6 ms·

That's not really fair. The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. (There are of course caveats, and we can argue all day over whether or

by hnsmurf 15y ago

That's not really fair. The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. (There are of course caveats, and we can argue all day over whether or not SOPA is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, but you get the point.) If you are a movie studio, SOPA is a great idea for your bottom line. I don't think it's fair to call everyone who is in favor of SOPA either evil or stupid, even if SOPA itself is both. I can understand why YC wouldn't want them around, but I can't necessarily say they wouldn't be good investors.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
forensic 15y ago
Why do you bring "fairness" into this discussion? YC has a fiduciary responsibility as well. Corporations that are pro-SOPA don't make PR statements saying, "We are pro-SOPA because it will make us money." Instead they say, "SOPA is good for America! Anyone opposed is a misinformed basement dweller!" When pg says, "Anyone pro-SOPA is stupid" why don't you interpret it as pg discharging his fiduciary duty? Why do you apologize for sociopathic lies in large corporations, but then criticize self-interested statements from small corporations? I'm questioning the basic assumptions you take toward this issue. I find your attitude here baffling and, honestly, horrifying. If corporations are supposed to tell PR-friendly lies to benefit their bottom line, shouldn't Paul Graham be telling PR-friendly lies to benefit his bottom line? By extension, when you write that, are you telling PR-friendly lies? Which fiduciary duty are you discharging when you write that? Does SOPA benefit your bottom-line? If SOPA benefits your bottom-line, shouldn't you be going around telling sociopathic lies to stop it? That's what the CEO of Pfizer is doing... you are your own CEO and you have a fiduciary duty to yourself. If it's socially acceptable for corporations to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, then it must be made socially acceptable for individuals to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, and any appeal to "you're not being fair!" must be recognized as pure rhetoric designed to fool the gullible. "Guuuuyyyys! Be nice to the SOPA supporters! They're only acting like Democracy-destroying sociopaths for their own personal profit! It's just not fair if you call them mean names!"
dspeyer 15y ago
> The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. In other words, the corporation does not hate me, but I am made of atoms that it can use to make a profit?
burgerbrain 15y ago
You appear to be suggesting a variation on the Nuremberg defense. "Your honor, I'm not evil! I was just following orders... errr.. I mean I had a responsibility to my shareholders!" I'm sorry, I simply cannot take your line of reasoning seriously.
- adgar 15y ago
  > I'm sorry, I simply cannot take your line of reasoning seriously. That usually happens when you invoke Godwin. How about you put it this way - we'll use the RIAA as an example, but lots of companies support SOPA for many reasons: A bunch of CEOs employ thousands (tens of thousands?) of people and see that their primary modern-day asset - copyrighted music - is in grave jeopardy. They know that modern technology makes this asset increasingly hard to control, and that unlike in the vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and early CD eras, they can longer create artificial scarcity as they once did. They know that if that threat continues to grow as it does, they can't provide distribution as an asset to artists, which used to be a big reason you signed with a major label. That means they have to scale their operations back in a big way, which means letting a lot of people go and less profit (CDs sales actually are still a profitable business). Since they firmly believe in the protections copyright affords, and they've worked in this industry a long time, they see the better approach to be attacking the copyright infringement. And their job is to keep their company running the best they can. Now is it so surprising they consider the second option? They may or may not understand that SOPA endangers many aspects of how the internet works. But they aren't necessarily acting in bad faith just because they support SOPA. I know the niche hacker news fills is particularly well-targeted by SOPA, and that can lead to a circlejerk like any other online community with common beliefs, but it's harmful to discourse to assume those who you disagree with you on SOPA are inherently evil as a result. That's why Godwin is such a joke - it's almost never an appropriate analogy to compare your opponents in a {political,religious,technology,etc} debate to those who participate in genocide.
nknight 15y ago
> fiduciary responsibility "Fiduciary" derives from latin words meaning "faith" and "trust". You could reasonably rephrase it as "duty of good faith". It's just as vague as it sounds. It does not mean you have to do everything that's best for "the bottom line", either in the short or long term. In fact, absent actions that amount to fraud or deception, or that clearly breach laws, bylaws, or contractual arrangements, it is virtually impossible for shareholders to sustain an action for breach of fiduciary duty. Not supporting a bad law that is not in the best interests of the world is not even close to a breach of fiduciary duty as normally applies in a corporate context.

