
Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies - gwintrob
https://cloud.app.box.com/s/mx6vhp0m8c1jyc8fh5yvned3nlu6ihec
======
chx
> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and
> suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to
> the United States.

Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from
Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already
contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted?
Yes, the chances are heavily slanted towards yes in my specific case but...
What I am trying to say: it makes absolutely impossible to plan travel,
business into the USA if this order stands for everyone because who knows
whether you will be targeted next.

I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an
enormous amount of money in Iran.

~~~
hajile
The entire "unreasonableness" is based on the idea that this was Trump
randomly banning countries.

Obama's administration (not Trump's) compiled the list of countries. It wasn't
racial or "because they're Muslim" (most Muslims aren't banned).

What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries
have been on and off the US "State Sponsors of Terror" list for the past 40
years. Somalia (the one that hasn't been on the list) has spent most of the
last 25 years in anarchy.

The law also __explicitly __gives the president the right to make the decision
(see section
f[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182)).

In 1993, SCOTUS ruled that a much longer ban against the poor, non-terrorist,
mostly black Haitian immigrants by Bush Sr. and Clinton was legal in an 8-1
ruling ([http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/the-supreme-court-
high-...](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/the-supreme-court-high-court-
backs-policy-of-halting-haitian-refugees.html)).

The constitutional claim doesn't hold water (foreign nationals have no right
to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist
connections). That leaves only interpretation of the law, but the law clearly
states POTUS has the authority. A 3 month break to find out what policies to
put in place against 7 problematic and terrorist sponsoring countries is
hardly something SCOTUS will find unreasonable.

EDIT: for the record, I think the bans are ineffective at stopping terrorists
and are just Trump following through on his populist promises. That's
different from the legality of the decision. This isn't the only thing Trump
is doing While everyone has eyeballs here, they miss everything else that's
happening in DC, and he still gets to look good when SCOTUS agrees with him.

~~~
dmschulman
If this law was really about fighting state-sponsored terrorism why aren't
saudi arabia, uae, and egypt, all countries who have carried out terrorist
attacks on the united states, on the travel ban list?

~~~
skrowl
This argument is FUD.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc weren't "banned" because they share a great deal of
information with us about people seeking entry into our country. The 7
"banned" countries do not. It's that simple.

It's about information exchange. We can't get enough info from the 7 "banned"
countries to make informed pass/fail decisions about their travelers.

~~~
hvo
Iraq, where US contributed to the establishment of the present regime and
where some remaining American soldiers are still there, does not share
information with you? Seriously.

If sharing information with you as you said here is the most important
yardstick,rather than subtle religion test,why is North Korea is not on the
list?

~~~
ConfuciusSay02
Are you suggesting when Obama added Iraq to the list he was lying about what
information they share?

North Korea is not on the list because literally nobody is travelling from
North Korea to the United States.

~~~
jakelazaroff
No, GP is suggesting that "sharing information about people seeking to enter
our country" is not the reason any of these countries were in- or excluded
from this list.

------
donaldguy
I did a run at the (amateur) math off Google Finance and Crunchbase. With some
companies I couldn't find's numbers outright omitted, and using old
valuations, I totaled those corps filing as valued at $2.58 trillion in market
cap., at least $131 billion of valuation and another $8 billion in investments
in un-valuated companies. Assuming those investments hold value at least equal
to the total worth of those companies in sum, we can reasonably assume the
companies party to this brief represent value of at least 16% of US GDP.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y0VtAf9OpjwU7Haf4dHY...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y0VtAf9OpjwU7Haf4dHYCdw4Wj4UmJedVY3MgkDSBGE)

in case anyone else was wondering

EDIT: indeed it is > 15% even including only the publicly traded companies,
for which the numbers of can be considered less speculative

~~~
lpolovets
It's hard to compare market caps to GDP because GDP is kind of like "aggregate
value of everything produced this year" while a market cap is "estimated total
profits for a company from now until the end of time." So you might have a
company like Walmart with $200b in market cap but ~$500b in annual revenue (3%
of GDP by itself!) and $15b in net income. On the other hand there are
companies like Adobe with $60b market caps and $6b in annual revenue and $1b
in net income. So the GDP vs market cap comparison is somewhat apples to
oranges, although there's no disputing the companies in the brief have a large
impact on the US economy.

