
Sam Altman: “YC not going to fire someone over support of a candidate” - martgnz
https://twitter.com/sama/status/787741204972658690
======
nostrademons
FWIW, I'm glad YC is taking this stance. Firing someone over their personal
political views is very icky. You would be up in arms if your boss fired you
because of who you were supporting for president, so why would you wish that
upon someone else?

~~~
idlewords
We're not talking about firing, or employees, or personal political views.
Otherwise your argument stands.

At issue is the most public endorsement possible (a keynote speech, and then a
1.25M donation) by a YC partner, and YC's refusal to speak out about it, or
distance itself from this extraordinary gesture of support.

~~~
nostrademons
YC does not (to my knowledge) have a corporate position on the presidential
race - I'd welcome any citations where a YC partner, speaking in an official
capacity, endorses one of the current presidential candidates. When they have
taken corporate political positions, it's usually been narrowly defined, in
support of specific legislation that affects the tech industry (eg. anti-SOPA,
anti-software-patents, pro-immigration).

The vast majority of YC partners' _personal_ positions are strongly pro-
Clinton. You can see that just by following sama, paulg, or paultoo on
Twitter.

~~~
tptacek
It would suffice for me to see _any_ public reluctance on the part of Paul
Graham or Sam Altman to continue to associate professionally with Thiel so
long as he is playing this role in American politics.

I don't demand that Altman and Graham know exactly what to do about this. I
don't demand that they "fire" Thiel (they can't, as Thiel isn't an employee).
I don't even demand that they strike him from the roster of Partners to the
Regional Partner of YC. I understand that this stuff is complicated and that
there's more going on behind the scenes of these relationships than we know.

Unfortunately, both Altman and Graham are being _supportive_ of Thiel, despite
the fact that he donated $1.25MM to Trump's campaign just days ago.

~~~
nostrademons
I'm curious - is your (and maciej's, if he's still following this thread)
position that someone should refuse to associate with anyone who supports
Trump? Take Graham and Altman out of the equation - assuming that this is not
just a vendetta against YC partners (and the principle of charity compels me
to assume that), would you apply this standard to other people you know? Do
you have friends and business partners that support Trump, or buy products
from Trump-supporting companies?

For me personally - I actually have relatively few people in my life that are
Trump supporters. But this is mostly an accident of demographics - I went to
an elite liberal arts college in what is literally the most liberal region of
the country, I worked at Google, I live in the Bay Area, my mom's from NYC,
and my dad's an immigrant. I have friends who have family that are hard-core
Trump supporter, as well as family myself.

It would never occur to me to stop associating with them because of their
political views, or the political views of _their_ associates. They have their
beliefs, I have mine, and we just don't discuss the subjects where we are
diametrically opposed. We interact on the common ground that we _do_ have.

According to _my_ principles, the calls for YC to disavow Thiel or stop
associating with him are obnoxious for the same reason I believe Trump is
unfit to be president. They divide the world into "people like us" and "people
against us", and then seek to build a wall between the two groups. If you
believe that it should be "us _and_ us" rather than "us _vs_ them", then that
includes reaching out to people with whom you disagree and finding the parts
that you do agree on.

~~~
tptacek
I understand why people think Maciej has a "vendetta" against YC, but I
definitely do not. We considered joining YC's last summer session, after
Altman generously invited us. I've recommended several startups to YC, over
the objections of other friends to some of the same startups, and YC has made
money as a result. I'm personal friends with both current and former YC
partners, and numerous YC founders. I started a VC-funded startup in '99-'00
and worked for another VC-funded startup for 4 years after that, and attempted
to raise money in '05: I am painfully aware of how abusive Silicon Valley was
to tech founders prior to YC, and of all the work YC has done to remediate
those abuses. I often feel like YC gets a bad rap. In fact: I even feel like
Paul Graham often gets a bad rap.

But Paul Graham and Sam Altman are comprehensively wrong about Thiel, and I
would be doing them no favors at all to pretend otherwise.

I'm Catholic. I come from an Irish Catholic family. I have at last count
13,492 first cousins. I do not know all the names of my aunts and uncles. But
I do know that most of them are... "aggressively" pro-life. Some of them
support Trump, because they feel a moral obligation to vote for whomever is
going to appoint pro-life judges. I do not hold Trump support against my
family.

Despite the fact that half of HN seems to think I'm a Republican, I am not.
But I have plenty of Republican friends. Most of them have repudiated Trump
and think he's a disaster for the party. But some of them believe in good
faith that the cause of limited government is better served by Trump than by
Hillary Clinton. I think they're gravely mistaken. But I don't hold that
against them.

I'm fine with doing business with any of these people.

However, if you're in the audience at a Trump rally whooping and hollering
your approval for Trump's claim that some women are too ugly to have been
assaulted by him, I want nothing to do with you, at least until you've
repudiated that disgusting notion.

If you're the person telling reporters that you're going to perform much-
needed "racial profiling" at polling places on election day, to intimidate
minorities from voting, I want nothing to do with you, at least until you've
repudiated that disgusting notion.

If you're a billionaire who has stood on the largest imaginable stage and told
the nation on live television that Donald Trump is the only honest candidate,
and who donated $1.25MM to the Trump campaign after he threatened to jail his
political opponent and started a national tour inciting white voters to
distrust the votes of minorities in a rigged election, then you aren't a
supporter of the Trump campaign. You are part of the Trump campaign. I want
nothing to do with you.

Nobody who claims they'll "join the resistance" after Trump wins can
coherently argue otherwise.

I don't demand that Altman and Graham sever ties in any formal way with Thiel.
I don't know what that would entail or what's going on behind the scenes. But
I do require them not to support Thiel publicly --- at least, if they're going
to claim to be part of the resistance against Trump. You can't oppose Trump
but defend the Trump campaign.

~~~
ScottBurson
These are difficult issues. I was among those who voted in the online poll for
Brendan Eich's ouster, but eventually, after reading every opinion I could
find and wrestling with the issue for some time, decided I had been wrong to
do so.