by hnsmurf 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

forensic 15y ago

Why do you bring "fairness" into this discussion? YC has a fiduciary responsibility as well. Corporations that are pro-SOPA don't make PR statements saying, "We are pro-SOPA because it will make us money." Instead they say, "SOPA is good for America! Anyone opposed is a misinformed basement dweller!" When pg says, "Anyone pro-SOPA is stupid" why don't you interpret it as pg discharging his fiduciary duty? Why do you apologize for sociopathic lies in large corporations, but then criticize self-interested statements from small corporations? I'm questioning the basic assumptions you take toward this issue. I find your attitude here baffling and, honestly, horrifying. If corporations are supposed to tell PR-friendly lies to benefit their bottom line, shouldn't Paul Graham be telling PR-friendly lies to benefit his bottom line? By extension, when you write that, are you telling PR-friendly lies? Which fiduciary duty are you discharging when you write that? Does SOPA benefit your bottom-line? If SOPA benefits your bottom-line, shouldn't you be going around telling sociopathic lies to stop it? That's what the CEO of Pfizer is doing... you are your own CEO and you have a fiduciary duty to yourself. If it's socially acceptable for corporations to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, then it must be made socially acceptable for individuals to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, and any appeal to "you're not being fair!" must be recognized as pure rhetoric designed to fool the gullible. "Guuuuyyyys! Be nice to the SOPA supporters! They're only acting like Democracy-destroying sociopaths for their own personal profit! It's just not fair if you call them mean names!"

dspeyer 15y ago

> The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. In other words, the corporation does not hate me, but I am made of atoms that it can use to make a profit?

burgerbrain 15y ago

You appear to be suggesting a variation on the Nuremberg defense. "Your honor, I'm not evil! I was just following orders... errr.. I mean I had a responsibility to my shareholders!" I'm sorry, I simply cannot take your line of reasoning seriously.

adgar 15y ago
> I'm sorry, I simply cannot take your line of reasoning seriously. That usually happens when you invoke Godwin. How about you put it this way - we'll use the RIAA as an example, but lots of companies support SOPA for many reasons: A bunch of CEOs employ thousands (tens of thousands?) of people and see that their primary modern-day asset - copyrighted music - is in grave jeopardy. They know that modern technology makes this asset increasingly hard to control, and that unlike in the vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and early CD eras, they can longer create artificial scarcity as they once did. They know that if that threat continues to grow as it does, they can't provide distribution as an asset to artists, which used to be a big reason you signed with a major label. That means they have to scale their operations back in a big way, which means letting a lot of people go and less profit (CDs sales actually are still a profitable business). Since they firmly believe in the protections copyright affords, and they've worked in this industry a long time, they see the better approach to be attacking the copyright infringement. And their job is to keep their company running the best they can. Now is it so surprising they consider the second option? They may or may not understand that SOPA endangers many aspects of how the internet works. But they aren't necessarily acting in bad faith just because they support SOPA. I know the niche hacker news fills is particularly well-targeted by SOPA, and that can lead to a circlejerk like any other online community with common beliefs, but it's harmful to discourse to assume those who you disagree with you on SOPA are inherently evil as a result. That's why Godwin is such a joke - it's almost never an appropriate analogy to compare your opponents in a {political,religious,technology,etc} debate to those who participate in genocide.

nknight 15y ago

> fiduciary responsibility "Fiduciary" derives from latin words meaning "faith" and "trust". You could reasonably rephrase it as "duty of good faith". It's just as vague as it sounds. It does not mean you have to do everything that's best for "the bottom line", either in the short or long term. In fact, absent actions that amount to fraud or deception, or that clearly breach laws, bylaws, or contractual arrangements, it is virtually impossible for shareholders to sustain an action for breach of fiduciary duty. Not supporting a bad law that is not in the best interests of the world is not even close to a breach of fiduciary duty as normally applies in a corporate context.