~~~
johnloeber
To be clear: it's not just hard, it is _explicitly wrong_.

A more correct measure is a much simpler one: the aggregate product of all
these companies over the GDP. Note that this aggregate product is of course a
component of the GDP, so you can express this neatly as a percentage. I see
only one major accounting complication in constructing this metric, and that's
the inclusion/exclusion of foreign products and subsidiaries. (See e.g.
offshore revenues that are not repatriated, and therefore not part of the
domestic product calculations -- I think?)

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Another way is to estimate the net present value of America's GDP by
multiplying it by 20 or so, which implies that it's roughly 1% of American
wealth.

Alternatively, percentage of rents at office and industrial zoned land would
be a good measure. That'd separate out national vs international activity, at
the cost of being significantly more difficult to estimate and calculate. I
actually don't know how well rents and imputed rents are tracked at aggregate
levels and broken down by company, so this may very well be data that we
simply don't have access to.

~~~
jklein11
Out of curiosity, why ~20?

~~~
quantumhobbit
P/E ratios are around 20 on average I suppose. Meaning earnings are 5% of the
market cap of a stock.

GDP doesn't directly correlate to earnings though.

------
downandout
While I disagree with the travel ban, let's remember that the primary
objection that the tech industry has to it is that it will disrupt the flow of
cheap talent that it uses to boost its multi-billion dollar profits at the
expense of US-educated engineers that would demand higher salaries and
benefits. This group of companies may not garner much sympathy.

~~~
deanCommie
I don't know where you get your information, but at the kind of top-tier tech
companies that are being discussed here, H1B employees are not getting
inferior benefits.

And as someone that does a lot of hiring I can guarantee you that the
interviewing costs, relocation costs, and language barrier trade-offs do not
make up for any salary differences that may or may not occur.

We're not talking about some low-tech banks and telcos trying to save a few
bux by outsourcing work to india.

These are companies that have a high enough bar for entry that they truly
cannot hire by looking only locally and must consider the entire world.

Furthermore, your whole implication that the companies care about this from
primarily a financial point of view is deeply cynical. Immigrants are heavily
represented amongst the tech sector, and we have a deep faith in the success
of western nations being directly tied to absorbing people hungry for a new
life in a new world. It's not about screwing over people who are already here,
it's about making the whole country better as a result.

CAVEAT: Am Canadian citizen, am first-generation immigrant. As mentioned, work
for a multi-national tech company that is on this list, and hire from around
the world. But I work with counterparts on the US side dealing with H1B and
know they agree with me.

~~~
legostormtroopr
> H1B employees are not getting inferior benefits

Yes they are. Even the relatively anti-Trump Huffington Post thinks so -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13579226](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13579226)

~~~
UncleMeat
_At these corporations_. What H1Bs are getting abused at Google or Microsoft?

------
belorn
> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness
> and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United
> States for more than fifty years

Can I derive from this that the 97 tech companies accepts the classified
Terrorist Watch List (2mil people), Selectee list, and no fly list? The
statement would hold more credibility if the companies acknowledged and
denounced the previous system and held a bit more consistent view on how
travel between nations should work. A good example of this would be ACLU, who
in contrast to the 97 companies has shown a consistent view on this kind of
government behavior by bringing lawsuits in the past and the present.

~~~
richardwhiuk
The outrage expressed by the public is the large driving factor here - the
tech companies are saying 'our potential workforce is outraged so we need to
oppose this / be seen opposing this'

~~~
Chris2048
"potential workforce", or "public"?

Because polls suggest many Americans support the ban.