There are some interesting parallels between the two cases. In Eich's case,
one of the reasons I decided I had been too hasty was that I didn't see anyone
accusing him of actual discriminatory behavior as Mozilla's CTO. Apparently he
had done well at keeping his politics out of the workplace. That seemed to me
an argument for granting him the same consideration.

I don't really understand Thiel's politics. Some of the things he complained
about in his RNC speech I understand and agree with as issues, though I don't
understand why he thinks Trump is likely to address them. (I do understand why
he thinks Hillary is unlikely to, though.) I haven't read any of Thiel's
political writings, except for one widely-commented-on piece [0]. He doesn't
sound to me like a racist; I'm less sure he's not sexist but I'll give him the
benefit of the doubt on that. His reasons for supporting Trump seem to be
highly idiosyncratic. If he's just trying to make the point that there's
danger in giving the Democrats too much power, well, I don't disagree with
_that_ , though I probably disagree on how much is too much. Anyway, the point
is, just as in Eich's case, there seem to be mitigating factors.

Well. I don't know the answer, but I offer the following thoughts. It's easier
to demonize someone you don't know personally. That in itself suggests that
ostracism should be a weapon of last resort.

But I understand your anger. If I were in YC and Thiel offered to invest in my
startup, I don't know whether I would take his money.

[0] [https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/education-libertarian)

~~~
tptacek
As I've said elsewhere on the thread: I agree with you about Eich. I have no
trouble drawing the line here between Eich and Thiel:

* Eich was ousted from a full-time job. Thiel is not an employee of YC.

* Eich's beliefs were well within the mainstream; Barack Obama campaigned in opposition to marriage equality.

* Eich's support for Prop 8 was quiet. It was mined out of a database and used against him. So far as I can see, he had not made any Mozilla employees uncomfortable. He didn't get on stage at the RNC and use his position at Mozilla to suggest that Silicon Valley opposed marriage equality.

* Eich's support for Prop 8 was relatively insignificant. In addition to being such an important Trump surrogate that his actions make the front page of CNN, Thiel donated millions and bundled millions more to the Trump campaign.

* For that matter, marriage equality is a substantially different issue than Trumpism. Trump believes Muslims, including US citizens, should be prevented from entering the US. He proposes a religious test for entry into the country. He believes his political opponents should be jailed. He is campaigning against the very legitimacy of the election he's running in. Trump is running against the very idea of equality of citizenship. You can't say all those things about the belief that LGBT people should be denied marriage rights --- in fact, you have pretty good evidence of the difference: thankfully, the cause of marriage equality _crushed_ the cause of traditional marriage.

The campaign to oust Eich from his job at Mozilla was wrong. I didn't support
it at the time and I don't support it now. I do not feel that way, even a
little bit, about the call for Graham and Altman to live up to their own words
about Trump.

~~~
ScottBurson
Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.

* Eich was ousted from a full-time job. Thiel is not an employee of YC.

We don't normally consider CEOs to be the sort of person where we have to
worry about their ability to find another job.

* Eich's beliefs were well within the mainstream; Barack Obama campaigned in opposition to marriage equality.

That's a difference of degree, and a smaller one than we would both prefer;
Trump did manage to get nominated, after all. I don't think you can say (alas)
that Trumpism is completely out of the mainstream in 2016.

* Eich's support for Prop 8 was quiet.

True, but does it really count for much?

* Eich's support for Prop 8 was relatively insignificant.

Another difference of degree. For all we know, Eich may have donated a larger
fraction of his bank account than Thiel did.

* For that matter, marriage equality is a substantially different issue than Trumpism.

Marriage equality is one issue and Trump has raised many, that's true. But I
think the attitudes in which Prop. 8 support was rooted, and those in which
Trumpism is rooted, are essentially identical. For instance, a rearguard
action against marriage equality is still being fought in Alabama, and I
expect my relatives there are big supporters of both Roy Moore [0] and Trump.
In fact it's interesting, now that I think of it, that Trump has not attacked
gays; it would certainly play well with much of his audience. Maybe it says
something about how far we've come, or maybe he's just too busy attacking
Mexicans, Muslims, and women to bother with gays.

A better argument might be that Prop. 8 was just a return to the status quo
ante, while Trumpism is an existential threat to the nation. Why a smart man
like Peter Thiel can't see that is beyond me too. But I can see the argument
that Thiel is not evil, just deluded.

(P.S. You're a brave man, using asterisks on HN :-)

[0]
[http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/10/lawyer_t...](http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/10/lawyer_three_of_suspended_chie.html)

~~~
BrendanEich
Shifty of you to imply both that I can go jobless and potentially unhirable on
short notice, _and_ that the lowest possible four figure dollar amount might
also be more of my liquid net worth than Thiel's donation is to his bank
account balance. One or the other, not both!

~~~
ScottBurson
I think we've had a loss of context here. I wasn't speaking against you; I was
replying to Thomas's argument that the situation with YC and Thiel is
fundamentally different from that with Mozilla and you.

Are you really going to tell me you think YC should dissociate from Thiel? I
grant your point -- my argument had a bug -- but I would think you would
support the spirit in which I offered it.

Anyway, since you're here in person, let me say to you directly: I'm sorry I
signed that OkCupid petition.

~~~
BrendanEich
Thanks. You know that Yagan and OkCupid were just going for the PR, playing
with social media outrage fire.

IAC (Ok's parent co) was doing a deal with Mozilla, I'm pretty sure we could
have backed them off, had I remained.

I can't say more right now, but I'll note that a headhunter linked-in-mailed
me late in 2014 asking if I wanted to be CTO of Match/Ok/etc. -- the IAC
dating services.

[https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/543545707152429056](https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/543545707152429056)

Too funny!

~~~
ScottBurson
That is a hoot.

------
memossy
Something missing in the hundreds (thousands?) of comments on this is _why_
Thiel supports Trump.

The bottom line is that Thiel believes the 'positives' of a Trump presidency
would outweigh the negatives.

The expected value is positive versus a status quo Clinton administration so
he should support Trump.

He lays his priority set out quite clearly in his RNC speech:
[http://time.com/4417679/republican-convention-peter-thiel-
tr...](http://time.com/4417679/republican-convention-peter-thiel-transcript/)
and if you agree with his central premises of a structurally broken economy,
excessive foreign intervention etc then tbh Trump is the only viable candidate
even after recent headlines, particularly if you believe in the strength of US
institutions to curb any excesses.

