Comment by jsmthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsmthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm troubled by this post, actually, because of the implication and usage (overt or otherwise) of the HN audience. Especially with an earlier revision with that line about not tolerating such behavior in Silicon Valley, and the general tone of the post including going after the defendant's professionalism. This post smells pretty bad, and is pretty much just dirty laundry or posturing.

This is a really, really surprising post for Sam to write, and I think even he knows it's wrong with the lawyers bit. They would stop him for a multitude of reasons, some legal, some tactical, some ethical. All of them would be valuable legal advice.

I'm troubled by a mix of things here: the wide audience afforded an investor in the plaintiff simply by name recognition in this community, the aforementioned characterizations of the defendant (who most of us have never heard of, and therefore are relying on the post to describe), and the circumvention of process that this post demonstrates, whether intentional or otherwise, not to mention the implicit attempt to steer public sentiment on a person. I'm not ascribing any malice here, to be clear, I'm just still processing the frame of mind that would consider this post a good idea at all. I actually disagree that it should be pulled, because the gun has been fired now (and pulling it makes it worse).

There are only two explanations of overall motive here, and neither is kind. Nobody wins here, Sam, Cruise, Kyle, or Jeremy. Especially not Jeremy, and one need only scroll down to find the number of comments that bought in immediately to Sam's narrative and are talking about refusing to work with Jeremy in any capacity.

What a complete shit deal, all around.

> This is a really, really surprising post for Sam to write

It's actually not surprising if you follow YC and HN for any length of time. The prevailing tone coming from sama, pg, and the mods at HN is that:

- They and they alone are in a position to speak on behalf of all of "Silicon Valley". - They are above the law (see for example all of the mental backflips and excuses given regarding AirBnB's clear-cut and widespread facilitation of lawbreaking).

You can see this arrogance peeking out here and there, such as the now-deleted statement you highlighted (side note: isn't it also incredibly arrogant to think that they can simply delete things from the internet and pretend they never said them?). It feels like it's been happening more and more lately. I expect that in the absence of any kind of reality check, it will continue to come out more and more.

(side note: isn't it also incredibly arrogant to think that they can simply delete things from the internet and pretend they never said them?).

There is a right to be forgotten, no?

(Presuming this is not facetious.)

Only in the EU, and arguably, not really.

Oddly enough I'm reading this after the AirBnB next door, one of whose many guests has broken their front door, smashed it closed two meters from where I'm sleeping at 1:40AM. YC reaching out from the physical world and I wake up and visit HN.

Indeed. This looks a lot more like a high profile investor using his audience to litigate the issue in the court of public opinion and dragging some guys name (who may or may not have a claim to Cruise) through the mud.

Personally, I've seen in the past people who have contributed significantly to projects which later became successful and did not reap the rewards of their work because of, among other things, harassment via the legal system. IMO, this doesn't look good for sama.

> IMO, this doesn't look good for sama.

I'll say it: if I were in a position to take his investment, this post would give me serious, serious pause.

To be clear, I'm all about transparency and talking about things like this in the open, but not like this. There's a lot we need to talk about as an industry, but this doesn't help.

Most founders would LOVE an investor help defend in a situation like this. Typically founders are left charging off into battle countless times with little but moral support. "yeah you go fight that battle for us- thanks and let us know how it goes".

Good for Sam for actually at least attempting to help and take a few of the arrows for the founder/ CEO. Sam is actually taking a bit of risk doing this legally and PR wise and while I'm not saying his approach is perfect (he already edited a few lines) - It took a lot of balls to wade in here, I rarely see investors do so- and I think it will help settle the case faster which is really good for both sides.

> Most founders would LOVE an investor help defend in a situation like this.

There's a lot of value in having an investor try and solve the problem. That should include offering advice like "don't let this derail the acquisition, make him a reasonable offer and get it all sorted out", and being willing to actively participate in the process of hashing out an agreement.

Sam can, and should, defend the value of Cruise as an entity, but he's gone beyond that to defending Kyle by attacking Jeremy. That's no longer about solving the problem - now it's about people and emotions.

Nobody wins in a court case. If Sam uses PR to put enough attention on what has occurred to settle it that's a legitimate tool. The other side doesn't have that tool but they can come here and post their side of it. As these posts show, plenty of folks here are willing to play Devil's Advocate. I'd love to see the other side - i.e. was there a demand letter and was it sent- and to whom?

I can tell you- the ONLY thing that I can think of that would trouble me is if we find out the guy never even had a lawyer. Then it would appear to be an over reaction. It's not clear exactly what actions the other side has taken (or not done).

But on the face of it- nothing wrong with using PR to settle this. It could also get sympathy from GM and they just get creative around using an escrow to just close without settling any of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com