It's things like this that make it hard for me to be totally down on YC, despite disquieting things about its culture. It's hard to argue that it hasn't been an unalloyed good for founders.
I can't agree with this without knowing who is on what list and why. There's way too much room for bad judgement to get in the way.
Having said that, I'm making a very minor point here, since of course you can say the same about every single business and who they will or won't work with.
I can't convince you either way. It would be pointless to debate it. Reasonable people might disagree. I'll only say that I don't know any founders, including people who have gone through YC and not felt they got much out of it, that don't agree with me that YC is far, far on the "founder" site of the "founder vs. capital" spectrum.
I have less respect for the argument that YC might be pro-founder but would prioritize some secret conspiracy to inflate harassment claims above the welfare of their portfolio companies. (I don't see you making that argument, just heading it off.)
For what it's worth: I have no connection to YC, and am openly critical of Sam Altman.
Do they give a warning to a person if they received 1 single report, and then if they receive more over the years then they get added?
Bad behaviour usually continues in part because a person believes they're getting away with it. If there's an early signal that they're in fact not getting away with it, then that would be beneficial to everyone for them to hear about it - the person harassing and the community at large.
The problem here has less to do about YC maintaining a list and more to do about the people reporting incidents to YC. Sorry, but people are ruthless, and I can see this being abused by founders who may feel vengeful they didn't get funded.
If the list was based on convicted sexual harassers, then so be it, but if it's based on feedback reviews, it'll be ripe for abuse. This is going to have tricky sociological impacts in the VC community that won't actually solve the problem.
The idea that there's something unusual about this is pretty silly. Businesses track the reputations of other businesses all the time. There's never any transparency in those lists, and people that fall on the wrong side of those lists never have any recourse.
Really, what we're arguing about here is the simple concept of "reputation". It's tough for message board nerds like us to hear this, but reputation in the real world is powerful, and it's not tracked in public Bugzillas. Ironically, the only upsetting thing that has happened here is that YC took the time to tell you about what they're doing.
I know of no business that regularly tracks the reputation of any _individuals_ in a database as part of it's regular business practice (the individual part is important) and that isn't part of it's model to disclose to involved parties. Uber would be a good example of someone that does this, but at least you can see a users rating at the time.
> The idea that there's something unusual about this is pretty silly.
I never said it was unusual. I think you're honing in on the wrong thing on this thread - which is the presumption that people are disgusted that these tactics happen. I more concerned that they are actively tracking it in a "review style" database and the data is only access by a select few (which is the presumption here).
The employees, apparently, don't usually get access to their U5.
I bet recruiting firms do.
What's more, there's not much you can do about it. Ultimately, they're not employers. They're investors. You can't coerce people into investing.
Exactly, informal. That's my point. The suggestion here isn't that informal lists exist, its that they are publicly announcing that it's being formalized. That's what makes this a big deal.
I still feel like you're not reading what I'm writing and keep trying to make a point responding to a wider discussion in this thread.
Or (in the cases of sexual harassment or racial discrimination only) admit there could be behavior which may not rise to the level of criminality but still is a good reason to cause potential partners to shun you.
> admit there could be behavior which may not rise to the level of criminality
Very little bad investor rises to the level of criminality. And most bad investor behavior is still a good reason for yc to shun you.
I think that attitude is no small part of why this problem is as deeply rooted as it is.
That is: which is the greater harm? Founders getting abused by VCs without this list, or VCs getting accused by founders with it? Maybe it reflects my categories and biases more than reality, but I know which way I'm inclined to err, there.
If you think about it, the worst case for a company that goes through yc is that it's neutral. They can't really hurt anything — when companies fail (or struggle) it's never because of yc. There are hundreds of reasons companies fail.
So the tl;dr; is that people probably won't ever say "yc was bad for us", and companies that come out doing well won't think "yc wasn't great for us".
First thought is that if pretty experienced founders who are starting a company in a space YC isn't experienced in(e.g. biotech 5 years ago) went through it they might not get much out of it.
In the UK, people can ask to see any information on them stored on a computer. Which is why blacklists are done on cardfile even today.
You're right, too, almost all the stuff that would be a black mark against an investor is an accusation.
Given that such a list can't have a high degree of transparency attached to it for a number of legal and practical reasons, it would be hard to argue anything in particular about it.
1. It's been described as a "blacklist" and people have a visceral reaction to that particular term, even though the moral equivalent of blacklists occurs in every other business situation in which reputation is tracked.
2. There's a political/ideological interest, heavily represented on Internet message boards, in trying to establish the notion that sexual harassment and gender inequality are overblown issues.
If you don't trust YC, this shouldn't be the issue that worries you about them; they've been using their influence this way for years and years, and they haven't told you a single thing about it. The only thing that's really happening here in this announcement is that YC is being open about it for this particular issue --- obviously, in order to put VC firms on notice.
There are things I don't trust YC with, but defending the interests of founders just isn't one of them.
Finally: we should all recognize that no matter how much we might want a transparent process that gives each and every one of us all the information we need to judge YC's actions, in the real business world we virtually never get anything like that, and this won't be any different.
Therein lies the big disadvantage of the politics of outrage. Any movement that can't organize itself to make the tactical climb onto the moral high ground will continue to wallow in the lowland quagmires of outrage. The most unreasonable of one side will anger the most unreasonable of the other in an unending cycle of recruitment through the viral nature of outrage on social media. The "leaderless" movements of the 21st century are just this, and are just doing this.
(Yes, I am seemingly obliged to repost this. I will repost this as many times as I can manage! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc )
There's nothing that involves subtlety and sophistication to understand which is going to benefit from "discussion" in a state of outrage. Racism and sexism in the 21st century are two topics which fit this. For example my "lived experience" tells me that racist micro-aggressions exist, they often coexist with forms of sexually charged transgressive psychological warfare. However, my lived experience also informs me that going around in a militant, accusatory state to combat such things is like emotional carpet bombing -- in that there is an almost complete certainty of hurting your own cause in the long term in several ways. (By causing collateral damage to innocents, for one.)
So is there a point to getting upset about Y Combinator's list? No. Just about anyone has bigger fish to fry. It's also a good idea to steer clear of both such controversies and the broken individuals who might seek to exploit such controversies. If someone is upset about such a thing, it probably means there's some kind of magical thinking going on and there's a need for some introspection. (Y Combinator isn't an oracle, pg and everyone involved are just ordinary human beings, and your feelings of security about the world shouldn't depend on a world view that requires woo-woo thinking.)
(tptacek -- I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think this is the right place to say these things.)
EDIT:
Finally: we should all recognize that no matter how much we might want a transparent process that gives each and every one of us all the information we need to judge YC's actions, in the real business world we virtually never get anything like that, and this won't be any different.
tl;dr -- If one doesn't think YC has their head in the right place, one shouldn't be doing business with them.