
Why The 99% Should Protest Against Y Combinator - biznickman
http://nickoneill.com/why-the-99-should-protest-against-ycombinator-2011-10/
======
nostrademons
Do you buy any food at all that is not grown by local organic farmers? If you
do, chances are you have a much stronger business relationship with Monsanto
than Paul Graham does.

After all, you are directly giving money to a supermarket, which is giving it
to a big agribusiness, which either is Monsanto or is a customer of Monsanto.
All these evil things that Monsanto does? They're done with _your_ money.

Contrast that with Paul Graham, who is a partial owner of an investment firm,
which invested in a company, which has Monsanto as a customer. No YCombinator
money is going to Monsanto. Indeed, it's the other way around: Monsanto money
is going to a YCombinator company, in exchange for services. PG's criticism of
the original comment was right on.

If Monsanto's business practices bother you, factor that into your purchasing
decisions. There are dozens of local organic farmers that would love to have
your business. They usually charge more, because evil is efficient. Monsanto
is not the only beneficiary of their evil ways, though: because of their
evilness, millions of Americans spend less on food than they otherwise would.

~~~
zzzeek
this "voting with your dollars" thing is a bunch of bullshit. It's virtually
impossible to live in modern society, engaging in commerce with any number of
vendors that are invariably linked to multinational companies which are
themselves highly interlinked, without money going to many companies we'd
prefer it didn't, any more than it's feasible to live in a town governed by a
government you vehemently disagree with, without using the roads they happen
to be paving. Monsanto's practices should be regulated, those regulations
enacted by a government which we elect with actual votes, not dollars; end of
story.

edit: my wife and I do in fact work at a local food coop and buy about 90%
organic or at least locally grown; they sell a few products linked to
companies like Monsanto but these are clearly labeled with things like "GMO" -
we certainly don't go near them. But we're lucky enough to live in a place
that actually has a non-profit food coop and the economic freedom to have the
time to work in such a place.

~~~
Alex3917
"This 'voting with your dollars' thing is a bunch of bullshit."

It's not all or nothing. If everyone would just subscribe to a CSA and buy the
rest of their stuff from the grocery store then that alone would completely
shift the face of food production in this country.

~~~
bmj
Agreed. Yes, consumers taking down Monsanto would be a rather large task, but
that doesn't mean you can't do your best to support the other players
(particularly those that might better fit your ethical framework). Money does
very much talk in the U.S. (note how our political system works--donors and
lobbyists)--it's just a matter of having enough of it (or, in the case of
Monsanto, taking it away) to make a difference.

Not everyone has access to a CSA, and that's okay, too--you can still find
ways to get at least some of your food that isn't a product of Big Ag.

~~~
frossie
I think it is also difficult to remember all the victories of "voting with
your money" because so many have been normalised. Hormones in meat? Dolphin-
killing tuna fishing? Formula better than breast advertising? There are myriad
examples where a minority voted with their dollars and shifted corporate
practice.

Are you old enough to remember supermarkets with no organic/free-range
products? No recycled products? No vegetarian versions of products? These are
all things commonly available now that have been introduced in my lifetime as
a supermarket shopper.

Yes, it sure would be better if the consumer did not have to fight evil with
every purchasing decision (it leads to decision fatigue, if nothing else). It
would be better if representational democracy (especially in the US) worked
better at looking after collective interests. But voting with your money? It
does work, and I would be surprised if the Internet has not amplified its
effect even further.

~~~
bmj
Agreed.

The cynic in me says, however, that much of the organic/free range food in
supermarkets isn't what I consider organic/free range. Thanks to the lobbying
of Big Ag, labeling claims for food don't necessarily match our own
definitions.

That said, I'm not suggesting we stop--we just need to become better educated.

------
anigbrowl
'Fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck Cloudant' is not a constructive
opening to a conversation. If that poster had started by saying 'This
announcement makes me not want to do business with Cloudant. Here's why...'
then I'd largely agree with you. You are right that Monsanto is a politically
radioactive company, so putting out a cheery press release about becoming a
core technology supplier displays a misunderstanding of branding.

However, raving and swearing at people is not persuasive, it's bullying. We'll
never find out what pg really thinks of Monsanto or the idea of doing business
with them, because all we've got is his understandably snippy reaction to what
sounds like the aggressive ranting of an insane person.