If Thiel's position were based on hatred then I think it would be another
story, but as it is, again given acceptance of the possibility of his central
premises being correct and Trump being a 'viable' (as in could win vs Stein or
Johnson) major party candidate his support is rational.

Across America Trump will win fifty million votes or more and while some of
them may be deplorables voting for deplorable reasons, many will be voting
based on implicit expected value metrics.

~~~
nbouscal
You're right, Thiel's position isn't based on hatred – it's based on
indifference. It's based on being privileged enough that Trump's hatefulness
doesn't and won't personally affect him. I don't see how that's any better.

~~~
ryporter
You don't see how it's better to be indifferent to the plight of minorities
(which is just your characterization of Thiel, by the way) than it is to
promote hatred of those groups?

~~~
nbouscal
It's not about Thiel being indifferent to the issue in general as a passive
observer. He's actively making things worse by supporting Trump, and he's
indifferent about that. He's willing to take his policy wins in exchange for
helping make a serial sexual assaulter president. Helping Trump become
president _is_ promoting hatred. Whether Thiel himself feels any particular
hatred doesn't seem all that relevant.

~~~
whamlastxmas
>serial sexual assaulter president

Allegedly, in the same way that HRC is allegedly a rapist apologist and
allegedly threatened a rape victim of her husband. I don't understand why
Clinton supporters try to ignore this but harp on Trump constantly. The
supporters on both sides use tremendously dishonest hyperbole and it makes
everyone look like ignorant, brainless assholes.

How about sticking to talking points that are of real substance? Apparently
we're too busy screaming at each other about how Trump wants to fuck all non-
whites to death and Hillary is actually Lord Voldemort.

~~~
fletom
The stuff about Trump is mostly verifiably true beyond reasonable doubt. ("I
like to assault women.", dozens of women in his circles: "Yeah he does that.")

The stuff about Clinton is mostly verifiably false. (see Snopes for example
[http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-
lau...](http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-
about-it/))

That's the difference.

~~~
drakonandor
While it may perhaps be true, you shouldn't put it in quotes if he didn't say
it.

------
AvenueIngres
The mere fact that it has to be said is concerning. Even more so when it is
happening at an institution that is among the most meritocratic in SV. It
speaks volume about the depth and toxicity of some self-reinforcing militant
feedback loops.

It is quite interesting that it is so dangerous for your career to hold
"alternative" views (wrt. to mainstream ideologies there) in a place that has
cultish adoration of diversity as an end in itself.

Even more so interesting to see American progressives wear the clothes of
puritanism and McCarthysm. The fascist menace is threatening American society!
Quick! You must make sure that those two engineers who have said they would
vote Trump lose their jobs! The fascists want to infiltrate every layer of
society to bring down the glorious progress. Call this hotline and get them
arrested and tried for treason against Progress. Otherwise, brace yourself to
hear the drums of nationalism beat again and bring the world on the brinks of
genocide. If you are not with us you are against us!

Anyway, good on Sam for not taking part in that collective hysteria. I must
say the hang-over from the current kool-aid binge drinking party is going to
be harsh. So far this attitude of shaming people for not embracing the
beautiful and unquestionable axiology of Progress has only been furthermore
polarization and resentment.

If you want to allow companies to fire their employees based on the political
stance they take during a national election; you should, by the same logic,
allow them to discriminate based on gender, age or ethnicity. Because yes,
what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not politically
neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it comes to their
human management practices.

Which, of course, does not fly well when it starts impacting _you_ negatively
because you do not hold the "right" opinions.

~~~
int_19h
> Because yes, what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not
> politically neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it
> comes to their human management practices.

If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then
IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong (cries of "Godwin!" go
here). I mean, money's money, right? They have a responsibility to their
shareholders to be profitable, and genocide is just a political question, on
which the German people have spoken (and even if they didn't, again, whether
democracy is good or not is also a political question).

But no, it doesn't work that way. We do actually expect corporations to be
political to some extent. The only real question here is what that extent is.
I don't really have a problem drawing the line at someone like Trump. If you
do, that's fine, but all that pompous talk about puritanism and McCarthysm is
misdirected.

Unless, of course, you really do think that IBM was in the right.

~~~
cperciva
There's a difference between being neutral on _political_ questions and being
neutral on _crimes against humanity_. Knowingly and deliberately assisting in
a genocide is illegal; supporting fringe political candidates is fortunately
not.

~~~
dickman3000
A fringe candidate who advocates for war crimes and dismantling the democratic
institutions of America. I think you're giving Trump too much of a pass here.

~~~
cperciva
I'm not giving _Trump_ a pass. I'm giving _Trump supporters_ a pass, because I
believe it's possible to support a candidate without supporting every position
they espouse. (In fact, with Trump's many contradictory statements, this is
guaranteed for any of his supporters!)

If one of your employees advocates for genocide, go ahead and fire them. If
one of your employees supports a candidate who advocates for genocide -- well,
it might call into question their judgment, but maybe they like the rest of
the platform and think that the call for genocide is mere hyperbole.

~~~
OmarIsmail
The crux of this whole situation rests on how "bad" a person considers Trump
and by proxy Trump supporters. At the extreme end if an employee was fired for
supporting literal Nazis would anybody kick up a fuss? Not likely.

Let's bring it to be less extreme. Is it "ok" for an employee to be
reprimanded for supporting the KKK? What about David Duke who formerly led the
KKK? What about if they are a member of Stormfront?

There are groups and positions that cross a line that is acceptable and that
line is different for each person. We can delegate to the government - I.e.
Groups that are "officially" designated as hate groups - but many people
don't.

There are many people (Trump supporters AND critics) that interpret some of
Trump's most defining and consistent policies as racist, sexist, islamaphobic
and xenophobic. So Trump to many people is beyond their line of acceptability.
And therefore the supporters are too.

The messiness of the situation is that it is so subjective despite there being
an objective component to it (objective is: unacceptable opinions should not
be tolerated. Subjective is: what is unacceptable?)

