3 ms·

You're being ridiculous. You're making this about me, and I am frankly not a very interesting topic to 99+ percent of the readers here. It's not that I am espe

You're being ridiculous. You're making this about me, and I am frankly not a very interesting topic to 99+ percent of the readers here. It's not that I am especially important; however, my encounter with HN moderation has shown one of the mechanisms by which VC-istan protects its reputation. That is all. By observing those mechanisms, we can possibly make inferences about its health. If what is said on Hacker News actually matters to VC-istan, then it's not a very robust system. I really think this should be the end of the conversation. Leave the inane personal attacks out of it.

tptacek 13y ago
You're not making things less worrisome by strenuously arguing that there's nothing personal about a comment that starts with "I suppose what has happened to my HN account...", and then going on to suggest that your "encounter with HN moderation" shows a "mechanisms by which VC-istan protects its reputation". The reality is that VC-istan, whatever that is, probably does not give a shit about you or me. You are not being persecuted. It is reasonable to be worried about what your comments, taken as a whole, imply about where you're coming from. It's totally possible that I'm wrong and you're just very shrill (you'd think that as a fellow shrill person I'd have a radar for that). But it is not crazy to ask the question. Are you OK?
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  "VC-istan" doesn't give a shit about you or me, correct. This is not some paranoid Conspiracy (capital-C) theory. Those capital-C conspiracy theories are like gods in that they are excuses to look no further. (Why does "the Illuminati" conspire toward evil? Because they're evil! It's a devil archetype.) They almost never exist, and don't hold together for long. The reality is that people act according to their own interests. If we can figure out what those interests are, we can learn things. You learn the most if you assume that conspiracies and weird personal vendettas, prima facie, don't exist. Paul Graham, for example, probably doesn't care about either of us either. However, he does have a need to appease VC-istan (which is not quite a conspiracy, but has shown aggressively and illegally collusive behavior in the past). If he wants access to the best talent, he needs to be able to place. The fact that someone is pressuring him or one of his moderators to suppress the ideas of someone fairly powerless tells us something-- that VC-istan believes its reputation (the asset that enables it to get top talent cheaply) is in peril.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I suspect it's the opposite, and that venture capitalists are a lot more worried about having to appease Paul Graham than the other way around, because of YC's position in the deal flow. I have anecdotal evidence that strongly corroborates that assertion, but you'll just have to take my word for it. Given the notion that Paul Graham is not in fact worried about people on HN offending the delicate sensitivities of VC firm partners, your entire argument falls apart, and nothing you've experienced on HN has anything to do with you being a thorn in the side of any "-stan", potential or otherwise. Incidentally, your continued and ritualized use of the term "VC-istan" harms your arguments, because it's a term that can mean whatever you want it to in any given situation. Is YC part of "VC-istan"? Who knows! It depends on where you want to be in an debate. Anyone who's been on more than a couple message board debates sees that problem coming and discounts your credibility to price that risk in. It's one thing to use a term like "VC-istan" (I prefer "startuplandia"; Maciej Ceglowski seems to like "flounders") as a way of poking fun at startup culture. But that's not how you use the term. You write as if "VC-istan" is something real. You didn't answer my question, by the way. I'm easy to find privately if you're not comfortable answering here. Or talk to anyone else. Just make sure you're talking to someone if you need to be.
    - michaelochurch 13y ago
      Venture capitalists do not fear Paul Graham. He may be the godfather of Y Combinator, but people at Sequoia are involved in far bigger deals all the time. If you want to know what VC-istan is, start here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/vc-istan-1-what-is-vc-istan/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/vc-istan-1-wh... VC-istan does not mean "whatever you want it to in any given situation".
      - tptacek 13y ago
        None of these people "fear" any of these people, but if you correct for the words I actually used, I stand by my previous assertion and believe you're simply wrong. It's pretty straightforward to work out what YC has that VCs need, and how little VCs have that YC needs. Once again, we're having this pointless conversation because you argued upthread that Paul Graham is so terrified of venture capitalists that he represses you on Hacker News to appease them, so angry are they at your mean comments about them.

tptacek 13y ago

You're not making things less worrisome by strenuously arguing that there's nothing personal about a comment that starts with "I suppose what has happened to my HN account...", and then going on to suggest that your "encounter with HN moderation" shows a "mechanisms by which VC-istan protects its reputation". The reality is that VC-istan, whatever that is, probably does not give a shit about you or me. You are not being persecuted. It is reasonable to be worried about what your comments, taken as a whole, imply about where you're coming from. It's totally possible that I'm wrong and you're just very shrill (you'd think that as a fellow shrill person I'd have a radar for that). But it is not crazy to ask the question. Are you OK?

michaelochurch 13y ago
"VC-istan" doesn't give a shit about you or me, correct. This is not some paranoid Conspiracy (capital-C) theory. Those capital-C conspiracy theories are like gods in that they are excuses to look no further. (Why does "the Illuminati" conspire toward evil? Because they're evil! It's a devil archetype.) They almost never exist, and don't hold together for long. The reality is that people act according to their own interests. If we can figure out what those interests are, we can learn things. You learn the most if you assume that conspiracies and weird personal vendettas, prima facie, don't exist. Paul Graham, for example, probably doesn't care about either of us either. However, he does have a need to appease VC-istan (which is not quite a conspiracy, but has shown aggressively and illegally collusive behavior in the past). If he wants access to the best talent, he needs to be able to place. The fact that someone is pressuring him or one of his moderators to suppress the ideas of someone fairly powerless tells us something-- that VC-istan believes its reputation (the asset that enables it to get top talent cheaply) is in peril.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I suspect it's the opposite, and that venture capitalists are a lot more worried about having to appease Paul Graham than the other way around, because of YC's position in the deal flow. I have anecdotal evidence that strongly corroborates that assertion, but you'll just have to take my word for it. Given the notion that Paul Graham is not in fact worried about people on HN offending the delicate sensitivities of VC firm partners, your entire argument falls apart, and nothing you've experienced on HN has anything to do with you being a thorn in the side of any "-stan", potential or otherwise. Incidentally, your continued and ritualized use of the term "VC-istan" harms your arguments, because it's a term that can mean whatever you want it to in any given situation. Is YC part of "VC-istan"? Who knows! It depends on where you want to be in an debate. Anyone who's been on more than a couple message board debates sees that problem coming and discounts your credibility to price that risk in. It's one thing to use a term like "VC-istan" (I prefer "startuplandia"; Maciej Ceglowski seems to like "flounders") as a way of poking fun at startup culture. But that's not how you use the term. You write as if "VC-istan" is something real. You didn't answer my question, by the way. I'm easy to find privately if you're not comfortable answering here. Or talk to anyone else. Just make sure you're talking to someone if you need to be.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    Venture capitalists do not fear Paul Graham. He may be the godfather of Y Combinator, but people at Sequoia are involved in far bigger deals all the time. If you want to know what VC-istan is, start here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/vc-istan-1-what-is-vc-istan/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/vc-istan-1-wh... VC-istan does not mean "whatever you want it to in any given situation".
    - tptacek 13y ago
      None of these people "fear" any of these people, but if you correct for the words I actually used, I stand by my previous assertion and believe you're simply wrong. It's pretty straightforward to work out what YC has that VCs need, and how little VCs have that YC needs. Once again, we're having this pointless conversation because you argued upthread that Paul Graham is so terrified of venture capitalists that he represses you on Hacker News to appease them, so angry are they at your mean comments about them.