Transparency is Bullshit; We Don’t Want to See Everything | Hacker News Reader

Transparency is Bullshit; We Don’t Want to See Everything

mightybrand.com

32 pointsryanwaggoner14 comments

It seems you've taken the term transparency, defined it in a way that's quite unlike what people generally mean when they speak of business transparency, then defined translucency in a way quite like what people generally mean when they speak of business transparency. Then you've triumphantly declared transparency bullshit. There's an expression for that kind of argument, haydog or grassgirl or something like that.

I'd argue that his definition of transparency is EXACTLY what everyone thinks about when a startup is being transparent.

I think he also left out a point. By divulging your revenues, you are exposing information about your partnerships.

By telling us how much you make, are you telling us how much your partners are making?

I would never partner with a developer who spills all - as I am not a transparent person and I don't run a very transparent company. It would be like opening the back door to my company.

Hmm. Kind of like trying to mix GPL'd code with closed source software.

You could argue that but a couple of seconds googling around would show you the term is not used to describe, say, financial transparency, especially not in a privately held startup. It's almost always used in the context of customer relations. Here's one of the top hits -

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/heath-row/business-transpare...

A person from a start-up (Six Apart), a person from a large corporation (Microsoft) and an interviewer from a well-established business magazine (Fast Company) briefly discuss transparency. The focus is on customer relations.

That should be the definition of transparency, but I wrote this blog post in response to this self-righteous tone that I see a lot of social media "gurus" taking lately where they seem to believe that it's their natural right to whatever information they want about a company or individual, and when the entity in question refuses, they start whining about "transparency".

A good example was the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. While it's true that he clearly had something to hide, I don't buy that because he's a brand, he's obligated to divulge everything about his personal life to the media and the public. But you should have heard the social media bloggers calling for his demise because he "owed" an explanation and they weren't getting it fast enough.

Perhaps I didn't adequately explain that I'm not anti-transparency, but more anti- towards the "entitled-to-transparency" attitude many social media bloggers are starting to exhibit.

I understand you were trying to comment on something specific, unfortunately it's hard to tease your points out of the confusion created by using a term in a way that differs from its common use in the context and then defining a new term. If you had examples (social media talking heads, Tiger Woods, particular companies, etc) writing about them concretely might make your argument clearer and invite responses more interesting that 'that makes no sense'. Perhaps a rule of thumb to consider is if you start a post with 'this is a rant and unoriginal', treat it as a draft and revise it until you can safely take that opening out. (Not that there's anything wrong with a rant but a good rant doesn't need to tell you it's a rant)

That's a fair point. I shall endeavor to improve in my future postings :)

For what it is worth, I liked many of the points in your post, in spite of its shortcomings, particularly where you remind readers that some of the most spectacularly successful tech companies are very discrete in what they reveal to the world and when. That in itself should give less mature companies pause before starting to feel sanctimonious in having adopted a business idea that sees virtue in lunging violently in the other direction.

I find it jarring to hear young entrepreneurs touting their own virtues in relation to others and, if the basis upon which they do so is ultimately insupportable in a business sense, so much the better for causing them to examine themselves and their motives. I would personally elevate the tone a bit, but that is just me. In many ways, a stimulating post. Thanks.

I think it would make a lot of sense to differentiate between:

- Transparency of the government - Transparency of powerful companies - Transparency of public figures - Transparency of private individuals

With celebrities like Tiger Woods, sometimes the line is blurred when they expose their private life, especially when they monetize their public image.

Not sure but I would think this treatment of "transparency" deals with recent trends among some closely-held startups to make gratuitous disclosure of their inside financial information, as discussed in this thread having to do with a post entitled "Disclosing Your Finances: Should you publicly publish your finances?": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1034911.

I have a detailed post in that thread about how such disclosures may expose directors to claims of breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, and how they are therefore not generally a good idea. The related piece to which the thread is attached contains the counter-arguments, as do other posts in that thread.

That's part of what I was referring to, though not in response to those specific companies, but more with regard to the expectation that companies should do that, or that they're somehow more honest if they do.

It's conceivable although the post that started that thread is very specifically about the disclosure of financial detail and doesn't even mention the term 'transparency'. Neither does any of the resulting commentary on HN. At the same time the admittedly vague and woolly term 'business transparency' is commonly used to describe an approach to customer relations that's consistent with what the author terms 'translucency'.

Opaque: Translucent: Transparent.

All three define varying degrees of perception. Opaque and translucent are defined as being muddied or "clouded" by material that can distort the original image.

Could be paralleled with excessive/unnecessary legalese. The more unnecessary words a contract or legal agreement contains, the muddier it is. I like transparency where average Joe / average Jane can cut through the BS and say "so _this_ is what this is really all about: it appears to be X, but is actually Y".

There's nothing wrong with seeing everything clearly when clarity is the intention.

This article is flamebait.

Transparency isn't good or bad.

Suppose a company released internal R&D documents to shareholders in the name of transparency... that would give the shareholders a better idea of the value of the stock, but it would also give competitors valuable information. This is why firms strike a balance between transparency and confidentiality.

sometimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com