~~~
richardwhiuk
The arguments presented in the brief suggest they care more about the impact
on their ability to recruit than negative general PR for not supporting the
ban.

------
flexie
Some notable American tech companies that didn't sign:

\- Tesla \- SpaceX \- Amazon \- HP \- IBM \- Dell \- Oracle \- VMware \-
Palantir \- Priceline \- Expedia \- Yahoo \- Groupon \- TripAdvisor \-
Symantec \- Fiserv \- Intuit

There could be many reasons. Maybe they weren't invited to participate, maybe
they choose to stay out of a political discussion, maybe they thought it could
hurt their business interests, and maybe they didn't fully or partially agree
with the amicus brief.

~~~
alex-
Looks like Cisco did not sign either. 9 of the largest 15 IT companies in the
world are US owned[1]

Looks like 5 of them did not sign up (HP, Amazon, IBM, Dell and Cisco) and 4
did (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Intel)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies)

~~~
dragonwriter
Amazon, as one of the _plaintiffs_ in the case (the State of Washington is the
first named plaintiff; the "et al." on the case title means there are others,
which include Amazon and Expedia), can't file (alone or with others) an amicus
brief, which is a brief by interested non-parties.

But it's misleading to count them as a company that _choose_ not to sign on to
the amicus brief.

~~~
flexie
You are right that they have made separate declarations of support, but are
they plaintiffs? I think 'et al' refers to the sole other plaintiff, the state
of Minnesota:
[http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf](http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf)

~~~
dragonwriter
You may be correct; I've seen a number of articles specifically claiming
Amazon and Expedia joined the lawsuit (which has a clear and well accepted
meaning), but on review there are also a lot claiming that the relation and
there involvement is somewhat different, and I can't immediately find any
definitive documentation of their joining as plaintiffs (they clearly weren't
initial plaintiffs). Their involvement by any of the reports may still be of a
kind to make it inappropriate for them to be _amici_ , and they clearly
support Washington (and Minnesota) substantively in the case, at any rate.

~~~
flexie
Yes, they do.

------
aerovistae
Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not
take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought
against the administration. He believes the administration will just find
subtler and less obviously illegal ways to slowly move things in the direction
they want. I hope this is not so. It is true that you only seem to see this
kind of massive reaction to huge, broad-stroke actions like the travel ban.
The quieter legislation passes by unnoticed and (by comparison) unprotested.

~~~
Consultant32452
The last president asked us if it would be okay to bomb Syria. We said no.
Then he did it anyways. He bombed them so much that we literally ran out of
bombs. This guy screws up some travel plans and suddenly it's a problem.
Bombing these people for 8 years, totes cool. Temporarily not letting them
come here!?!?! Monster!!!!

I mean, I don't support Trump, nor do I agree with this dumb temporary travel
ban, but all this noise about it is clearly disingenuous.

~~~
rgbrenner
> We said no. Then he did it anyways. ... Bombing these people for 8 years,
> totes cool.

That's some quite revisionist history there... The Syrian conflict isnt even
that old.

It started in 2011.

In 2013, US starting supplying arms to syrian rebels. This was our first
intervention in the conflict.

In Sept 2014, Obama gave his syria speech and Congress authorized action in
Syria. Bombing started shortly after w/ other countries participation.

How does 2 years suddenly turn into 8? And doesn't Congressional approval for
the action, conflict with this idea that Obama was acting in Syria alone?

~~~
Consultant32452
No, what you believe is the revisionist history. We learned from the wikileaks
cables that the US (CIA) has been in Syria funding and training the opposition
since as early as 2006.

