Sam Altman and Y Combinator Bullying Accusations
pando.com
pando.com
So the article opens with the implication that Altman is just another 'bro' complicit in sexually harassing women.
It then hammers on the Bilderberg part like it was somehow relevant.
Furthermore it proceeds to make a tortured comparison between Altman and Trump, even going so far as to call him "some kind of Alt Right Roger Rabbit". Presumably this is because their readership is so sophisticated as to otherwise not understand such alleged impropriety unless framed in context of Trump.
Never mind the fact that Altman is openly gay and harbors a fervent dislike of Trump. But hey—when your job involves passing off third-rate trash as journalism, then I suppose lying by omission to suit an agenda is simply par for the course.
>Which brings me to the moral of the story, where my outrage at seeing Sarah and Pando smeared by a unremitting scumbag like Sam Altman butts against my own guilt at being part of the social group – well-off white dudes in Silicon Valley – who are almost exclusively responsible for all of the shit we’ve witnessed/read about these past few days.
Ah yes, the moral of the story. This roughly translates as: "My boss is in a spat with this guy, and I like my paycheck, so I'm going to call him nasty names and state that I feel guilty about being born with the same skin color as him. Then, I'm going to blame other people with the same skin color as me for the world's ills so I can feel better about myself."
Sure, but he did the same thing Trump has been doing for the past year. That’s what the comparison is.
Regardless, I still fail to see why they felt the need to make the comparison. It just struck me as a cheap way to vilify him with their readers.
If Altman did what they said he did, then of course that's bad. However, I can't help but notice he isn't the one penning hate-filled screeds here.
And yeah, if he’s being a douche, and worse yet a Trumpian douche, I see no reason not to call him out on it.
Also, he penned hate-filled screeds during that Twitter exchange.
That Sam has doubts about Adam Penenberg integrity speaks volumes for itself - Stephen Glass fraud investigator fame - there is even a movie about the case. No wonder the HN got flagged, uneasy story, it's the user.
I don't understand this sentence, but no one at YC or HN has touched the submission. "[flagged]" means lots of users flagged it.
/s/flagged/flagged by users/g
Clearly, Pando staff don't like Sam Altman, and I think this whole article is pretty unprofessional.
> How is this the culture that we built? How did we end up creating an industry in which lying pipsqueaks like Sam Altman are heralded as “thought leaders” and “visionaries”?
I don't know if Sam Altman is a visionary, or thought leader. I do know that in this case, he kept it way more professional, and the evidence Pando (or Sam for that matter) bring to the table adds nothing to the conversation.
> What the Sam Altmans care about is that three years ago a website run by a woman wrote a mean thing about one of their portfolio companies. In the Sams’ world, there must be consequences for that kind of insubordination. She must be brought to heel.
To be blunt, none of this on Sam's part seems sexist (at least I don't see it). Perhaps I missed something, but this seems to be using the "women in tech have wronged" craze to rationalize some way the Pando staff feel wronged. I grant you, many women (and probably a whole lot of others, minorities, non-citizens, etc.) have been wronged, but this... this just detracts from the discussion. Pando, the New York Times, or anyone can't just attack people for being in the positions they are in. I can't blame Altman for being in his position, he's there, all we can do at this point is try to work together to improve the situation. To do that, petty stuff like this needs to stop.
Occasionally, I'm sure we will need to remove people causing problems, like a CEO who enables sexual harassment, or a board member who says inappropriate things. Hopefully, this wont happen too often, as I refuse to believe the vast majority aren't decent human beings.
That being said, in this case, it seems like Pando is the problem -_-
I think it's important we keep things in perspective and review every case as a unique occurrence (or every person at least). There's a danger in generalizing.
There is obvious sexism (perhaps a ton of it), but I also think it's not really helpful to just assume certain requests are sexist. Especially, in the example you just gave, where female interns "abnormal requests for attending parties at abnormal hours". I'm sure it happens all the time, there may even be a small sexual component (just like every other industry), however it may be just as sexist not to invite them...
Unless it impacts their career, or in some disenfranchises them, I really don't see it as an issue. I can tell you that I turn down literally every event outside of work that isn't 9am - 5pm. It may impact my career (although I don' think so), I think people just feel pressured about it.
I can't tell you how pressured I felt turning down our teams offsite to a ski resort. I turned it down because it wasn't in my job description, but also because of the following:
(a) I like to spend time with my family
(b) I don't like skiing
(c) All the women had their own rooms, while the guys had to share
(d) I have a fulfilling life outside of work
The reason I bring that up, is a lot of people may look at that situation as sexist. It actually did disenfranchise me to not go. Literally, I was told "it's required, you have to go", I still said no.