~~~
cperciva
_how "bad" a person considers Trump and by proxy Trump supporters_

Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a
political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their
constitutionally protected rights; the fact that a candidate is reprehensible
does not justify exercising collective punishment against his supporters.

 _At the extreme end if an employee was fired for supporting literal Nazis
would anybody kick up a fuss? Not likely._

I don't know if there is a National Socialist party in the USA, but if there
was then I don't think anyone should be fired for supporting their political
activities.

Of course, if a National Socialist party included a paramilitary wing which
was carrying out violent attacks on political enemies, supporting them would
no longer be a matter of supporting a _political_ organization; it would be
supporting a _criminal_ organization, which is certainly not a
constitutionally protected right.

~~~
int_19h
>> Stop right there. There is a constitutionally protected right to support a
political candidate. You should not be punishing someone for exercising their
constitutionally protected rights

First Amendment is a constitutionally protected right. It is perfectly legal
to say something "all Jews should be gassed" at a public rally. Do you believe
that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?

We're not talking about laws here, note. No-one is saying that we should jail
those people or fine them. We're talking about private actions - ostracism,
boycott, and other forms of (ironically) exercising one's individual freedom
of speech and of association.

~~~
cperciva
_Do you believe that such a speech should have no consequences whatsoever?_

Of course not. We should absolutely hold _Trump_ responsible for what he says.
The disagreement here is whether we should hold _Trump supporters_ responsible
for what Trump says.

(And I'm not sure if saying "all Jews should be gassed" is legal; in Canada it
would probably fall under hate speech laws on the basis of inciting violence,
but the USA has stronger protection of free speech rights. Per _Brandenburg_ ,
it may be that "all Jews should be gassed" would be legal but "we should beat
up the Jews" wouldn't, in that the latter advocates more imminent violence.)

~~~
int_19h
I'm pretty sure it would be legal in US. Something like "let's go gas some
Jews" would be getting into the imminence territory, but the blanket statement
of desire is protected speech.

As for your main point; I think that saying that we're holding Trump
supporters responsible for what he _says_ is not really correct. We're holding
them responsible for what _they_ say by the act of supporting him and/or his
platform.

And the platform is always a thing under consideration. Even someone who's
supporting Trump because "Hillary is worse" is still making a relative
comparison between his platform and hers, which is a political statement - and
I don't see why they should get a pass on being responsible for that statement
and its implications.

It all becomes a lot less ambiguous if you pick some specific thing instead of
discussing it in abstract, and spell out all the consequences in full. Say, I
know quite a few people who are going to vote for Trump for the sole reason
that they consider him better on gun rights. But when you account for his "law
& order" dogwhistling, and unpack it, what they're really saying then is, "my
right to own a semi-automatic firearm is more important than this black dude's
right to be treated with dignity by the police and the courts". Some people
actually find it acceptable even when worded that way, but I'm not one of
them.

------
carsongross
It's time for the moderates to come out and say it: we won't be defoo'ing or
firing people for supporting Hillary and we won't be defoo'ing or firing
people for supporting Trump.

Or Johnson or Stein or Harambe, for that matter.

~~~
wincy
Sort of off topic, I agree with your sentiment. However, has the word
defoo'ing come to have a broader or more generic meaning? I was under the
impression that defoo stood for "departure from family of origin"
specifically.

~~~
adiabatty
Oh, I had no idea — where did this word come from? In what circles is this
word popular?

~~~
wincy
Stefan Molyneux of Free Domain Radio coined the term.
[http://defoo.org/defoo/](http://defoo.org/defoo/)

He's sort of an anarcho capitalist voluntaryist turned men's rights advocate
who has some pretty extreme viewpoints, one of which is that if your family of
origin doesn't agree with your beliefs you should completely detach and
disengage from them. Stop all contact. I'm not saying I agree with it at all,
but it was interesting to see the term used here.

------
jkmcf
As bad as Donald is, he just isn't bad enough to take this severe of an action
against a supporter . It would be anti-American at its worst.

~~~
Avshalom
I dunno, firing people for debatably legal reasons seems fairly american to
me.

Also I'm not sure that "firing" is an accurate word here. Theil isn't really
an employee is he?

~~~
jkmcf
Firing the person making the comments isn't the same as firing someone who
supports a party and the candidate regardless.

------
gkoberger
Here's context for anyone having a hard time following on Twitter:

[https://storify.com/gkoberger/dhh-yc](https://storify.com/gkoberger/dhh-yc)

    
    
        Paul Graham (@paulg) = former head of YC
        David Heinemeier Hansson (@dhh) = creator of basecamp/rails
        Sam Altman (@sama) = current head of YC
        Peter Thiel (@peterthiel) = part-time parter at YC, well-known investor, current Trump surrogate who just donated $1.25MM

~~~
outis

       DHH: Although Thiel would already have been on a Performance Improvement Plan
       for his legal wars against the press. So easy move 
    

What the fuck.

------
idlewords
Thiel is a YC partner, not an employee they can fire. And what people like me
are calling for is for YC to disavow him.

It's much easier to defend "we won't fire an employee for his beliefs", but it
is also intellectually dishonest.

~~~
sama
You seem to continue to try to deliberately misunderstand this, but he is not
a YC partner.

He is a part-time partner, which means he spends a small fraction of his time
advising YC companies, but does not have equity in YC.

~~~
idlewords
The word partner is in his job title. From my perspective, this looks like the
worst kind of weasely quibbling.

The broader point is that Thiel does not come home from a hard day's work at
the bit mines, counting on the YC paycheck to get him through the next payday.
He's your business partner, however construed.

~~~
brhsiao
I'm not understanding what exactly you want.

If you're saying Sam should come out and say he disagrees with Thiel, he's
already said he finds Trump repugnant. Are you saying that in addition to
this, he also has to say, "I now draw attention to the fact that by opposing
Trump, I am hereby disagreeing with my partner who supports him"? Why? And
could it possibly also be because YC has other people in it, and disavowing a
partner of YC by himself would be acting irresponsibly toward his partners?