[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-
security/2011/0418/...](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-
security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition)

That means that the civil war and the refugee crisis are at least in part the
direct results of actions of the United States.

~~~
rgbrenner
here's the document from wikileaks: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/special/world/wikileaks...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/special/world/wikileaks-syria/cable1.html)

Your link, nor the actual wikileaks document supports the claim that US sent
the CIA into Syria in 2006.

It talks about funding to Freedom House, American University and others for
information, conferences, etc.

I think you would have a good point if it were true about CIA involvement..
but I believe people have a right to speech. And that's all that this appears
to be.

I'm not ready to agree that the US is the source of the Syrian civil war just
because we encouraged speech without the approval of a dictator.

------
Jabbles
I don't want to dismiss the other, much larger, concerns people have with this
executive order, but I want to highlight another aspect.

It further reduces the possibility of tourism to these 7 countries, due to the
knowledge that if I want to go to the US, I face a much more invasive
immigration check (see Norway PM), and the possibility of denied entry, which
carries a lasting stigma.

Clearly tourism in Syria is not an option at the moment, but the more
adventurous European could certainly want to visit Iran. And of course it was
true that immigration officers could have asked about those trips before this
order. Nevertheless, I feel that my choices of holiday have been affected by
this order.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-
east-33648096](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33648096)

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-
norwa...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-
bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran)

~~~
ninjaroar
As a Canadian, i've actually never thought of Iran as any more 'adventurous'
of a place to visit than somewhere like Peru or India or Cambodia. Lots of
mainstream adventure tourism companies have tours there (e.g.: G adventures,
exodus, etc) It has a reputation of being a very friendly place full of
hospitable people. It's always been on my 'bucket list' of places to visit one
day.

However, if a visit means i'll get grilled more than usual every time I visit
the US, then I'll likely refrain from visiting. So, yes, the order will reduce
tourism.

~~~
chimeracoder
The US explicitly allows people to get a second passport to allow them to
visit countries without facing this issue. For example, if you want to visit
Lebabon, you can get a second passport if you later want to visit Israel.

I don't know if Canada or other countries do the same thing.

------
chambo622
If nothing more, this brief is very informative for those wanting to
understand the issues at play here - a good jumping off point to case law,
historical context, and current news.

------
techman9
Interestingly missing: Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX

~~~
throwaway287391
Makes sense as Elon is a Trump advisor. Also interestingly missing: Amazon.

~~~
mschuster91
I believe Elon Musk is playing (once again) the ultra-long game.

He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald
Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment -
and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. Given this, it
makes sense to be in a position that has at least a tiny bit of influence on
Trump.

Amazon has a similar position: they need large amounts of (immigrant) labor
for their warehouses, but also are extremely dependent on free trade,
especially import tariffs. So, they're likely afraid of openly defying Donald
Trump, because they fear that Trump could retaliate against them.

The other companies which are on the list (except Apple!) are a hard target
for Trump as they do not depend on overseas goods import and thus cannot be
hit by import tariffs - the only way to hit them is by deporting the foreign
workers they already have, and the courts have shown they won't let pass
deportations of legal immigrants. So, for these companies it's relatively easy
to sign.

~~~
snotrockets
Musk might outsmart us all, but by going down to that crossroads in
Clarksdale, he does not, and will not, outmoral a slug.

~~~
baq
Morality is like an ass - everybody has their own.

Musk wants to see a self sustaining, fossil fuel free civilisation, and a
backup off site. I'm not saying it's morally right, in fact it might be
straight out of Machiavelli ideas, but you are right in that it's a long
position.

~~~
TorKlingberg
Morality, stripped of religious connotations, is just about what is good and
bad. If you think fossil fuel independence and Mars colonization are good
things, those are moral statements.

~~~
baq
I agree completely. I'm just saying that everyone has his own ideas of what is
good or bad (or evil for that matter). One person's good may be the other's
bad.

------
tzaman
Someone care to (briefly) elaborate what this is about for us not up to speed?

~~~
leereeves
Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US
for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and
temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

The State of Washington sued to block the EO.

The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and
Trump appealed.

Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the appellate
court:

> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness
> and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United
> States for more than fifty years—and the Order inflicts significant harm on
> American business, innovation, and growth as a result. The Order makes it
> more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain
> some of the world’s best employees. It disrupts ongoing business operations.
> And it threatens companies’ ability to attract talent, business, and
> investment to the United States.

~~~
hueving
>Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion

To clarify, this is the leadership of those 97 companies. There is no
indication whether or not that this is how the majority of their employees
feel.

This is the same virtue signaling that resulted in Trump being elected in the
first place. An employee of one of these companies wouldn't dare now to
express their agreement with Trump's policy because it's against the company's
official stance.

~~~
matthewmacleod
That's an obviously nonsense idea. Must every public stance taken by a company
be unanimously agreed by every employee? Clearly that's not feasible. Is your
opinion then that no company should take public policy stances?

~~~
Arizhel
>Is your opinion then that no company should take public policy stances?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Otherwise, by giving these companies a voice, you're giving more weight to the
statements by company executives than to anyone else. The employees are all
assumed to be in agreement, which is a false assumption. Corporate CEOs
shouldn't have any more voice in any political discussion than anyone else,
including a janitor.

------
qzervaas
Does anybody know the process for these companies being involved? Did somebody
ring around and organise this, or does word just get around and companies
request involvement, or something else?

~~~
jamestnz
Last week Github hosted a meeting of tech industry heads to explore such an
action, so this may have fallen out of that. News coverage seems to imply that
Github invited chosen companies to participate.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-
tech...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-tech-
idUSKBN15F08H)

------
jondubois
I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans
at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once -
For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad.

I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who
does what he says he'll do.

It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do
anything of their own accord and instead just do what their crooked lobbyist
friends tell them.

All that said, I've had a few Iranian friends/colleagues (fellow engineers)
and it's really strange to think that they're not allowed to go to the US now
because they're such decent, balanced people - Also, I can't help but think
about those people who left Iran 40 years ago before it was under Islamic rule
but still have Citizenship.

~~~
qzervaas
He says a lot of words. Many are false, some are true.

I don't understand how everybody (well, many people at least) ignore the
obvious pathological lying and conclude he's doing what he said he would.

~~~
coldtea
What "pathological lying"? He is no more lying than the average politician,
and maybe less.

~~~
celticninja
What about his statements on the crowd sizes? He also said Mexico was going to
pay for the wall and that doesn't look like it will happen at all.

~~~
jondubois
He said he will impose a tax on Mexican imports and use the proceeds to pay
for the wall - That sounds on track.

~~~
celticninja
You understand that the tax will be passed on to US consumers via higher
prices right?

~~~
coldtea
You understand that this is no rule of nature, right?

It's not like Mexico is the only source of some goods. Or that they can't make
concessions (and assume the extra hit on their own margins) if their sales
drop. Or tens of other factors and outcomes.

~~~
celticninja
I do understand that, however it seems unlikely at the moment that they will
choose that option.

------
throw2016
It's interesting that while we all accept it's ok for businesses, corporates
and others to form groups to protect their interests any attempts by
individuals to group together is instantly labeled as 'un-american' and
socialism.

It's odd anytime individuals try to organize hysterical scares about communism
are raised in the media and by businesses and it's dismissed as 'anti-
american' socialism with ultra aggressive reactions even in places like HN.

Individuals are effectively disempowered in society, without groups there is
no way to articulate or protect your interests especially when others are
organizing and lobbying aggresively to protect their interests.

------
patrickg_zill
Contrary to what many people think, I will predict that the original Trump
order will be upheld.

It is absolutely an Executive branch function to handle visas and immigration,
and the actual law appears to be very clear.

I am not making a statement about Trump or his opponents, otherwise.

~~~
Jabbles
Which "actual law appears to be very clear"?

~~~
patrickg_zill
I think Section 1182f: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental
to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such
period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any
class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

( Note that green card holders are still a class of aliens.)

~~~
pvg
It's not the only law and in addition, there is case law. Reading that one
section is a very incomplete and likely inaccurate way to reason about the EO.