~~~
dotBen
I didn't write the original comment being referred to but I reserve the right
to drop the F bomb where appropriate.

This is real life, we're adults, and it is possible to communicate and deliver
an astute/sophisticated/poignant perspective using expletives (just as much as
it isn't). If you're offended by someone writing 'fuck' then you need to grow
some testicular fortitude.

swearing is not equal to the 'aggressive ranting of an insane person' - that's
ridiculous.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm not offended by the use of the word 'fuck.' I'm offended by the idea that
throwing a tantrum is a reasonable or credible way to open a conversation.
It's one thing to get passionate if the other party is being pointlessly
confrontational or dismissive of genuine concerns. It might even be
appropriate. It's quite another for someone to lead off with a shouty
denunciation as if that person's opinion is the only one that matters and has
no need of explanation.

Step back from the swearing and look at the context in which it cropped up.
When an unfamiliar someone's entry to a conversation consists of blowing
his/her top, it's usually because they're drunk or crazy. As William Burroughs
used to say, 'I am not paid to listen to this drivel.'

------
Shenglong
I like all the logical fallacies that have been thrown around in this article.

 _While the “99 percent” don’t yet have a clear outline for how they’re going
to change things, one thing is clear: they’re frustrated._ No, you're
frustrated. The 99% have no idea how this even affects them. But that's how it
goes, right? Sanctimonious preachers denouncing practices they don't care to
understand, and don't have a solution to, while the 99% follow along blindly
for "the cause".

 _Additionally, if YCombinator is promoting a world where values don’t matter
and economic transactions are the only thing that do, then they are truly part
of the old guard._

I'm missing the logical link between Y Combinator promoting such, and pg's
comment. I've had the opportunity to speak to some YC founders, and the two
stunning things I remember is "make things that people want", and "try and
make peoples' lives suck less".

~~~
biznickman
Your last point: "try and make peoples' lives suck less" ... what happens if
you make one group's lives suck less while making another group worse? That's
the bigger point.

As for the 99% being frustrated, that's all it's about, no? It's a bunch of
people that started posting photos of themselves voicing their frustrations
about not having a job, and other issues that they have.

------
jonmc12
Please don't point at YC for this - don't ask an innovative tech incubator to
take on a broken culture of business ethics. PG/YC has taught the world to
build companies around products that people want and to be relentlessly
resourceful.

I want companies to be more ethical too. I want honesty and transparency -
just like I want a government that works.

Register your concerns through constructive comments.. save your protest for
Monsanto, DC and Wall Street. And, if you really want to make a difference
build your own company and lead by example.

Edit: I'd also like to note its impressive this thread is still on the front-
page of HN when it could have easily been removed.

------
ivankirigin

      I don’t fully understand the business of Cloudant to be honest...
    

Why would anyone read past this point? Why is this on hacker news? The
reaction to Cloudant's post is shocking.

Cloudant deals in hosting lots of data. They just got a client that trusts
them with huge amounts of data. That is why the press release and story are
reasonable. Everything else is knee-jerk politics.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Did you read past that point? If yes, than you answered your own question. If
not then you cannot properly add value to the conversation.

~~~
ivankirigin
When the point is that we're not having a meaningful conversation, it's not a
big loss. It's actually the first responsibility of the original article to be
competent, but I digress because yes I did read the post.

It proved idiotic. To talk about Y Combinator as the old guard betrays such a
deep lack of understanding about the way startups impact society that the
entire point (99% should boycott or something) is meaningless. Also, this post
is by someone who built a business talking about Facebook, essentially
uncritically, making it in a unique position of deeply incorrect and also
hypocritical.

------
baddox
I agree with pg on this one, and I find Nick O'Neill's arguments to be as
ludicrous as O'Neill seems to find pg's.