If you're saying YC as an institution should disavow Thiel's actions, is every
company expected to choose a political stance, then disavow any partners who
act against it? For that matter, it's disingenuous of you to point to _an
individual 's_ tweets denouncing Trump, then to the fact that _his
organization_ hasn't done the same, and call it a lack of moral courage.

It's also disingenuous to suggest, as you do in your tweets where you warn
women and Muslims against joining YC, that because one of their partners
donated to Trump and spoke at his convention, YC as an institution is now
somehow poisoned with the views typical of a Trump supporter. Presumably Thiel
was added as a partner for the simple reason that he is a valuable source of
advice for startups. He can still be one as a keynote speaker for Trump.
Besides, most people who endorse candidates, even people who act as keynote
speakers, don't agree completely with their candidate, which further weakens
your argument.

Finally, I sometimes read your tweets, and I noticed you tweeted
[https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/787756601281085440](https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/787756601281085440)
to Paul Graham's wife. Your usual sense of humor becomes weirdly aggressive
when you write about YC, like you really want to pick a fight. What's your
problem with them?

~~~
idlewords
I think that YC, in its official capacity, should disavow Thiel. I think it's
morally incoherent for YC partners to declare Trump a national emergency and a
threat to the republic while continuing to do business with one of his
greatest backers, and not acknowledging the conflict.

For whatever reason, YC has chosen to stay silent while one of its partners
pours resources into a candidacy outside the bounds of normal political
discourse in the US. This silence is very weird, especially considering the
individual partners' alarmist comments about Trump.

I don't think YC became poisoned with Thiel's views the moment he expressed
them. They were poisoned by his views when they chose not to react in any way,
and maintain their silence. I wonder what women, Muslims, veterans, etc. in
this thread feel about the matter.

To the point that Thiel doesn't completely endorse his candidate, I believe
that argument is substantially weakened by his 1.25M donation coming after
multiple accusations of sexual assault. Clearly Thiel is comfy enough in his
support to disregard this, and the parade of horrors that preceded it.

I accept that I may be starting to sound a bit nasty. I consider what is
happening a display of spinelessness, and the arguments being marshaled in its
defense disingenuous. It makes me angry.

~~~
brhsiao
I understand where you're coming from, but you didn't address this point:

 _> For that matter, it's disingenuous of you to point to an individual's
tweets denouncing Trump, then to the fact that his organization hasn't done
the same, and call it a lack of moral courage._

YC has multiple partners, and for them to disavow Thiel as a whole would
require them to conspire, behind Thiel's back, to reach an agreement on this.
That seems iffy. Is it really not enough that Sam has individually come out
against Trump? Is it really moral incoherence that he hasn't rallied his
entire organization behind him on this?

I do wonder whether female and Muslim YC founders ever receive advice from
Thiel, and how they feel about it. But I suspect most accept that he's a smart
guy, and that at the end of the day, they can part ways in disagreement but a
few pieces of good advice richer. Or maybe not. I'd be interested in hearing
about someone's experience here.

~~~
idlewords
I take your point that YC has some kind of governance structure, a bunch of
partners, and it may not be feasible to publish a statement on company
letterhead, figuratively speaking.

What I'm after is some kind of statement from Altman or Graham about _Thiel_ ,
his involvement in supporting Trump, and their (presumable) discomfort at
having such person be a partner in YC.

An acknowledgement of the situation, rather than the tacit silence we've had
so far. What we have right now is Altman and Graham saying a Trump presidency
would be disastrous, and not commenting at all about continuing to do business
with one of Trump's key backers.

That's weird.

------
mayneack
Not saying it's the same or that anyone should be fired for their beliefs etc,
but YC has taken some political stances in the past.
[https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-
supportin...](https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supporting-
companies-no-longer-allowed-at-yc-demo-day/)

~~~
Analemma_
Well, of course that's not the same. Thiel just thinks giving women the right
to vote was democracy's greatest mistake. That's just a small thing to be
brushed aside. But SOPA was something that could actually damage the economic
prospects of corporations! Obviously you must take a stand when it's something
that's actually _important_!

If the preceding barrage of sarcasm didn't make it clear enough, I'm quite
disgusted with sama and Hacker News right now. Taking the high road like this
is only possible when it's not your neck on the chopping block. Thiel thinks
giving women the right to vote was a mistake; Trump thinks all Mexicans and
Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United
States. Hacker News can _gregariously_ see past these faults because they're
not in the crosshairs, but if Shanley Kane were a YC partner and saying "all
men support rape culture, even if indirectly", there's no friggin way this
comment section would be so sanguine.

~~~
ScottBurson
> Thiel just thinks giving women the right to vote was democracy's greatest
> mistake.

He's claimed not to actually think that [0]. Statistically, few women are
Libertarians, and arguably, he was just referencing this point, which is
apparently familiar to the Libertarian community, if not to the rest of us.

[0] [https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-
thiel/suffrage...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-
thiel/suffrage-isnt-danger-other-rights-are)

------
nodesocket
Brendan Eich[1] was essentially fired for supporting Prop 8 and he only
donated $1,000. What frustrates me the most is the pure hypocrisy of liberal
activists.

It is a dangerous precedent for left wing politics to adopt. What if right
wing executives started calling for employees that support Hillary to be fired
or publicly shaming them on Twitter? How it that any different?

My argument is not with Trump, because I am not voting for him and personally
think he is an orangutan. My argument is with the utter hypocrisy of liberal
activists.

[1] "Critics of Eich within Mozilla tweeted to gay activists that he had
donated $1,000 to California Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in
California until 2013, when it was declared unconstitutional and marriages
were allowed to resume. Eich stood by his decision to fund the campaign, but
wrote on his blog that he was sorry for “causing pain” and pledged to promote
equality at Mozilla. Gay activists created an online shaming campaign against
Eich, with OkCupid declaring they would block access to the Firefox browser
unless he stepped down."

~~~
erispoe
Brendan Eich was damaging his company's reputation and, ultimately, economic
prospects, by taking a public stance against marriage equality. His
resignation is not a moral issue, his public support of the marriage equality
ban was economically damaging to the company.

