6 ms·

I guess I'm not as easily impressed as you are. Sam Altman recently wrote[1], "Yes, it’s awful to hear the horror stories of wildly inappropriate behavior from

I guess I'm not as easily impressed as you are. Sam Altman recently wrote[1], "Yes, it’s awful to hear the horror stories of wildly inappropriate behavior from investors to the entrepreneurs pitching them. (Unfortunately, stories like these are not super rare, but because there’s a big cost to going public with them, most never get told. My hope is that YC has enough leverage at this point to make it clear that this is unacceptable and we will not continue to work with investors who do it.)" Today, Jessica Livingston writes, "Nearly all the investors we know are completely upstanding and professional, but even one inappropriate incident is too many." Sam's statement implies that this behavior is more common than most folks would like to believe, and that Y Combinator is prepared to punish investors who engage in it. Jessica's statement subtly suggests that this behavior is less common, and that the vast majority of the investors Y Combinator works with are above engaging in it. Which one is it? [1] http://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups http://blog.ycombinator.com/diversity-and-startups

loganu 12y ago
I don't know, but it could be both? On one hand, most cases of harassment/ whatever never get exposed. On the other, YC thinks they have a good handle on the VCs they are working with, and believe that they are all (or mostly) above this behaviour. The truth is probably somewhere in between, and it doesn't really matter. Both are explicitly stating that this behaviour is not tolerated and bears consequences.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  Sam Altman acknowledges that stories of this behavior are not "super rare", but that "most" stories don't get told for obvious reasons. Y Combinator states that Demo Day is attended by "most of the world’s top startup investors." This is a large group of people. Given the size of the investor pool and apparent prevalence of this behavior, the "nearly all the investors we know are completely upstanding and professional" statement is preposterous. There is simply no way for anybody to know all of the investors who are behaving badly, and the "even one inappropriate incident is too many" statement minimizes the regularity with which it is clear this behavior is occurring by subtly suggesting that these are isolated incidents.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    You have provided neither the evidence nor the logic that could guide us towards your extraordinary claim that it is "preposterous" that most of the investors YC works with aren't harassing women.
    - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
      I didn't claim that most investors Y Combinator works with are harassing women. I stated that it is preposterous for Y Combinator to suggest that it knows that "nearly all" investors it's dealing with are "completely upstanding and professional." As I wrote, "There is simply no way for anybody to know all of the investors who are behaving badly." As Sam Altman has acknowledged, most instances of this behavior go unreported, so most of the folks engaged in it are not known to be engaged in it. If you can't follow that logic... Your suggestion that I somehow claimed most investors working with YC are harassing women is so absurd as to be comical. I don't know what your agenda is, and frankly don't care, but if you're going to try to distort what I wrote, I'm confident you can do a better job.
      - loganu 12y ago
        I don't think he was trying to put words in your mouth like that, but either way... There is some logic, yes. Is it possible that YC affiliates with higher-caliber VCs that are less prone to this behaviour? Is it possible that "super rare" occurrences and "mostly unreported" occurrences are both very low numbers, to the point that YC can expect not to have any incidents? I think the answers to both could be yes, but I don't know if anyone has numbers to support anything. Anecdotal evidence from often anonymous founders indicates that there is a problem, but I honestly don't know how out-of-control it is. Either way, good on Sam and Jessica for addressing the issue.
      - loganu 12y ago
        I don't think he was trying to put words in your mouth like that, but either way... There is some logic, yes. Is it possible that YC affiliates with higher-caliber VCs that are less prone to this behaviour? Is it possible that "super rare" occurrences and "mostly unreported" occurrences are both very low numbers, to the point that YC can expect not to have any incidents? I think the answers to both could be yes, but I don't know if anyone has numbers to support anything. Anecdotal evidence from often anonymous founders indicates that there is a problem, but I honestly don't know how out-of-control it is. Either way, good on Sam and Jessica for addressing the issue.
tptacek 12y ago
Huh? Both statements can obviously be true.
yummyfajitas 12y ago
Here is a translation of Altman's message from powertalk into english: "Dear feminists and rabble rousers, we recognize your power. We are on your team. We will genuflect in the direction of those things you consider holy. Please don't target us." (For those unfamiliar with the term, "powertalk" is the in-group language of powerful people.) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i... YC is attempting to appease the internet bullies and avoid unwanted media attention (witness the Paul Graham sexism non-incident), not convey facts.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Saying that feminists are in a position of power is utterly ridiculous.
  - axlprose 12y ago
    It's really not. Feminist ideology has permeated many levels of public institutions today -- not all, of course, but quite a few. There's a reason it's seen as the 'correct'/default viewpoint to take today; if that weren't the case, then it'd be less surprising when someone declares themselves not a feminist. There might be a long road yet ahead for feminists, but I don't think it's fair to diminish their vast and obvious accomplishments thus far; doing that just feeds into the victimization cycle that's endemic in the radical subsets of it.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      It's something that everyone knows to pay lip service to, in the same way that everyone pays lip service to being "green." But are you going to say with a straight face that environmentalists are in a position of power?
      - axlprose 12y ago
        We (as a country) are trying to do something about global warming are we not? Sure we have nut-job deniers and all that, but compared to many countries that legitimately do not care about "being green", the US is doing rather decently (although arguably still not good enough, but it all has to start somewhere). Holding "power" is not a zero-sum game -- having slightly less power than another slightly more predominant ideology != 'not' having power. Just because we have a democratic president does not mean republicans have no power. Similarly feminist ideology has made itself into the american public's view of the 'ideal', and anything that opposes it as unquestionably 'bad' -- to say there's no power in that sort of collective consciousness about any issue is ignorant. Just because it's not ideal yet absolutely does not mean it's not in power -- even powerful things take time to reach their full potential. When behaviors like this YC post talks about hadn't had any negative ramifications before, but now do, that's power.
lsc 12y ago
> Jessica's statement subtly suggests that this behavior is less common, and that the vast majority of the investors Y Combinator works with are above engaging in it. My reading of Jessica's statement was that she was trying to make it clear that ycombinator wasn't accusing their customers without evidence. Investors, in a real way, are Ycombinator's customers. Yes, sometimes your customers do bad things and you have to deal with it, sometimes dealing with it means making them no longer your customers. As much as possible, you want to set expectations about those sorts of situations ahead of time. But, you want to set those expectations in a way that don't make your innocent customers feel like they are being accused of anything. When you are setting these sorts of expectations, it is easy to make it feel, to your customers, like you are assuming they are guilty without evidence, and that's not something you want your customers to feel. It is a mistake I've made myself. At one point, in response to one of my poorly-considered spammer-discouragement policies, a potential customer told me "we don't assume you are stupid; but we do assume you are a spammer." - you don't want to make your potential customers feel that way.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  First, there is too much capital chasing too few opportunities today. Y Combinator is widely seen by many investors as being the highest-quality accelerator so if it had merely stated "Y Combinator will not tolerate inappropriate sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders. Period." I guarantee you it's not going to suffer any negative consequences. I'm sure there are more investors wanting to attend Demo Day than there are Demo Day invitations. Second, Y Combinator could have prepared a code of conduct and sent it directly to the investors invited to participate in Demo Day. Demo Day is an invitation-only event and sending a code of conduct to invitees via email would have been a more effective way to reach the target audience than publishing a "Reminder to Investors" blog post which was clearly intended to be read by a broader audience. I don't doubt that Y Combinator sincerely wants to quell this behavior, which is a good thing. But maximizing the good you do isn't always aligned with maximizing the PR you do.