This must be a fundamental, deeply ingrained, clear-cut difference in the way
people think.

~~~
DilipJ
I think they are both right (or both wrong). Or maybe they are not talking
about the same thing.

I think O'Neill believes Monsanto to be a far worse company than pg (or I, for
that matter) do. It's an agrochemical company that does engage in strong-arm
legal tactics, but at the same time, it's not on the level of IBM working with
the Germans in the 1930's. O'Neill does have a point in that in a free
society, consumers have a right to choose which products to purchase and which
companies to support, and if they want to politicize that decision it is
entirely their right to do so. pg would likely agree with statement. So the
only real disagreement between the two would probably come down to how "bad" a
company Monsanto is, in their view. pg obviously views it in a far more benign
light than O'Neill does.

the "99%" talk is irrelevant. The 99'ers focus seems to be (or should be) on
the parasitic nature of Wall Street and their close relationship to the
Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve, and not on corporate ethics in
general.

~~~
knowtheory
I'm not sure it is irrelevant (in so far as one buys into the logic connecting
Wall Street to Treasury).

If Goldman Sacs can be described as a "great vampire squid wrapped around the
face of humanity", for the way they are intertwined and tangled up with the
regulatory frameworks in the US financial system, surely the same holds true
for the way that Monsanto and Cargill have such monumental sway over the
Department of Agriculture and the way that farmers do business.

That said, i agree with PG that the original post was content-free. I'd
actually go further and say that even within gigantic evil corporations, good
can be done. That's not to say that it will offset the awful things that
Monsanto does, but i don't know that the Cloudant guys are (necessarily) being
assimilated into the Borg. On the other hand, there is clearly a gap between
the author's ethical judgements and PGs. So if he doesn't trust PG or the
Cloudant guys, i can see why he'd be pissed.

------
biznickman
I should just clarify for anybody here who's reading this ... the point wasn't
that Cloudant is wrong. The point is that there's a massive void for values-
based leadership and we should expect that from any leader, big or small.
Values-based leadership is the future of the marketplace in my opinion, and
hence the post.

I should also say that it's pretty impressive that this made it on hackernews.
I wasn't expecting this to hit the front page. It's nice to see they are open.

~~~
tlogan
Exactly. Consumers are now choosing products and which companies to support
based on values they see that company (and companies' leadership) stands for.
The older generation maybe don't see that but it is clear trend: your story as
a company must match what your customer's world view.

So this Cloudant news just show that their values don't match world view of
majority developers / hackers / libertarians and as result of that they should
not expect to be very popular on hacker news.

~~~
chadp
Who are you to speak on the behalf of the MAJORITY of hackers, developers and
libertarians?

~~~
tlogan
I was not trying to say that it the fact. Actually, I should not mentioned
developers - because that is very broad term.

The observation from different blogs and posts is that business practices of
company in question is not well received by hackers community. Now the key
question here is what is modern definition of "hacker".

I claim that our society (at least online society) seems to define hacker as a
person who has values which are not compatible with business practices of
certain companies.

------
shn
I hate Monsanto. Who would not hate pure evil? When I say this I am not trying
to be derogatory or anything, what Monsanto does is nothing but killing future
of humanity. They are in the business of eradicating earth as we know it.
Monsanto is the pinnacle of the dark side of corporate America. (Oh please, I
am not anti-capitalist or anything.)

If you make some research about Monsanto you will find that the last thing you
want is to have any association with that company. Those who know this fact is
reacting, and probably reacting improperly. However I can't blame, but HN is
not the place to express it. My sole purpose of hanging out at HN is finding
inspiration, technical insight for building stuff, feel the excitement of
people who achieved it, expand my understanding of business etc. I am upset
that such commentary was even posted on HN.

PG should know that I did and will up-vote anything that speak against
Monsanto, even if it is expressed at the wrong place and with wrong argument.
On the other hand I am deeply saddened by being called dumb by someone I
admire. Aren't we tired of binary logic? I expected more from him, he should
not have said "you are either with us (smart) or against us (dumb)."

------
cellis
How about next protesting Microsoft, Oracle, Dell and any other company that
contracts the Department of Defense ( one of the biggest suppliers of violence
in the modern world )? Guess that means we also need to start going after
thousands of subcontractors too, and anyone who buys Windows, Dell computers,
or uses government services. While we're at it protest the police departments;
they purchase weapons, which funds makers of weapons, like Smith & Wesson, HK,
and Remington. But let's not stop there, how about those chemical companies
like Dow and BASF. Surely they supply those Devils Monsanto! I'm 100% that I
can find a link from them to _gasp_ Apple! Omg! We must shut down the evilness
that is Apple!

------
czDev
I think the bottom line remains this: Cloudant gets to choose with whom they
do business. They, and pg, were both proud of the fact that they chose
Monsanto - I think this exactly the kind of thing that 'the 99%' are
protesting