When a CEO's freedom of speech damages their company economically, what are
shareholders supposed to do? Bear the cost so that the CEO can express their
views?

~~~
edanm
Just to clarify - his support wasn't public. It was a private donation, which
was made public via journalists IIRC. As far as I know, he never publicly
commented on the issue, at least before the firing.

~~~
erispoe
Campaign contributions are public. His contribution to Prop 8 was always
public. You can access all campaign contributions above $100, it's just a
matter of downloading a file.

Edit: the Supreme Court judged that political contributions are a form of
political speech. That is the reasoning behind striking down limitations to
contribute. [1]

If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions
wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court?

[1]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-
court-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-
on-campaign-contributions.html)

~~~
tanderson92
> If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions
> wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court?

Yes, along with the majority of the country.

------
marze
Say someone was fired for supporting Clinton in this election by a company run
by a supported of Trump.

Would it make news?

Freedom of thought and speech was what America was founded on, so they say.

~~~
DougN7
I doubt it. We're in a liberal echo chamber here...

~~~
DougN7
The down votes are sort of humorous. A comment in another thread "From my
observations, the tech industry leans pretty heavily liberal/democrat" was
upvoted on balance.

------
ryporter
Political views are one aspect of a person, but they do not define that
person. Thiel himself understands this. When he was a law school classmate
with Alex Karp (now CEO of Palantir), they constantly argued bitterly over
politics, because Karp held an extremely liberal point of view. They were also
very good friends and have clearly maintained a very good business
relationship.

I personally despise Trump, but I agree with Sam -- other people's political
views don't really matter to me. Hopefully after this election ends, everyone
can calm down and keep things in context. Business and politics are separate.

------
BinaryIdiot
Honestly it might be best to flag this thread until Sam's post comes.
Otherwise we're going to have people arguing about whatever side with an
incomplete context.

Edit: I see I'm being down voted but this tweet stream has about 4 different,
intersecting contexts to deal with especially regarding people trying to
pressure YC to drop their partnership with Peter and DHH saying he'd fire an
employee for being a political surrogate for Trump.

But fine. Let's argue about one specific, tiny piece here and then we can do
this all over again when Sam's post comes out.

~~~
Kadin
I would appreciate some context and background as to what's going on,
certainly. Twitter makes it pretty hard to backtrack through multiple
conversations to figure out what started a particular thread.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
Basically DHH (guy who basically created Ruby on Rails and Basecamp)
complained to Sam about their partnership with Peter Thiel since he just
donated over a $1 million to the Trump campaign. DHH, in his argument with
Paul G, said that he would have fired an employee who was a Trump surrogate.

Lots of people supporting each person and it's basically a political shit show
after that with some people saying you can't fire someone just for their
political beliefs and others say Trump is an edge cased monster that should be
handled differently.

That was my understanding of it but I missed some of the beginning. There were
also big names that I can't find now that seemed to be retweeting each one in
support.

Seems messy.

------
WalterBright
Persecuting people who hold unpopular or incorrect ideas has a very, very long
history. Pushing them out of jobs, imprisonment, torture, even killing them
have all been tried, over and over.

But all that did was drive the holders of those ideas underground. I don't
know of anyone who actually changed their ideas due to persecution.

Free expression in the marketplace of ideas is how to persuade people, not
persecution.

------
lvs
That wasn't really the issue that was raised, speaking of intellectual
dishonesty. Plenty of companies withdrew advertising from the RNC over Trump.
Business partnership is a contractual relationship between equals, not a
hierarchical one with superiors and subordinates.

------
sama
Also, a reminder of what I personally think about Trump from early this
summer:

[http://blog.samaltman.com/trump](http://blog.samaltman.com/trump)

~~~
idlewords
So why do you continue to do business with one of his greatest supporters?

At some point, these are just empty words. It would be less galling if you
weren't an alarmist about Trump.

~~~
mlinsey
Can you explain how you think YC cutting off ties with Peter Thiel would
decrease the likelihood (even infinitesimally) that Donald Trump becomes
president? There are a number of tangible things an individual could do to
help defeat Trump, but personally shunning a Trump supporter (even one as
prominent as Thiel) seems more like a gesture designed to signal your own
purity as opposed to doing anything concrete to prevent Trump from becoming
president. If anything, it would probably be used as further evidence by the
most conservative 30% of the country that Silicon Valley is their enemy.

~~~
idlewords
I don't think it would have any effect on the election. The real importance is
to people in our industry, and young people who are thinking of entering our
industry.

------
shawnee_
Sometimes it's hard to follow the logic of conversations on Twitter. In this
case, I'm pretty sure the original question posed by DHH was simply: has Thiel
put more money into Trump's candidacy, or investing in promising YC
startups[1]?

Seems a fair and legitimate question.

How it devolved into "at what point do you fire someone for their political
activities?" is an interesting sidetrack; however, I think it's still
ancillary to the original question.

    
    
      [1] https://twitter.com/dhh/status/787547255259758592

------
WalterBright
This is why we have a secret ballot voting system in the US.

------
zorpner
Of course, Thiel is not a YC employee, so a statement about firing someone is
irrelevant.

~~~
Hydraulix989
I'm sure they have each other on speed dial though.

Thiel definitely wants to continue to have a fast track towards investing into
high-growth YC startups, and YC doesn't want to damage that relationship.

This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I
didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic society, taking a different
(not to say, also completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten
one's livelihood.

~~~
eropple
_> This reminds me of Palmer Luckey getting "disappeared" by Facebook, which I
didn't think was ethical. In a truly democratic country, taking a different
(not to say, completely mainstream) political stance shouldn't threaten one's
livelihood._

I would not buy a Rift because there is no way on God's green earth that I
would reward Palmer Luckey monetarily for supporting "shitposting" _even if it
was not directly related_ to the kinds of people (/pol/ dross and others) who
have issued death and rape threats to people I know and care about. That is,
in a way (a small way), "threatening his livelihood". I also don't buy video
games made by EA because I think they are a company that has some real bad
practices. That is, in a way (a small way), "threatening the livelihoods" of
everybody who works there. We live as political beings, and that goes beyond
what you say to what you do. Buying a USB sound card (which I just did a few
moments ago) on Amazon is an expression of _multiple_ political beliefs: that
I am okay with large retailers over small ones in some situations, that I am
okay with purchasing imported items, particularly from China, given the price
of the item (i.e. I'm not willing to pay more than X% for "Made in the USA").
Probably a few others that I don't consciously recognize, at the moment. You
can't opt out of being a political creature because you live in a goddamned
_polity_. You can only take responsibility for how your actions impact others,
and you can suffer the slings and arrows of what those others believe in
return.

And there is nothing undemocratic about refusing to associate, monetarily or
otherwise, with somebody you don't like. There _is_ something undemocratic
about attempting to levy laws saying that they can't participate in the
political process. Conflating the private responses of private parties and the
public actions of the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest.

