4 ms·

You missed his point, which is the double standard with regard to what is classified as "intellectually interesting" and what is "boilerplate", based not on the

You missed his point, which is the double standard with regard to what is classified as "intellectually interesting" and what is "boilerplate", based not on the quality of how something is said but rather on how a few influential people like what is said. It's completely natural to like some opinions and not others. What people find off-putting is your false objectivity, not your stance itself. Even many people who disagree vehemently with my opinions would not classify them as "ideological boilerplate" or trolling. Not to speak for grandparent, but he seems to be commenting on the systemic pro-startup bias (for which you are not necessarily at fault) of this site. It does get repetitive, because the presentation is so one-sided. A lot of encouragement is given to a strictly positive view of venture-funded startups: that they're the future, that they're the best way to work, that anyone who isn't in one is missing out, and that while there's some ugliness it's better to rely on evolutionary improvement than revolutionary overthrow, as if you can analytically solve The Problem, sit down and talk to it and tell it that it's been solved, and it will go away. What's also left out, systematically if not intentionally, is discussion of what happens to people who don't eventually win the startup lottery. Failure is presented here as a temporary setback on the way to inevitable success, which ignores the fact that for some kinds of failure are worse than others and sometimes people aren't as forgiving as they should be. Finally, there's very little attention given on Hacker News to the extreme disparity of equity between founders and employees, and the fact that the reasons for those discrepancies are almost entirely sociological. Encouraging people who have the social resources to become founders, to do so, is one thing. Encouraging 22-year-olds to become startup employees without advising them on how to become something else 10 years down the road (when they don't win the startup lottery and need to find stable, adult job positions that come with respect, remuneration and authority) is, if not irresponsible, at least negligent of the bias it upholds.

nostrademons 11y ago
It's true that objectivity is in some senses a myth and that everybody has a biased perspective. It's also true that when you directly contradict someone else's perspective, you can expect push-back from them. The reaction of dang and others here is ample evidence of that. Getting in shouting matches makes your argument much, much less effective, not to mention making the forum for those shouting matches an unpleasant place to be. Instead of saying "No, you stupid douchebag", why not phrase your argument in terms of "Yes, and..."? Instead of posting screeds about how early employees of startups get screwed, why not phrase it as "Startup founders could solve many of their hiring problems by offering meaningful equity - not just a few percent, but enough that a successful exit is life-changing for all their early employees. This would also fix incentive alignment problems and ensure that employees keep working hard even when they're not in the same room as the boss." You might find some unlikely allies, even among the likes of Sam Altman [1] or Andrew Mason [2]. Or instead of complaining about how Evan Spiegel is an undeserving twat who represents everything wrong with the VC industry, why not highlight the startups whose products you believe are deserving, evangelize them to friends and acquaintances, intro them to people who may help them, and help ensure that the next founder who ends up with a unicorn deserves it? As you've said before, negative information never gets erased, you have to "flood the channel" [3]. The connection that you didn't make is that negative information (and its ensuing push-back) also reflects negatively on the person who posted it, since most readers are intelligent and can assume that there's more to the story than the side that was posted. Flood the channel with positive information, not negative. You'll find that it becomes much, much easier to achieve your goals. [1] http://blog.samaltman.com/employee-equity http://blog.samaltman.com/employee-equity [2] http://blog.detour.com/introducing-progressive-equity/ http://blog.detour.com/introducing-progressive-equity/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8806536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8806536
- dang 11y ago
  I appreciate your positive intent, as always, but this has nothing to do with someone contradicting my views. People post all kinds of views all the time here without difficulty [1]. The issue is procedural. HN threads are for conversation. Showing up with a bullhorn and blasting everybody over and over with regurgitated rhetoric and whole-cloth fantasy is not conversation. The problem would be the same if the content were the opposite. Channel-flooding HN and treating it as a platform for a campaign—imaginary or not—goes completely against the intent of the site. Liking or disliking the cause is beside the point. I happen to partly agree with it; I have for years. It doesn't matter. 1. I suppose I should add that at the extremes, some views can run into difficulty on HN, though not because we personally disagree with them. But we're nowhere near that in this case.
  - throwaway9324 11y ago
    I can't help thinking that his comments are seen as "channel-flooding" because he has been isolated. Not only is his comment frequently relegated to the bottom of the page, but people who share his opinions[0] either don't frequent HN[1] or end up hellbanned[2]. So before criticizing him for his comment, think about what kind of environment you provide for this conversation. [0] Which is much more prevalent than reflected on HN and I meet a lot of hackers/makers/entrepreneurs. From Portland to Shenzhen. [1] From what I hear, HN definitely isn't seen as "a place for intellectual stimulation" or conversation outside the people who frequent it. [2] State something against the prevalent HN narrative in your first 10 comments and you most likely end up hellbanned.
- throwawaymaroon 11y ago
  If no one is willing to be negative and get pushed for it, the positive twaddle drowns everyone. Someone's got to point out the holes in the boat. You're advocating (inadvertently) reputation hell. You're wrong in two important places: Michael isn't shouting random insults here (for which dang corrected you), and the HN guidelines are pretty explicit about substantive negativity and criticism. ... Of course, it is always the establishment that gets to determine what 'substantive' means. So dang is able to express sympathy for Michael's viewpoint and also appointed moderator of where and how the viewpoint may express itself appropriately: not here, and nicer, please.