~~~
thomasgerbe
I so wish this were the top comment.

That's really the issue for me. Most of the analogies with
Apple/Microsoft/Chevy/etc. are flawed because anyone can buy those products.
In this case, Cloudant not only accepted a partnership with Monsanto (and
thus, obviously had communication with them for some time) but touted it as as
the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And I can understand their enthusiasm since it's a big deal with regards to
their business.

But, Monsanto's track record within the last forty years is deplorable. Read
their Wikipedia page, about Bovine somatotropin, or watch documentaries about
them. Goodness, it's hard to like them.

------
waratuman
This article itself is outrageous. First, I highly doubt that you can claim
99%. Second, what right do you have to declare what is ethical and what is not
ethical? Has Monsanto done any harm to you in any way or intervened in your
personal affairs? You might as well become a religious zealot.

------
spauka
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this article, or indeed whether what
this article says is entirely logical...

First of all, the article is suggesting that simply dealing with companies
with a certain amount of moral ambiguity makes you yourself somewhat inferior.
By this logic, one cannot deal with any large company, because as soon as a
company becomes multinational, it becomes so diverse that it is inevitable
that it will step on someone's toes.

If we look at any large company, Apple with its manufacturing practices,
Microsoft with its antitrust case, Intel with it's widespread claims of
environmental damage from its manufacturing process, then we must conclude
from what this article suggests, that no start-ups should deal with large
firms. No firm can claim to be on a moral highground. Even organizations such
as green peace, WWF or Sea Shephard, have caused damage to a certain amount of
people but our own internal biases (such as a fear of GM or whatever else),
and how the company position's themselves reflects how 'good' we think they
are.

If anything, Monsanto was better at managing its disastrous PR, then we may
have a better opinion of them. We need only look at companies like Apple and
Intel to see how effective distraction can be in hiding a companies moral
ambiguity. Therefore, I reject the premise of the article that small business
should pick and choose its clients based on their 'image'.

Secondly, I think that the suggestion that Cloudant should not have publicized
their contact is way off. What gaining a contract like this shows is that you
are competent enough to deal with a huge infrastructure. That you are trusted
with millions of dollars worth of equipment, whose malfunction may cause huge
losses to a large number of people.

As far as I am aware, for cloudant at lease, they have a big win on their
hands, gaining an image of reliability as well as a huge revenue stream,
something which start-ups are hard-pressed to find.

We can only hold cloudant responsible for it's own actions. In no way is
Cloudant supporting the actions of Monsanto. Farmers will not buy seed because
cloudant manages their cloud. But other companies, ones we classify as 'good'
may use cloudant because of their affiliation with Monsanto.

------
no_no_procrast
I agree with most people here that Monsanto is probably as evil as companies
can get, but let's analyze the situation for a second, because there are some
confused emotions at play here.

The original opening statement went "Fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck
Cloudant". This an emotional statement, a matter of moral outrage. What is the
outrage directed toward? Well, to Monsanto and companies that deal with them?
Nope. Because if that were the true outrage should be __proportional __to how
much a company benefits Monsanto. In the big scheme of things Cloudant is not
going to make _that_ big a difference, moral outrage should instead be
directed to the companies and institutions that Monsanto depends on. But those
companies don't advertise their dealings with Monsanto, for reasons that
should be obvious by now.