~~~
Hydraulix989
I really don't think it's reasonable to put this level of responsibility on
others' actions (yourself? fine). Three years ago, regardless of your
political stance, you couldn't drive to work without implicitly supporting
foreign oil interests (not everyone can afford housing with great "walk
scores"), now you might be able to if you can afford an electric car (still, a
pretty unreasonable expectation).

Voting? Sure, that's one thing, but buying a USB sound card from an American
e-commerce site (which, I really had no reason to doubt you actually did a few
moments ago in the first place...)?!

What's the politically aboveboard alternative here? Building your own DIY DAC
from 'MURICAN-made Texas Instruments components (yeah, I'm sure they have a
"morally cleansed" supply chain, too...)?

You're taking things to the extreme. Yes, a butterfly flapping its wings can
cause a hurricane, but let's be realistic here.

Given that there is such a fine line between reductio ad absurdum and
strawman, my position stated a bit more clearly:

Employees' political views shouldn't _completely jeopardize_ their livelihood
in the form of causing them to lose their jobs.

"Conflating the private responses of private parties and the public actions of
the government is at best misguided and at worst dishonest."

I'll give you that. It probably wasn't fair (even though, as they say, if it
smells like a rat...) for me to assume recent actions taken by Facebook
towards Palmer were a direct result of his public political activity/views.

EDIT: I can't resist casting judgment, but in this day and age of dire social
problems like "climate change" and "black lives matter," I think it's telling
that your idea of political activism is buying, of all things, a USB sound
card.

~~~
maxerickson
The claim is that even something trivial like buying the card is a political
act, not that it is activism.

~~~
Hydraulix989
Wait, what's the difference between a political act and political ACTivism?

~~~
eropple
Activism is an attempt to effect or advocate for the effecting of change in
your polity. A political act is just an action with repercussions in your
polity. (But this is why I used the word _expression_.)

~~~
Hydraulix989
How doesn't that contradict your argument? Shouldn't buying a USB sound card
be considered activism? I'm not sure where to draw the line (since both your
definitions have repercussions, in particular, you seem to be much more
acutely aware of them than the average person in everyday scenarios, making
your actions arguably activism).

~~~
eropple
Actions with an inextricably political component (which is to say, damned near
everything) requires awareness and an understanding of what it encourages and
reifies in order to be a decent human, but they are not taken with the
political consequence as a primary motivator.

When engaging in activism, the political consequence is the _point_.

------
brhsiao
I think people take symbolism too seriously. I won't argue that it never
matters what message an organization sends, but people should stop
apophenically inferring messages where there are none. This would include, for
example, adopting the charitable explanation that Thiel was hired as a source
of valuable advice to YC startups, not because YC supports Trump.

I'd like a serious answer to this, actually: why does this matter?

~~~
jacquesm
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia)

~~~
brhsiao
Hm, I paused for a second before using that word. Did I use it wrong?

~~~
jacquesm
No, not at all, it's just that it's a word I'd never seen before and so I
figured better to add a link for those who also haven't seen it used before.

Google comes up with 400 results for it, and this is the first time it's used
on HN.

------
n72
Sam believes Trump bears similarities to Hitler
([http://blog.samaltman.com/trump](http://blog.samaltman.com/trump)). So:

Trump:Hitler::Thiel:?

When you write something like this:

In the words of Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of
evil is for good men to do nothing." This would be a good time for us all—even
Republicans, especially Republican politicians who previously endorsed
Trump—to start speaking up.

And then do nothing, it just comes off as sanctimonious and hypocritical.

------
wenham
So I'm I right in thinking that there is a call to 'punish' some people due to
their (albeit unpopular with many) political views? That doesn't seem very
progressive or civilised...undemocratic even.

------
yladiz
There are (at least) two views to this, I think. One view is that the personal
and business aspects of a persons life are separate and one shouldn't
necessarily affect the other, which is the argument that Sam Altman is making
here. The second view is that they are definitely linked, and allowing someone
to do something morally reprehensible (if you consider supporting Donald Trump
that) means that they aren't with the vision of the company and it's fine to
fire them.

The reality is that it depends on the level of the person in the organization
(as well as the organization itself, but that's not part of this argument).
For example, if a janitor supports Donald Trump, that doesn't really affect
the business because no one outside the organization thinks that the janitor
is representative of the organization as a whole. However, if a C-level
employee did something that's considered morally reprehensible, it can affect
the business because people associate the business with the people that run
it.

In this case, I don't agree that Thiel should be "fired" because people
wouldn't immediately associate Thiel with the company and he doesn't "work"
full time with them (he's a part time partner). If Sam Altman had come out in
support of Trump with a donation that would be a different story.

------
losteverything
What justice Roberts said about forming opinions [0] holds true For me and
anything "Trump"

My gut is one thing but when i actually write (type) it out I get surprised
how I change my opinion.

I can't find a cspan interview where he was even more open about how the act
of writing out opinions often makes one change your initial thoughts

[0]
[http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2661589&page=1](http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2661589&page=1)

------
return0
Why don't people see Thiel as SV's insurance ? If (atheist-god forbid) trump
wins, you have an enthusiastic supporter and firm SV believer by his side (who
also happens to be gay) to contain the wild beast. Would you rather have some
evangelical nutjob who would put fig leaves on your porn?

------
ljw1001
Is it me, or is making this about "firing" a bit of slight-of-hand. Thiel is a
partner, not an employee. Choosing who to partner with isn't the same as
firing an employee.