Personally, I view it as a difference in lifestyles and expectations. I'm not offended that they made me feel uncomfortable with the offer (idk if I should, maybe...), I however am upset that I lost something out of it.
I think that's what we need to fix, fix the expectation that work leaves the office. It's fairly easy to not make people feel uncomfortable if the expectation that 9am - 5pm it's a "safe space", anything that happens there you put your work hat on and work appropriately. Then when the shift ends, your free to put your fun hat on. Don't mix the two, and you'll have a hell of a lot less problems.
Even with your example, that wouldn't occur.
But, I think what you're missing is that gender discrimination isn't black and white. It's a matter of percentages. Let's say bagging out on weekend ski trips impacts 30% of men, and 42% of women, because women bear more responsibility for child care tasks, or because they are wary of spending a beer-fueled weekend snowed in with their male co-workers. Now multiply that by a dozen other independent circumstances where women are disadvantaged, even by a percent or two, and you quickly end up with an immense headwind.
Again, that's not to say that you aren't impacted too. But in all likelihood, you come out ahead or even on some of the other dozen issues.
It's like if you have a policy of only hiring people with CS degrees. That's not sexist, just because most CS graduates are men.
You can't hold the company responsible for the fact that women on average choose to spend more time with their family and are less inclined to stuy certain subjects. Unless you discriminate against them BECAUSE they are women, it's not sexism.
To turn up the contrast and make a semi-absurd argument, one could say, "We don't discriminate on the basis of religion, but we ask all applicants to recite the Lord's Prayer from memory in their interview. Strangely, we never seem to hire any Hindu or Muslim applicants." OK, that's absurd, but what if you only recruit at universities that have extremely low female:male graduation ratios in their CS programs, when there are other programs with better balance? That's certainly not discriminatory on its face, but it has the same result as if you had discriminated overtly.
Sexism may not be the right word (and I didn't use that word), but I do think it's important to look at the results of your policies and environment in totality to determine if you are treating women equitably. This is certainly the standard that the courts use for evaluating things like voting regulations -- look at the recent rulings on North Carolina's voting laws: actions like curtailing the number of weekend voting days that do not mention race at all are clearly crafted to reduce participation by black voters.
Is your suggestion to ban decisions that have disparate impact in terms of race or gender?
How many other women are in a similar situation, and are unable to speak up?
Also I generally think it's best to listen to women when they say that treatment seems like harassment, sexism, and so forth. It may not seem like it to a man, but so what? Given our history and current culture that doesn't mean anything.
It's possible to dislike Pando without supporting sexism and there are many reasons why one would do so.
But it's also got a very troubling incident of Altman publicly stating he's got "some interesting information" on Pando, implying of course that it's negative. Without bothering to say what it is.
That's a hard no-no, and should be called out as a bullshit approach whoever does it.
Why is Sam dropping smears? If he really thought there might be something worth "investigating" he would keep quiet and investigate. It's a total dick power move (and transparent bullshit) designed to undercut someone you don't like by spreading innuendo and veiled accusations without actually making the accusation.
The adult thing to do is say "oops, sorry. donation to charity made" and move on with your life. That's a good deed no matter how you slice it plus good PR in general. There is no win to be had here because Sam is punching down.
I'm honestly disappointed. The faux-apology just makes it worse. Much respect to you Sam, but this is childish behavior. We know it, you know it.
(I say this knowing I've doubled-down and done stuff like this in the past and regretted it every time)
Pando editors are definitely unprofessional here. If they care about their integrity, I think they should apologize for raging a bit too much.
Touche. I disagree, but touche nonetheless!
I hope by just throwing sexual harassment claims Without serious facts they don't ruin trust and credibility.
Examples: - It doesn’t matter what’s in the contract. I have a lot more money than you and can sue you to oblivion. - Tell me what to say to his boss when the boss asks me a question. - If you have two people and one has more seniority and the other is better, who do you give the better assignment to? The one with seniority. That’s why I’m leaving.
The amoral use of power to further your own agenda is where excessive political, social, economic, or religious authority always ends.
It's classically antisocial behavior. Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, and narcissism.
Why the fck could we not leave the race out of it? Nobody would dare to speak about race unless they are white - in which case it is used as a slur?
That's fucked up.
This phenomenon that we can't criticize actions without being falsely accused of being an "x hater" is dangerous. What Pando has done is dishonest.
(Edit: actually didn't see it until someone asked me about a complaint they saw on Twitter.)
When you see a PR train coming down the tracks... get out of the way. You can stand there and yell at it all you like but it won't matter. When you get to a certain point in life (high office, large influence, and/or lots of money) there is nowhere to punch but down. That means you have to stop throwing punches or you have to accept the hate. Those are your two options. On the plus side you're still really rich and/or powerful so it isn't exactly a bad deal.