loganu 12y ago

I don't know, but it could be both? On one hand, most cases of harassment/ whatever never get exposed. On the other, YC thinks they have a good handle on the VCs they are working with, and believe that they are all (or mostly) above this behaviour. The truth is probably somewhere in between, and it doesn't really matter. Both are explicitly stating that this behaviour is not tolerated and bears consequences.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago
Sam Altman acknowledges that stories of this behavior are not "super rare", but that "most" stories don't get told for obvious reasons. Y Combinator states that Demo Day is attended by "most of the world’s top startup investors." This is a large group of people. Given the size of the investor pool and apparent prevalence of this behavior, the "nearly all the investors we know are completely upstanding and professional" statement is preposterous. There is simply no way for anybody to know all of the investors who are behaving badly, and the "even one inappropriate incident is too many" statement minimizes the regularity with which it is clear this behavior is occurring by subtly suggesting that these are isolated incidents.
- tptacek 12y ago
  You have provided neither the evidence nor the logic that could guide us towards your extraordinary claim that it is "preposterous" that most of the investors YC works with aren't harassing women.
  - 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
    I didn't claim that most investors Y Combinator works with are harassing women. I stated that it is preposterous for Y Combinator to suggest that it knows that "nearly all" investors it's dealing with are "completely upstanding and professional." As I wrote, "There is simply no way for anybody to know all of the investors who are behaving badly." As Sam Altman has acknowledged, most instances of this behavior go unreported, so most of the folks engaged in it are not known to be engaged in it. If you can't follow that logic... Your suggestion that I somehow claimed most investors working with YC are harassing women is so absurd as to be comical. I don't know what your agenda is, and frankly don't care, but if you're going to try to distort what I wrote, I'm confident you can do a better job.
    - loganu 12y ago
      I don't think he was trying to put words in your mouth like that, but either way... There is some logic, yes. Is it possible that YC affiliates with higher-caliber VCs that are less prone to this behaviour? Is it possible that "super rare" occurrences and "mostly unreported" occurrences are both very low numbers, to the point that YC can expect not to have any incidents? I think the answers to both could be yes, but I don't know if anyone has numbers to support anything. Anecdotal evidence from often anonymous founders indicates that there is a problem, but I honestly don't know how out-of-control it is. Either way, good on Sam and Jessica for addressing the issue.
    - loganu 12y ago
      I don't think he was trying to put words in your mouth like that, but either way... There is some logic, yes. Is it possible that YC affiliates with higher-caliber VCs that are less prone to this behaviour? Is it possible that "super rare" occurrences and "mostly unreported" occurrences are both very low numbers, to the point that YC can expect not to have any incidents? I think the answers to both could be yes, but I don't know if anyone has numbers to support anything. Anecdotal evidence from often anonymous founders indicates that there is a problem, but I honestly don't know how out-of-control it is. Either way, good on Sam and Jessica for addressing the issue.