But wait a second... what is Cloudant guilty of? Poor PR judgement. Nothing
more. Does that justify moral outrage? I don't think so. Moral outrage is a
useful emotion, but it should always be followed up by some rational analysis.
The cause of the outrage is the PR statement, not the fact that Cloudant and
Monsanto are in business together.

pg hinted also hinted at this by saying that Cloudant is held to a different
standard than all the other companies that deal with Monsanto. Nick O'Neill
argues that pg therefore supports the PR statement and that this all reflects
badly on YC and the moral fiber of the YC people. That's just taking it all
way out of proportion.

I probably would have taken the moral high ground and refused to do business
with Monsanto. But always taking the moral high ground is a huge handicap. If
you want to have a shot at building a billion dollar company you can't afford
to play with too large a handicap. The game is difficult enough as is. And if
you succeed the world is going to much better off because of your business.

We read today that Jeff Bezos is a tyrant and micro-manager. So was Steve
Jobs. Books have been written about the ruthlessness of Bill Gates. Larry
Elison? Check. Even Richard Branson (who is a stand-up guy) committed $100k of
tax fraud when he was young. Alan Sugar? Ruthless. Would we be better off
without these guys? Hell no. Should we shun and shame them? Again, nope. It's
better to take 10 steps forward and a half step back than to refuse to move at
all.

~~~
thomasgerbe
"pg hinted also hinted at this by saying that Cloudant is held to a different
standard than all the other companies that deal with Monsanto."

Doesn't there seem to be hypocrisy? So YC companies have their values rise and
more recognition because of the name and affirmation from the YC core but if
users expect them to abide by a higher set of standards, it's all... "hold on
a second, we're like any other company and shouldn't be held to a different
standard?"

For the record, I don't think I would've care as much about this had the
company not released such an enthusiastic PR post.

------
msredmond
Unless I'm mistaken, the root of this entire thing is the PRESS RELEASE --
very basic rule is that you don't promote something regarding your company if
it's going to be received negatively by a significant # of people. So this was
a really bad PR decision compounded by another PR error in the company
commenting on the effect of original bad decision. They should just accept
that there was a mistake made (by either them or their PR company), not try to
defend it -- take your lumps, learn from it and move on.

~~~
natrius
You're assuming it's bad PR. The people who are complaining about this aren't
particularly likely to be potential Cloudant customers. On the other hand, the
rest of the Fortune 500 is probably more likely to become a Cloudant customer
as a result of the press release. In fact, the firestorm the press release
caused only exposed it to more potential customers who are unlikely to share
the same negative feelings.

~~~
larrys
Agree every young internet company needs their "dead bodies parts selling on
ebay" moment. A corporate CEO scanning the WSJ seeing a headline _like this_
is ultimately a good thing:

"Cloudant drawing heat from tech community over Monsanto deal"

or in the futre

"DOJ investigating possible Cloudant deal with (insert rogue nation) ..."

------
staunch
Why would we lynch Cloudant, but Apple and other companies (that make much
more money from Monsanto) get a free pass?

Of course a startup is excited to get a big client, as they should be. If
Apple was a small company and signed a deal with Monsanto they'd probably make
a big deal about it too.

For a startup a big client can be the difference between success and failure
in the early days. Apple has no such excuse, they could refuse to sell to
Monsanto if they wanted to. Why don't you do something that requires real
sacrifice, like boycott your favorite company, instead of harassing a little
startup?

~~~
lwat
Apple don't put out press releases saying 'We're proud to be working with
Monsanto'

~~~
staunch
They would if they were an early stage startup and just got their first big
order.

~~~
sitkack
Then they would be lynched.

