The tone of this article is laughable. "Poor startups are having a hard time because people are bullying them for something to which they are barely connected"
No, taking blood money is a risk - and now a bunch of companies who took the money and repetitional risk are now going to have to pay for the harmful externalities of the greedy mindset: "we want money, doesn't matter the morals attached to it"
Everyone makes mistakes and it is clearly a mistake to take money from repressive regimes. The #metoo movement should take a look at some of these companies.
How easy or even feasible is it to track where the money is coming from? Let's say you're a startup and a VC wants to invest in you. Can you ask for that information?
If you go public, you have zero control of who owns your company. It's not more ethical - it just launders your ethical responsibility.
There are plenty of people or organizations - who also happen to have a horrific ethical record - who can buy shares in a private company. And there's nothing you can do to stop that.
I don't care who they answer to, I care about what they do. The CIA has a history of torture and terrorism. The DOD has most recently, caused the deaths of a couple hundred thousand people in the Middle East.
Just because you live in a democracy doesn't mean you can wash your hands of it. The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures.
I mean, I would prefer ethical sources of funding, but drawing the line at "Sadui bad, China bad, Russia bad, American agencies/companies/individuals good" is tribalism.
The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head.
If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall.
The empire was governed by Parliament.
The queen/king had some power, sure. Today, Larry Page has some power. Rupert Murdoch has power. The Koch brothers have power. Aristocrats, throughout history have had power, even if they have no formal posts in government. Just because a few well-connected individuals have power in a country, doesn't mean that it isn't a democracy.
> The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head.
> If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall.
Those are both wrong. It was settled in 1911 when George V made clear he would intervene by appointing new life peers if necessary to assure passage of reforms which would strip the House of Lords of its power to reject legislation, which finally settled that the Commons would henceforth be effectively the sole decisive ruling body of the Empire.
Prior to that, the Commons (democratic, approximately) and Lords (decidedly not) had an ebb and flow of power, with the Lord's sometimes being more powerful and the Commons sometimes being more powerful (including, for a period, the Commons abolishing the Lords with Cromwell's support, but that, like Cromwell, didn't last.)
It wasn't a binary change, from absolute power to none. Those events represented shifts in degree from the crown to Parliament. AFAIK, King George III still had significant power, for example, during the American Revolution.
Also, I've never heard the UK of that era referred to as a democracy. Here it says that under Queen Victoria (1837-1901), the role of the monarch transformed from one that exercised real power to one that was purely ceremonial:
> The British empire was a parliamentary democracy
Not particularly; I mean, the Commons was democratic and Parliament largely governed the Empire, but the Commons wasn't really the sole meaningful house of Parliament during most ifthe period of the Empire.
This is ridiculous. The #metoo movement is not focused on "witch hunting", there are many different people associated with this "movement" and there is no real guiding person or organization that is focused on it. Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive).
Except the figure head of #metoo was found to be as guilty as the rest of them [1]. Every actor or celebrity screaming #metoo is a hypocrite who was happy for the status quo to be a culture of assault and degradation, until it became convenient for them to say otherwise.
Then they passed it on the culture-at-large saying everyone has this problem, when it is vastly concentrated in Hollywood, which has lead to social breakdown [2].
There is no doubt that humans are shitty. Was that ever in question? The #metoo movement has brought forward, and into public discourse, a problem. Had this not been brought forward even Argento's indiscretions wouldn't be known. The things highlighted by the #metoo movement are impactful and important to the advancement of our society and civilization. These actions should not be considered "OKAY" and most people who say the #metoo movement is filled with witch hunting and should be stopped are effectively discounting any of its gains. Nothing is perfect, but we can all strive to be better—and maybe with #metoo visible in the world we can avoid the problems of the past in our future.
I believe the other two persons arguing with you here are simply saying that #metoo has a noble agenda but was quickly hijacked to push other people's agendas. Which is sadly a pretty classic scenario IMO.
Most are against due process? As in most supporters of #metoo or as in the most visible and loudest supporters that you have focused on? Do you have any kind of real statistics about the supporters of #metoo or are you making an inference from what makes the headlines from your chosen media?
I think employees at companies that are backed by Saudi Arabia (via Saudi's Public Investment Fund or indirectly via Softbank's Vision Fund) should feel empowered to push back against upper management and ask them to refuse further investment (easy) and/or work with other investors to buy out Saudi's share (hard).
If you work at a company that's backed by Saudi Arabia, the proceeds of your work are funneling up into the hands of an increasingly autocratic and persistently repressive government. You have the power to do something about it.
