7 ms·

I hope she wins, but this issue is a lot bigger than this one case, and what we also need is a new law that holds investors responsible for the conduct of the p

I hope she wins, but this issue is a lot bigger than this one case, and what we also need is a new law that holds investors responsible for the conduct of the people they fund. Right now, they can fund frat boys and while the frat boys get sued for sexual harassment or domestic abuse, the investors are scot-free. Indeed, the appeal of Silicon Valley and VC is the disposable company. (As in... don't like what has attached itself to your creation? Shoot it in the head.) But this allows founder quality levels to reach an all-time low, and it's time to reverse course by holding investors responsible for the character of the people they fund.

joshu 12y ago
Did something happen to you? This seems like an absurdly high bar.
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  The better question to ask of Michael Church would be what hasn't happened to him, from his perspective. (Then disregard his answer.)
- pen2l 12y ago
  What do you mean "Did something happen to you?" The comment by moc is a pretty standard moc comment. (Just curious to know what you meant)
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  His view is that in the valley, the VC investor relationship to founders is more like an employer/employee relationship. I happen to think that is true to some extent. For all the...excess...in MoC's commentary, there are kernels of truths that people who have drunk the SV/VC kool aide are made uncomfortable by.
kchoudhu 12y ago
There's no way to write a law like this that isn't open to horrific abuse. If investors are going to be held responsible for their management's criminal activities, the law isn't just going to be used in Silicon Valley. I don't want to be held liable the next time I buy a few hundred shares of a company whose managers fuck up and (defraud mortgage borrowers|turn NJ into a superfund site|whatever). I'm generally very supportive of your observations about the feudal nature of Silicon Valley -- but this isn't one of your finest moments.
- RodericDay 12y ago
  > "I don't want to be held liable the next time I buy a few hundred shares of a company whose managers fuck up" how is this fair? we want investors to make intelligent decisions, right? not just play roulette?
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    No, I actually agree with him insofar as such a law would require a definition of "investor" that doesn't hold small, passive investors responsible. If you're a VC and you fund a frat boy and he creates a discriminatory culture, you should be held financially liable for any sexual harassment cases that come against him, because you created the startup (and, often, his career) and you were his manager, even if the corporate structure allows you to deny the fact on technicalities. (At least, let me go this far: you should be as liable as his manager would be, meaning that you fall hard if you knew or should have known.) If you're an employee who exercised his options, you shouldn't be liable for management's fuckups.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  I'm not talking about applying the law to everyone who owns shares. That would be ridiculous, and would take down a large number of employees. I should have clarified. I want career-making, lead investors to be liable. The people who created Evan Spiegel should be held responsible if he creates a company with a discriminatory culture. Not everyone who holds a few hundred shares; just people who either played a role, by investing, in creating the thing. In other words, investor-bosses, not all investors. I wouldn't necessarily apply this to all crimes and, in fact, I'd be willing to have a law that only applies to civil claims, since civil court is where most of these cultural failures end up. I'm not going to say that I know all the details of how it should work; only that something needs to hold investors, as managers because that is what they are, responsible for the cultures of the companies they create.
kansface 12y ago
The investors don't get off scot-free; if the company tanks because of sexual harassment, their investment fails. For that matter, if consumers cared about the character of CEOs, this problem simply wouldn't exist.
Bahamut 12y ago
I don't think that that would be a good law, but they do say that these sort of problems start from the top, and so it's no surprise that we have these issues in the tech industry - the CEOs are beholden to their investors, and if this is the culture that is present, one has to wonder what message it sends to the companies they fund. VCs need to police their own, or those funding the VC firms need to take their money elsewhere if we are to see a fix to this.

joshu 12y ago

Did something happen to you? This seems like an absurdly high bar.

jsmthrowaway 12y ago
The better question to ask of Michael Church would be what hasn't happened to him, from his perspective. (Then disregard his answer.)
pen2l 12y ago
What do you mean "Did something happen to you?" The comment by moc is a pretty standard moc comment. (Just curious to know what you meant)
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
His view is that in the valley, the VC investor relationship to founders is more like an employer/employee relationship. I happen to think that is true to some extent. For all the...excess...in MoC's commentary, there are kernels of truths that people who have drunk the SV/VC kool aide are made uncomfortable by.

kchoudhu 12y ago

There's no way to write a law like this that isn't open to horrific abuse. If investors are going to be held responsible for their management's criminal activities, the law isn't just going to be used in Silicon Valley. I don't want to be held liable the next time I buy a few hundred shares of a company whose managers fuck up and (defraud mortgage borrowers|turn NJ into a superfund site|whatever). I'm generally very supportive of your observations about the feudal nature of Silicon Valley -- but this isn't one of your finest moments.

RodericDay 12y ago
> "I don't want to be held liable the next time I buy a few hundred shares of a company whose managers fuck up" how is this fair? we want investors to make intelligent decisions, right? not just play roulette?
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  No, I actually agree with him insofar as such a law would require a definition of "investor" that doesn't hold small, passive investors responsible. If you're a VC and you fund a frat boy and he creates a discriminatory culture, you should be held financially liable for any sexual harassment cases that come against him, because you created the startup (and, often, his career) and you were his manager, even if the corporate structure allows you to deny the fact on technicalities. (At least, let me go this far: you should be as liable as his manager would be, meaning that you fall hard if you knew or should have known.) If you're an employee who exercised his options, you shouldn't be liable for management's fuckups.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
michaelochurch 12y ago
I'm not talking about applying the law to everyone who owns shares. That would be ridiculous, and would take down a large number of employees. I should have clarified. I want career-making, lead investors to be liable. The people who created Evan Spiegel should be held responsible if he creates a company with a discriminatory culture. Not everyone who holds a few hundred shares; just people who either played a role, by investing, in creating the thing. In other words, investor-bosses, not all investors. I wouldn't necessarily apply this to all crimes and, in fact, I'd be willing to have a law that only applies to civil claims, since civil court is where most of these cultural failures end up. I'm not going to say that I know all the details of how it should work; only that something needs to hold investors, as managers because that is what they are, responsible for the cultures of the companies they create.

kansface 12y ago

The investors don't get off scot-free; if the company tanks because of sexual harassment, their investment fails. For that matter, if consumers cared about the character of CEOs, this problem simply wouldn't exist.

Bahamut 12y ago

I don't think that that would be a good law, but they do say that these sort of problems start from the top, and so it's no surprise that we have these issues in the tech industry - the CEOs are beholden to their investors, and if this is the culture that is present, one has to wonder what message it sends to the companies they fund. VCs need to police their own, or those funding the VC firms need to take their money elsewhere if we are to see a fix to this.