------
callmeed
_"now you know that Monsanto is hated. I mean deeply hated by people around
the world"_

Go downtown and grab 20 random people. Ask them "what are your opinions on
Monsanto?" I'd be willing to wager the most common response would be sone form
of "who?" or "I don't know"

~~~
catch23
And the ones who know about Monsanto probably don't know that every visit to
the grocery store is showing support to Monsanto.

------
goo
"Apparently he finds his own customers/supporters dumb."

An HN user is neither a customer or a supporter. In fact, they may even
directly inhibit PG's goals.

From a business perspective, HN exists to draw the attention of smart hackers
likely to build businesses which will make lots of money (for example, by
making deals with companies like Monsanto).

I think in the past PG has actively tried to dissuade people from
participating in HN when those people are dumb (e.g. Erlang). Although it's a
losing battle, maintaining the focus and quality of an online community is a
worthy task. Doing so certainly does not preclude expressing that people are
dumb.

------
mattmiller
"I don’t fully understand the business of Cloudant"

The only part of the post I needed to read.

~~~
mikeryan
why? What Cloudant does is fairly immaterial to the article.

------
dcaranda
Paul Graham's response is two things... disappointing and misleading.

What makes his response disappointing is that this is a great, old debate.
Cloudant is developing potentially breakthrough technology ("Our founders
first devised our open-source platform BigCouch while at MIT, working on Large
Hadron Collider experiments generating millions of data points per second from
the collision of atomic particles") to perform complex tasks ("the analysis &
identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops").
When have important technologies been developed for less than warm and fuzzy
purposes? Without the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic
bomb, we wouldn't have modern forms of cancer treatment. GPS was developed to
give more precision to submarine-launched ballistic missiles. There are other
examples of equal importance. Is it right? Is it worth it? Whatever the answer
- it deserves a thoughtful response.

What makes his response misleading is that he conflates the levels of
involvement in the client/customer's work.

Apple computers, Chevy cars and Clorox cleaning supplies - are all mass
produced goods. They are not custom products for specific clients for a
specific purpose. It appears Cloudant is doing this for Monsanto... therefore,
the purpose matters. The press release states that Cloudant has been "working
with" Monsanto "for a few weeks" on "the partnership". Furthermore, Cloudant's
custom work is mission-critical to Monsanto's business: "We’re not powering
the CMS of some administrative division or a minor part of their website.
Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new,
company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business:
the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in
agricultural crops". This isn't the same company/customer relationship as
buying Clorox. The purpose of developing genetically modified agricultural
crops and hormones is central to the relationship between Cloudant and
Monsanto. Again, the purpose matters.

Paul Graham says: "If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x,
then what you’re saying is fuck the entire corporate world". Maybe that's
right. When the American people decided they didn't agree with the Apartheid
regime of the South African government, the Congress and Republican-controlled
Senate passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 and they stopped
selling to them. I'm not saying what Monsanto is doing is apartheid - I'm
saying that if you disagree with somebody, not selling to them has been an
effective responsive.

Unfortunately for those that disagree with the development of genetically
modified agricultural crops and hormones, there's not much that can really be
done beyond not buying these goods unless there's government action that
limits interactions with these companies. But if you disagree, then you can do
as Paul Graham suggests in his essay "The Patent Pledge": "Now there's
something any individual can do about this problem, without waiting for the
government: ask companies where they stand."

~~~
wanorris
Paul Graham is a really smart guy who has helped a lot of great startups, but
that doesn't mean he's always right. He responded to a really incendiary post
attacking a company he's trying to help succeed with a response that wasn't as
carefully considered as it might have been.

If the original post had been of the form "It's a shame they're working with
Monsanto because", then I expect he would either not have replied, or would
have made a more measured response, but with a similar substance: when you
have a startup that you're serious about growing, you sell to whoever you have
to in order to keep the business moving forward. I'm not sure whether I
entirely agree with that sentiment, but it's not that surprising for a
pragmatic, fairly apolitical libertarian.

There are only two things that are disappointing at all: that he seemed like
he was trying to slam the door on the debate, and that he disagrees with you.
The former happened because he made a cranky response, while the latter can
only be disappointing if you naturally expect someone as smart and likable as
pg to agree with you on things like that.

I would say that this warrants taking a deep breath and relaxing first, then
responding calmly and carefully.

------
Zakharov
I don't think Cloudant's move was even particularly bad PR. Cloudant doesn't
sell to the 99%, they sell to businesses. Businesses are going to be impressed
that a large multinational corporation trusts Cloudant with their data, and
probably won't care too much about Monsanto's ethical infractions.

------
dillona
Can we please leave this type of thing in /r/politics?

I come to HN to _avoid_ reading anything about "the 99%"

------
femto
Idea for a startup: a ratings service to track and rate the ethics/values of
companies. This company would be to ethics as S&P is to finance. It would
probably have more clout though, if it has a way of distributing its product
to the person in the street. The person in the street probably cares more
about ethical performance than finance performance when they are making daily
buying decisions.