If YC continues to partner with Thiel, everything they say about promoting
women in tech is bullshit.

------
duval
I don't know where I stand on this issue but to see people defending this as
'persecuting someone for their political views' seems a little odd. Thiel is
openly supporting and funding a presidential candidate piping hate in to your
country's population in the form of racism, misogyny etc etc - This is not a
political view everyone, it is hate speech. This is not political to me. Thiel
is funding a hate machine and helping him stay on the biggest platform in the
world so he can continue.

What is political about that?

In the UK you could say you support the British National party because they
want free school tuition but a large part of their platform is racist - and
discredited because of it.

I try and be fairly neutral and absolutely find 'justice warrior' type stances
to be awful, unjust and discriminatory. I just don't see how this can be
defended. Propaganda and hatred should not be called 'political' to make it OK
that some rich guy gave him a ton of cash.

------
imh
Am I missing something? What's this about?

------
3pt14159
There is a difference between firing an employee and continuing to do business
with someone that funnels millions of dollars into a racist, sexist, sexual
predator that's backed by a foreign intelligence service.

Don't lie with dogs. Don't take money from Andreessen if you think Snowden was
a hero. Don't continue to partner with Thiel after he continues to support
Trump after revelations of sexual predation put to rest that any of this is
just folksy bluntness. Trump is the most dangerous candidate I've ever seen.
MSNBC has reported that he's contemplated the use of nuclear weapons against
ISIS.

Continuing to prop up a billionaire that actively campaigns with Trump and
continues to funnel money towards him is a grave mark against YC, and frankly
surprising given how for most of YC's history they've prioritised helping
first and money second.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
So should we despise people who support Hillary too? She's no pure angel
either.

~~~
esrauch
If Hillary (or Trump) say things so despicable that could reasonably get you
fired if you weren't repeating a presidential candidate, then we should
despise anyone who repeats those words or explicitly supports those words.

I'm not currently aware of things that Hillary said that would be considered
independently reprehensible if my coworker said them, but if I missed it I'd
like to hear it, but if such statements exist I would have no problem saying
anyone who repeated such statements should be despised.

If someone says they support some weird tax plan, it also doesn't matter
whether some mainstream candidate proposed it, that is simply never grounds
for disciplinary action. If someone says that women simply don't belong in the
board room, that is grounds for disciplinary regardless of which party
candidate said it before you.

~~~
DougN7
I'm not saying it was you, but folks on HN have defended the rights of people
to publish rape fantasy. That, in my opinion, is at least as bad, and probably
worse. No one called for them to lose their jobs. The hypocrisy is hard to
deal with.

------
tocotuno
I am sincerely happy to see most of HN is taking the stance of defending Thiel
--by doing it, they are simply defending the freedom to back the candidate you
like, and not the one that the industry wants you to like.

I have a Twitter stream of hundreds of developers from different backgrounds
and it was like 99% pro-Hillary--by defending Trump you would get spanked.
Something was really wrong there, and this conversation we are having proves
it.

And I can't help but wonder if Thiel did this just so this conversation would
spark. It simply is brilliant.

------
andrewchambers
The only difference between trump and Hillary is her corruption is complicated
enough people like you can brush it under the rug and feel good about
yourselves.

~~~
dang
That crosses into personal attack, and that's not allowed on HN, so please
don't do it. More precisely: please scrupulously avoid it.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721084](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721084)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
andrewchambers
If I resubmit without the tail comment will it remain? Edit:Amended a new
comment to stick to the point

------
dickman3000
If Thiel were the CEO of a corporation he could be held to violate his
fiduciary duty by giving the corporation bad press by supporting someone like
Trump.

Trump has made a lot of enemies in the United States: minorities, gays, women,
people who don't want to see the democratic institutions of America taken
apart. He has also willingly built a coalition of outspoken neo-Nazis, white
supremacists, and other individuals. It'd be like if a CEO threw his outspoken
support behind David Duke, spoke at his rallies, and donated 1.25 million
dollars to his campaign. That's what's happening here. You don't think
shareholders wouldn't have a problem with that?

"Yeah, stigmatize us in the eyes of society, that's great for business."

People aren't being realistic when they say business people should just have
carte blanche to say whatever they want. They owe their shareholders,
partners, and employees a duty of care to not bring ridiculously bad press to
their organization.

If the people at YC don't care about this bad press, and the business it will
likely lose, then that's their business. But to say that it never happens in
the business world shows a lack of understanding how things work.

~~~
tedunangst
I think that's a pretty novel legal theory, that CEOs have a fiduciary duty to
not say things that might upset people.

~~~
dickman3000
It's not really that novel; it's the same underlying issue behind anything
that would tarnish a brand.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Last time I looked, Trump's support and Clinton's support were pretty close to
evenly split (Clinton slightly ahead in most polls, but not by that much).

Why is supporting Trump more "tarnishing" than supporting Clinton?

I understand that _you_ don't like Trump (which is fine, I don't much like him
either), but why do your opinions get to control? Do you think there aren't
people who find Clinton equally repugnant, or even more so? I assure you that
there are (I'm not voting for either, myself).

But, you know, the money of Trump supporters is just as green as the money of
Clinton supporters, if you want to cast it solely in terms of fiduciary duty.
Probably even more so, since I would expect that the median Trump supporter is
wealthier than the median Clinton supporter.

~~~
wfo
I don't know, I think most of the money is on the left side of the aisle this
cycle. Clinton has firmly grasped the title of "establishment" ie status quo,
and status quo is good for the wealthy. Many, many wealthy republicans have
flipped, IIRC from polls I think Trump's poor white base would dominate the
median income.

Agree wrt the rest.

------
Alupis
Can we all cut the shit?

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're all acting like idiots. Terminating
someone over political ideology is the single most fascist, fear-mongering,
and un-freedom idea one can possibly have!

Half of you support someone who says mean things - the other half of you
support someone who does mean things.

You're both wrong, and right!!! Arguing otherwise is simply to be blind to
one's own prejudices, rational or not!

Supporting someone being terminated simply because of political ideology is
incomprehensibly insane for a people who tout themselves as "free"!