Disclosure: I work at Lyft, which has among its investors Al-Waleed bin Talal. Al-Waleed bin Talal is a member of the Saudi royal family but (apparently) does not have much influence in the current regime.
Morality only exists once you have a comfortable life and your basic needs are met. When your life (and startup's) life depends on funding and you have spent all your life saving's in bootstrapping your startup let me know how much you would push back on Saudi money? And would you stop at Saudi but not Australia which has a worse human rights records for minorities, lesser women representation in parliament than even Saudi Arabia and much more xenophobic than even the middle east countries? (Fox news has minority viewership in US but Murdoch has close to 90% viewership in Australia)
For what it's worth, the West always had a myopic and sledge hammer approach to solving these issues with threats and violence.
People won't want to use products that are backed by shady investors. Employees won't want to work for companies that are backed by shady investors. It's in the best interests of both company leadership and shareholding employees to avoid affiliation with these bad actors. If the upper management doesn't recognize that, it's up to the employees to raise the concern.
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."
Caring about the politics of who you do business with is a two way street. Other people will care about your politics. Not wanting do do business with people who you don't like is perfectly reasonable but it's also a luxury. There's a lot of shitty people and organizations in the world and you can't not do business with all of them. The world needs oil and money a lot more than it needs Uber for goldfish.
Unless there's some actual backlash I think this will blow over and thus far I don't see any "actual backlash". The Google censorship thing barely touched the evening news so I'm not gonna hold my breath.
I hope everyone who condemns the Saudis and those doing business w/them are doing the same with those doing so with China.
China regularly disappears its citizens, and now openly is sending them by the hundreds of thousands to re-education camps.
Xi and Prince Salman are two sides of the same coin and if you're comfortable with one and not the other, you're just virtue signaling.
I'm just a IT guy at a business that doesn't have to do business with either regime, so I don't care where people come down on this per se, other than being tired of rampant hypocrisy.
Children have died in the detention center with government refusing them even medical care. A 16 year old died few months back waiting for his parents. No media or press is allowed on the island.
To top it off one of their senator wanted "final solution" for their immigrants and this week the government voted for "it's ok to be White" because of racism and discrimination against white race.
There are some similarities, but there are VAST differences between China and Saudi. In China, women's rights and conditions are far better than Saudi. There are no restrictions on women driving or taking the subway or wearing whatever they want or working wherever they want. China is miles ahead of Saudi in equality. I am not sure about LGBT rights in China, but I will go out on a limb and say that they are probably better than Saudi. And then the spread of Wahhabism. China is not funding thousands of Madrasas in foreign lands to spread extremist views. China is also investing massively in renewable energy. China has its issues, but let's not conflate them with Saudis.
That really has nothing to do with the issue of totalitarianism. Some people are treated equal, some people are eliminated, so you get more equality? I think China is just as immoral as SA.
While not at all equivalent to extremist Wahhabi madrassas, the Chinese government did set up the Confucius Institute to act as their propaganda arm in colleges around the world.
US resident but Saudi citizen...
But how it happened, in a consulate, dismembered while possibly being alive and with strong evidence and links to BdS is not easy to fix and forget. I am horrified when I think about it. I'm aware other countries do it too, it's just that this was done with so much impunity that disturbs me most.
I am not comfortable with either country (and likewise have no business in either).
It’s where you say we shouldn’t act against one unless we act against both (or else be labeled virtue signalers) that this becomes whataboutism. It is not about the degree of their offences, or that ones is better/worse or significantly different, but paralyzing action or discussion unless it can always be dolled out equally every time that is the mark of whataboutism.
If I was trying in any way to justify or excuse SA's behavior you'd be correct.
I remember going camping/hiking in the top of the Uintah mountains as a kid and saw something that made sense but hadn't occurred to me before that time.
In high mountain meadows there were hundreds of tiny rivulets coming off the snow pack. It was enlightening to see each of these seemingly independent rivulets gather down-elevation into brooks, streams and finally a decent sized river.
Identifying that these cults of personality that are proliferating have a common source and that we need to address them as a single phenomenon isn't whataboutism, its trying to crystallize the challenge we are facing as a global society.
Isn't your attitude basically. "whataboutism" [1].
The journey to change starts with a single action... don't disagree with the hypocrisy, but change can't happen if it's prevented from operating in some circumstances in a silo.
Not really, whataboutism is excusing one by pointing out the other. This is saying don’t forget about X as well if we clean house of morally questionable sources of money.
I was going to proactively address this but hoped it wouldn't have been necessary. In this case the parallels are so stark that it practically screams out its own blatancy.