~~~
pgroves
This has been done for the sake of creating an 'ethical' investment vehicle.
There were a few index funds that were built around investing in ethical
companies.

The problem was that over time almost every company in the S&P500 made it into
the indices. The example I remember off the top of my head was a company with
a terrible environmental record getting on the list of 'good' companies due to
their generous maternity leave policy.

Gigantic companies are so gigantic that they have many examples of good and
evil inside them, just like every other organization full of humans.

------
iamdave
So the author has moral objections to what Monsanto is doing, and that is an
immediate impetus for...what exactly? For the 99% to redirect their ire to Y
Combinator as a proxy for Cloudant? Sorry, I have trouble reading through
equivocations if someone is trying to make a point.

~~~
biznickman
No ... you should have read the second half of the post ... the first half was
the back story (re: Monsanto & Cloudant)

------
thebmax
You premise that Monsanto is an evil company. And yet people are buying their
product willingly. Their GM products increase yields allowing farmers to grow
more, leading to lower food prices, which means less people starve. How is
this evil?

If there wasn't an advantage of using their product nobody would be buying
from them.

You seem to be proposing that the government should ban farmers from buying
from Monsanto. Or maybe you want the government to let some people buy from
them but not everyone? Or maybe you only want farmers to be allowed to
purchase a product approved by some FDA bureaucrat instead of letting the
farmer decide for themselves whether a product is worth their money.

Perhaps, like many of the protesters sleeping on the street recently, you have
not thought through the consequences of what you propose, and really you don't
know what you want.

~~~
timmaah
The blog post in question says nothing of the sort. No where does it mention
bringing government in to bring down Monsanto. He says he is a free market
capitalist and..

 _If you agree with them, you will do business with them. If you don’t, you
won’t purchase their products._

Which is certainly how I and most of my friends live life. Sure it costs a
little bit more to eat healthy local options, but to me it is worth it.

------
xarien
It honestly wouldn't be so bad if the message wasn't neck deep in hypocrisy.
Stop thinking about yourself (1%) and start thinking about us (99%). Yes, much
less selfishness there...

I was actually frequenting the taste of DC with my wife and kid this weekend
and found that the protest was just half a block away. It was pretty awesome
listening to them drop F bombs left and right out of their loud speakers with
hundreds and thousands of kids right there. Great example....

------
J3L2404
If you do sell-out, do it quietly.

But seriously, this is a fairly well laid out argument. The buck has to stop
somewhere and it may as well be here.

------
mthreat
I started thinking this through and here's a problem I see. If companies
decide to only do business with other "good" companies, then they have to
decide whether every potential customer is "good" or not. How do you define it
- where do you draw the line? Do you hire another person to make this
decision? Outsource it? Or maybe there's a y-combinator startup that provides
an API call - isCompanyEvil(company_name).

~~~
xnxn
I could have sworn CrunchBase had a metric for public opinion of a particular
company, but either I was mistaken or they've discontinued it. "Monsanto"
would certainly be followed by an angry frowny face.

------
shareme
by that flawed logic one should kill Americans because of the killing of
civilians in Iraq..

------
chadp
PG's response is 100% correct. It is the OP moral or religious viewpoint and
that is all. One view point.

Find another way to lobby against causes you believe in, don't expect random
businesses to boycott a cause just because you believe in it. Others may not.