[http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his-
plenary-...](http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his-plenary-
immigration-authority/15790)

------
hmate9
It is pretty interesting to see how a couple of years ago it would be
extremely bad PR for companies to get involved in politics and user their
corporate power to tip the scales in their favor, but now it is completely the
opposite.

------
User23
The New York Times take on the ruling: "Judge Robart's brisk ruling contained
almost no reasoning."

------
anjc
Reading this interpretation of the immigrant history of the US, and how this
means corporations should be able to dictate public policy now, just shows how
arrogant and entitled these companies are, and how necessary it is that this
means of hiring needs to be rejuvenated.

------
bradrydzewski
minor edit: 96 companies. Turn Inc is listed twice

------
solipsism
1\. AdRoll, Inc.

2\. Aeris Communications, Inc.

3\. Airbnb, Inc.

4\. AltSchool, PBC

5\. Ancestry.com, LLC

6\. Appboy, Inc.

7\. Apple Inc.

8\. AppNexus Inc.

9\. Asana, Inc.

10\. Atlassian Corp Plc

11\. Autodesk, Inc.

12\. Automattic Inc.

13\. Box, Inc.

14\. Brightcove Inc.

15\. Brit + Co

16\. CareZone Inc.

17\. Castlight Health

18\. Checkr, Inc.

19\. Chobani, LLC

20\. Citrix Systems, Inc.

21\. Cloudera, Inc.

22\. Cloudflare, Inc.

23\. Copia Institute

24\. DocuSign, Inc.

25\. DoorDash, Inc.

26\. Dropbox, Inc.

27\. Dynatrace LLC

28\. eBay Inc.

29\. Engine Advocacy

30\. Etsy Inc.

31\. Facebook, Inc.

32\. Fastly, Inc.

33\. Flipboard, Inc.

34\. Foursquare Labs, Inc.

35\. Fuze, Inc.

36\. General Assembly

37\. GitHub

38\. Glassdoor, Inc.

39\. Google Inc.

40\. GoPro, Inc.

41\. Harmonic Inc.

42\. Hipmunk, Inc.

43\. Indiegogo, Inc.

44\. Intel Corporation

45\. JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker

46\. Kargo Global, Inc.

47\. Kickstarter, PBC

48\. KIND, LLC

49\. Knotel

50\. Levi Strauss & Co.

51\. LinkedIn Corporation

52\. Lithium Technologies, Inc.

53\. Lyft, Inc.

54\. Mapbox, Inc.

55\. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart

56\. Marin Software Incorporated

57\. Medallia, Inc.

58\. A Medium Corporation

59\. Meetup, Inc.

60\. Microsoft Corporation

61\. Motivate International Inc.

62\. Mozilla Corporation

63\. Netflix, Inc.

64\. NETGEAR, Inc.

65\. NewsCred, Inc.

66\. Patreon, Inc.

67\. PayPal Holdings, Inc.

68\. Pinterest, Inc.

69\. Quora, Inc.

70\. Reddit, Inc.

71\. Rocket Fuel Inc.

72\. SaaStr Inc.

73\. Salesforce.com, Inc.

74\. Scopely, Inc.

75\. Shutterstock, Inc.

76\. Snap Inc.

77\. Spokeo, Inc.

78\. Spotify USA Inc.

79\. Square, Inc.

80\. Squarespace, Inc.

81\. Strava, Inc.

82\. Stripe, Inc.

83\. SurveyMonkey Inc.

84\. TaskRabbit, Inc

85\. Tech:NYC

86\. Thumbtack, Inc.

87\. Turn Inc.

88\. Twilio Inc.

89\. Twitter Inc.

90\. Turn Inc.

91\. Uber Technologies, Inc.

92\. Via

93\. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

94\. Workday

95\. Y Combinator

96\. Yelp Inc.

97\. Zynga Inc.

------
Beltiras
Goodguy YCombinator close to bottom of the list.

~~~
madeofpalk
I would imagine YC is at bottom of most alphabetically sorted lists.