nostrademons 11y ago

It's true that objectivity is in some senses a myth and that everybody has a biased perspective. It's also true that when you directly contradict someone else's perspective, you can expect push-back from them. The reaction of dang and others here is ample evidence of that. Getting in shouting matches makes your argument much, much less effective, not to mention making the forum for those shouting matches an unpleasant place to be. Instead of saying "No, you stupid douchebag", why not phrase your argument in terms of "Yes, and..."? Instead of posting screeds about how early employees of startups get screwed, why not phrase it as "Startup founders could solve many of their hiring problems by offering meaningful equity - not just a few percent, but enough that a successful exit is life-changing for all their early employees. This would also fix incentive alignment problems and ensure that employees keep working hard even when they're not in the same room as the boss." You might find some unlikely allies, even among the likes of Sam Altman [1] or Andrew Mason [2]. Or instead of complaining about how Evan Spiegel is an undeserving twat who represents everything wrong with the VC industry, why not highlight the startups whose products you believe are deserving, evangelize them to friends and acquaintances, intro them to people who may help them, and help ensure that the next founder who ends up with a unicorn deserves it? As you've said before, negative information never gets erased, you have to "flood the channel" [3]. The connection that you didn't make is that negative information (and its ensuing push-back) also reflects negatively on the person who posted it, since most readers are intelligent and can assume that there's more to the story than the side that was posted. Flood the channel with positive information, not negative. You'll find that it becomes much, much easier to achieve your goals. [1] http://blog.samaltman.com/employee-equity http://blog.samaltman.com/employee-equity [2] http://blog.detour.com/introducing-progressive-equity/ http://blog.detour.com/introducing-progressive-equity/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8806536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8806536

dang 11y ago
I appreciate your positive intent, as always, but this has nothing to do with someone contradicting my views. People post all kinds of views all the time here without difficulty [1]. The issue is procedural. HN threads are for conversation. Showing up with a bullhorn and blasting everybody over and over with regurgitated rhetoric and whole-cloth fantasy is not conversation. The problem would be the same if the content were the opposite. Channel-flooding HN and treating it as a platform for a campaign—imaginary or not—goes completely against the intent of the site. Liking or disliking the cause is beside the point. I happen to partly agree with it; I have for years. It doesn't matter. 1. I suppose I should add that at the extremes, some views can run into difficulty on HN, though not because we personally disagree with them. But we're nowhere near that in this case.
- throwaway9324 11y ago
  I can't help thinking that his comments are seen as "channel-flooding" because he has been isolated. Not only is his comment frequently relegated to the bottom of the page, but people who share his opinions[0] either don't frequent HN[1] or end up hellbanned[2]. So before criticizing him for his comment, think about what kind of environment you provide for this conversation. [0] Which is much more prevalent than reflected on HN and I meet a lot of hackers/makers/entrepreneurs. From Portland to Shenzhen. [1] From what I hear, HN definitely isn't seen as "a place for intellectual stimulation" or conversation outside the people who frequent it. [2] State something against the prevalent HN narrative in your first 10 comments and you most likely end up hellbanned.
throwawaymaroon 11y ago
If no one is willing to be negative and get pushed for it, the positive twaddle drowns everyone. Someone's got to point out the holes in the boat. You're advocating (inadvertently) reputation hell. You're wrong in two important places: Michael isn't shouting random insults here (for which dang corrected you), and the HN guidelines are pretty explicit about substantive negativity and criticism. ... Of course, it is always the establishment that gets to determine what 'substantive' means. So dang is able to express sympathy for Michael's viewpoint and also appointed moderator of where and how the viewpoint may express itself appropriately: not here, and nicer, please.