Google's planned submission to China's regime is just the beginning of where things have been are are going towards with Xi's China.
Since the Prince's extralegal extortion of the uber rich class in Saudi Arabia its been obvious that he's been concentrating power in his hands like Xi.
Turkey, Russia, Syria, Hungary, China, Venezuela- oppressive strong-men governments are rising like floods in narrow canyons after a storm. It is time that we identify the systemic rise of these Putin clones and decide on a coordinated and consistent response.
Hindsight is 20/20, but with so much cash flowing around in VC land there was obviously a lot of "dark money" involved. Whether it's funding from sovereign wealth funds of nations whose actions go against the overall beliefs of SV, or dollars that were generated as a result of war and shady business practices (tax evasion, etc.).
Many industries took a stand against conflict minerals, it was an action that could be directly traced back to a very sympathetic group. Money is a different beast, you can obscure its origin in many different ways.
At the end of the day the buck will stop with VCs and the entrepreneurs who take their money. If you have a dream and your company needs cash to fulfill that dream, how deep are you willing to go with due diligence to verify that the check you've received isn't covered in blood? Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.
This is exactly the reason why the Saudi-Arabian government will most likely get away with killing and probably torturing an innocent man. This is absolutely unheard of in any developed country.
Saudi-Arabia is filthy rich, and apparently, that makes murdering an American citizen on Turkish ground legal. I feel disgusted, and everyone who does any business whatsoever with the Saudi-Arabian government is a hypocrite.
At some point people draw their line in the sand and would rather go without then do business with an entity that goes against ones own beliefs and morals. Unfortunate for the startups but in my opinion that is a risk you take when entering a foreign market.
I doubt this will be a popular opinion on HN, but...this is what comes of libertarianism.
What is a government other than a group of people who agree to work together toward certain goals and hold each other accountable to certain moral and ethical standards? Yet somehow, "government" has become the enemy, a thing to be done away with or reduced in scope.
When you do that, and replace government with "voted for with your dollars" corporations, suddenly corporations become the standard bearers of morals and ethics. Now, if I want to stand by my own moral code, I have to research every corporation I interact with. Can't buy those shoes, they employ slave labor. Can't hail this ride sharing service, they endorse autocratic regimes. Can't rent an office over there, they eat meat...or whatever. It's exhausting!
I'd much rather go to the polls, cast a vote for someone who represents my values, and have the government DO ITS JOB!
...but alas, that seems like the least likely thing that will happen in this situation.
The leader of the Senate just said they’re dropping the hammer inn Saudia Arabia. I’m sure this will include sanctions which is likely what you’re hoping for.
You can have a libertarian ethos without taking it to the logical extreme, just as you can consider yourself socialist without believing that the government should forcibly seize the means of production and outlaw private property.
A libertarian attitude has its place and deserves a seat at the philosophical table.
Agreed, but I don't think that negates my point: taken to an extreme, libertarianism is extremely inefficient with respect to morals. Instead of making clear choices once (or once per election), I am now tasked with making an ethical choice with every purchasing decision.
One may argue whether or not it is ever possible to avoid at least some component of ethics in purchase decision making as every company must make many decisions on how to source labor and materials. One may also argue whether or not it is ever possible to completely avoid paying for a social safety net (or lack thereof) as crime increases when poverty is rampant.
I merely wanted to point out that (IMHO) the only reason we're even having to read articles like this is because of a glaring lack of moral authority at the head of the current administration.
I don't think the alleged amorality of the current US administration is due to libertarian philosophical beliefs. See tariffs and anti-immigration sentiment to start.
Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to link "libertarianism" and "despotic theocratic monarchy", but rather "libertarianism" and "ethics via purchasing power". Ideally, governments should be worried about ethics and businesses should be worried about making money. Instead, in the US today we have businesses worried about ethics and the government worried about making money.
> not a libertarian, but what do the alleged actions of of a theocratic monarchy have to do with the potential excesses of free market capitalism?
Probably because there's profit to be had in making deals with that theocratic monarchy. It's the same thing with China. If you're optimizing for market success as you are in free market capitalism, you're incentivized to overlook things that stand in the way of that success, like the immorality of making deals with foreign authoritarians.
I can see no problem in the very fact of taking money from whatever bad people. The problem can only be in what do they want you to give in exchange. As long as they can't force you to support their evil policies or do anything to fulfill them, what's the problem with the money?
No, taking blood money is a risk - and now a bunch of companies who took the money and repetitional risk are now going to have to pay for the harmful externalities of the greedy mindset: "we want money, doesn't matter the morals attached to it"