Not enough people blame VCs and the people that fund evil things. They are accessories. They knew this would happen, let's not pretend they didn't.

They are just shameless because making money has been canonized as a greater moral good than being a decent human being. We need to bring back name and shame.

▲

matsemann 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sooo many will tout something along "fiduciary duty to shareholders" to explain why evil must happen. Just search for it in comments here on HN, and you will see it again and again, as if everyone's hands are twisted.

▲

eecc 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, doing the most immoral and reprehensible thing on the edge of what’s lawful is a guaranteed “blue ocean” strategy so it’s inevitable that the most sociopathic will take the opportunity

▲

jtbayly 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are confused. Yes, lots of people say that here, but the intention is almost never to justify immoral behavior. Rather the goal is to delegitimize capitalism by blaming it for the immoral behavior.

	▲	mafuy 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, the parent is exactly right. I've seen it countless times and I am so sick of it. The poor, poor CEO has to be evil, it is his duty.

▲

01284a7e 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They are the reason these companies exist. When it comes to the creation of large for-profit technology companies, they decide what comes about and what doesn't. The blame is on them.

	▲	Zigurd 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They also fit startup logic in a peculiarly perverted way: try all the nasty stuff compartmentalized into a low stakes stealth mode start up, then become an acquisition target once you've got the perverted PMF of having a benign looking product that hides the evil within. Clean hands for the acquirer.

▲

notnullorvoid 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They are more than a accessory. You wouldn't say someone who funds a contract killing is merely an accessory to murder. VCs should likewise be considered as principal offenders, unless there is proof that the company was not transparent with the VCs.

▲

bigyabai 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They're more than accessories, that nearly writes them off as being innocent looped-in bystanders. Y Combinator has a vested stake, they want to encourage a maximalist Flock-centric police force. They directly profit off police that are incapable of doing their job without extreme, abusive tools at their disposal.

You could argue that YC has more of a conscience than other investors like A16Z. But I'm not sure how much I believe that seeing Gary Tan's moral indifference towards startups that are the incarnate equivalent of the Torment Nexus.

▲

Jtarii 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Blaming people trying to make money is so pointless. Change the law if you don't like what is happening.

	▲	lokar 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The law is properly a limit on behavior, not a grant for acceptable behavior. It defines in which situations the state will ultimately employ its monopoly on violence to compel compliance. This is a vastly smaller set of situations compared to what a health society would consider acceptable.
	▲	a2ff6eeb0 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You're right. People trying to make money should be held legally accountable for the impact of their investments.
	▲	solenoid0937 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Change the law There is a huge gulf between what the law allows, and what being a decent person requires, and that gulf is called "being a scumbag." We should not alter the law to prohibit everything in that gulf, because it would create an authoritarian society ripe for abuse, relying on controls like mass surveillance and the erasure of civil liberties. However, we can and should name, shame, and socially/commercially outcast people who gleefully engage in the art of being a scumbag. > trying to make money It is indeed possible to make money without funding evil things.
	▲	catlover76 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]