tptacek 12y ago

Huh? Both statements can obviously be true.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Here is a translation of Altman's message from powertalk into english: "Dear feminists and rabble rousers, we recognize your power. We are on your team. We will genuflect in the direction of those things you consider holy. Please don't target us." (For those unfamiliar with the term, "powertalk" is the in-group language of powerful people.) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i... YC is attempting to appease the internet bullies and avoid unwanted media attention (witness the Paul Graham sexism non-incident), not convey facts.

rayiner 12y ago
Saying that feminists are in a position of power is utterly ridiculous.
- axlprose 12y ago
  It's really not. Feminist ideology has permeated many levels of public institutions today -- not all, of course, but quite a few. There's a reason it's seen as the 'correct'/default viewpoint to take today; if that weren't the case, then it'd be less surprising when someone declares themselves not a feminist. There might be a long road yet ahead for feminists, but I don't think it's fair to diminish their vast and obvious accomplishments thus far; doing that just feeds into the victimization cycle that's endemic in the radical subsets of it.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    It's something that everyone knows to pay lip service to, in the same way that everyone pays lip service to being "green." But are you going to say with a straight face that environmentalists are in a position of power?
    - axlprose 12y ago
      We (as a country) are trying to do something about global warming are we not? Sure we have nut-job deniers and all that, but compared to many countries that legitimately do not care about "being green", the US is doing rather decently (although arguably still not good enough, but it all has to start somewhere). Holding "power" is not a zero-sum game -- having slightly less power than another slightly more predominant ideology != 'not' having power. Just because we have a democratic president does not mean republicans have no power. Similarly feminist ideology has made itself into the american public's view of the 'ideal', and anything that opposes it as unquestionably 'bad' -- to say there's no power in that sort of collective consciousness about any issue is ignorant. Just because it's not ideal yet absolutely does not mean it's not in power -- even powerful things take time to reach their full potential. When behaviors like this YC post talks about hadn't had any negative ramifications before, but now do, that's power.

lsc 12y ago

> Jessica's statement subtly suggests that this behavior is less common, and that the vast majority of the investors Y Combinator works with are above engaging in it. My reading of Jessica's statement was that she was trying to make it clear that ycombinator wasn't accusing their customers without evidence. Investors, in a real way, are Ycombinator's customers. Yes, sometimes your customers do bad things and you have to deal with it, sometimes dealing with it means making them no longer your customers. As much as possible, you want to set expectations about those sorts of situations ahead of time. But, you want to set those expectations in a way that don't make your innocent customers feel like they are being accused of anything. When you are setting these sorts of expectations, it is easy to make it feel, to your customers, like you are assuming they are guilty without evidence, and that's not something you want your customers to feel. It is a mistake I've made myself. At one point, in response to one of my poorly-considered spammer-discouragement policies, a potential customer told me "we don't assume you are stupid; but we do assume you are a spammer." - you don't want to make your potential customers feel that way.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago
First, there is too much capital chasing too few opportunities today. Y Combinator is widely seen by many investors as being the highest-quality accelerator so if it had merely stated "Y Combinator will not tolerate inappropriate sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders. Period." I guarantee you it's not going to suffer any negative consequences. I'm sure there are more investors wanting to attend Demo Day than there are Demo Day invitations. Second, Y Combinator could have prepared a code of conduct and sent it directly to the investors invited to participate in Demo Day. Demo Day is an invitation-only event and sending a code of conduct to invitees via email would have been a more effective way to reach the target audience than publishing a "Reminder to Investors" blog post which was clearly intended to be read by a broader audience. I don't doubt that Y Combinator sincerely wants to quell this behavior, which is a good thing. But maximizing the good you do isn't always aligned with maximizing the PR you do.