Hacker News Reader

Comment by sama | Hacker News Reader

We support free speech, obviously. And we're happy to fund people with all sorts of different political views.

We do not allow harassment, for which Andrew unfortunately set a new bar in our community. You can look at his Twitter or Facebook for plenty of public examples, to say nothing of what he's said privately.

As per our previous comments, when a founder violates our ethics statement, we remove them from the community.

View on HN

@sama Sam Altman, can you explain your reasoning for banning a company that merely wrote something on Twitter, but you allowed Jumpcut from S16 who actually went into the streets and filmed street harassment (forcefully kissing women without permission, massaging them without permission, and "motor-boating" them as an incentive for charity) with their brand Simple Pickup?

Here are links proving my point: http://www.dailydot.com/irl/simple-pickup-youtube-sexual-ass...

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/02/29/youtube-pickup-artists-co...

Here's the petition to remove their YouTube channel -> www.change.org/p/youtube-com-end-street-harassment-remove-simple-pickup-s-youtube-channel-13bef5b3-1dcc-4f8a-be88-ef3f69cc7e1c

They are still making money with their Project Go program which shows their instructor Willy molesting a woman without her knowing she was being filmed.

Seems like this type of harassment is an embodiment of what you would disagree with.

Or were you just not aware of this?

And here we go. That is exactly what happens once censorship is not any longer based on legal evidence but personal judgement. The 'my feelings are hurt more than yours competition' starts.

Edit: Actually watched some of the videos mentioned. Totally amazed how anyone can get offended by prank videos and doesn't know about actors involved.

We're talking about how an organization chooses who to boycott. Legal evidence typically isn't the standard here, but I think it's reasonable to ask what that standard might be.

I don't want to read too far into the comments already made, but: a YC company sexually harassing strangers on the street doesn't seem to impact people's desire to do business with YC.

But if you do much less, but to people YC has to do business with, that has real consequences.

If they were motorboating Marc Andreessen without consent, for instance, they wouldn't need news coverage and video to drop them.

EDIT: I don't mean this to be cynical so much as derived from fiduciary duty.

I think this needs to be answered by YC

You can see Andrew's tweet here: http://imgur.com/a/vnbvT

Note that he did not simply tweet the words "Build the wall." That's not what happened. What he did is he screenshotted another YC founder's private facebook wall post, in which she says she is scared for her safety. And he publicly tweeted her words while adding "Build the wall" as mocking commentary.

While I'm generally rather suspect of you folks and your moral authority, this is an example of the behavior you're referring to:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxAg4AXXcAITru4.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxAbtwQUcAApPQa.jpg

https://twitter.com/torbahax/status/797110760556167168

From a pure business standpoint, fuck that guy. He didn't really articulate his views in any way that could remotely be considered constructive, and if the rest of his behavior matches that, it's difficult to imagine keeping him around.

The first and third ones were clearly mean-spirited, but the second one seems like it's in-bounds for society as a whole ("coward", while obviously impolite, can't possibly be worse than "racist", which is apparently an in-bounds part of political conversation). Not an insane request to abide by either: if they are literally asking for it, naming and shaming seems opt-in-able.

What about that: https://twitter.com/torbahax/status/797203694160871425

I really can't understand such a attitude.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com