathan-kapl...). Which does sort of undermine the point she tries so heatedly to make about how women don't need connections to get funded -- a woman with connections can get funding even for something as far outside the standard venture portfolio as a tech blog.

joe_the_user 13y ago

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that the Twitter board is a men's club. If this was merely a chance phenomena, that would be one thing but this is platform that has something of a history of being a mob-enablement tool in a bad way. That's not to say Twitter hasn't done or couldn't do good. But a company like Twitter or Facebook is doing two things - making a significant amount of money and changing the world "social terrain". It seems reasonable that Twitter should be aware that they're doing this and should send signals showing they considering their impact. Now, the number of women on the board is probably a pretty poor marker by itself of whether a group is aiming to be sensitive. But one's willingness to send even a poor signal is different matter.

adamnemecek 13y ago

I don't think that I will ever get tired of articles about gender and diversity in tech.

smacktoward 13y ago

It's fascinating how, in an article that's ostensibly about Twitter, Sarah Lacy manages to write so many more words about Sarah Lacy than she does about Twitter.

daemin 13y ago
I think in the first half she makes her point about Twitter, while the second half is devoted to defending herself from the attacks that will come her way.
phoward 13y ago
I noticed that as well. A critique turned into self-affirmation. Stuart Smalley would be proud.

parennoob 13y ago

[EDIT]: Also, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This is the NYTimes Board of Directors http://www.nytco.com/company/board_of_directors/ http://www.nytco.com/company/board_of_directors/ Quite the diverse bunch, aren't they? (I'm focusing on the NYTimes, where the original article appeared instead of PandoDaily because PandoDaily is our standard tech industry rag that tacks on three pages of superfluous rubbish onto what someone else wrote first.) --- This is a 100% non-issue. As a person of colour, if I started raising a hue and cry every time there was a tech company (or, for that matter, any company) board full of white men/women, people would go bonkers. No one says "there should be X Asian, Y Hispanic, and Z African-American members on the board" because it simply isn't practical to implement without cast-iron Government controls (which are themselves susceptible to favoritism, corruption, etc.) If this Claire Cain Miller person on the NYTimes doesn't like it so much, maybe she should be in tech instead of spouting vitriol about Silicon Valley during the day and then going to a journalists' cocktail party in the evening where you would get laughed out and never asked again if you talked about apache v/s nginx. Her ilk of pseudo-intellectuals and outrage artists are making reporting into more of a theatre play. For an example of a (young) woman who is actually making a difference -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a35XINnYFtA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a35XINnYFtA

felipe 13y ago
I don't think it's right that Twitter is being singled-out as the evil chauvinistic company out there, but it is undeniable that positions of power in Silicon Valley are indeed reserved for the privileged white-male, and that's the focus of the NYT article [1], although it does use Twitter as a high-profile example. Would you deny that Silicon Valley's VC community is not a "old boys’ club" as the article describes? Would you deny that things are not tougher for women, persons of colour such as yourself, or latinos such as myself? You are right: It is not practical to force companies to distribute opportunities equally among genders / sexual preferences / ethnicities / races and whatnot. However, we cannot also simply ignore the problem in our industry because a solution is not available at first sight. Also, your own answer shows a bias against the author, dismissing her kind as "pseudo-intellectuals". That's exactly the kind of comment that makes technology such an unfriendly field for diversity in general. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/technology/as-tech-start-ups-surge-ahead-women-seem-to-be-left-behind.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/technology/as-tech-start-u...

newnewnew 13y ago

Is it just me, or has there been a recent explosion in the number of east coast "tech journalists" who couldn't code a hello world website who earn paychecks and page views by attacking tech startups with social-justice warrior type articles? This is what happens to a country with too many worthless bachelor's degrees floating around.

voodoomagicman 13y ago
what have you ever done that is worthwhile?
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
It's not just tech journalism, it's a phenomenon that echoes in Western media. I'm waiting for an article on how Silicon Valley discriminates against otherkin.

The_DHC 13y ago

Outrage is a growth industry. Go long on Outrage futures.