Hacker News Reader

Comment by shuckles | Hacker News Reader

There is speculation in this article and elsewhere that the timing of this forced change of leadership so soon after an anonymously sourced article revealing Korey’s abrasive management is evidence of a larger PR proxy war between governance and the CEO. I’d be curious to learn about whether this is a common conspiracy and if anyone has other such examples.

View on HN

I find this theory interesting, but a big question I have about the initial story is "How long did the Verge investigation take?" Reading the article, it's not clear to me. Two or three months? Tracking down 14 former workers/interviews, fact checking, compiling research.

I don't think it is farfetched to consider that, if the Verge had been working on the article since (let's call it) early October, it may have been just inconvenient but brutal timing. It sounds like they were making plans to replace Korey since the Spring of this year. I could easily see the Away board aiming to delay the leadership change until after the holiday season (Q1 2020). Bad press like the Verge article or a CEO shakeup in the middle of a shorter-than-usual holiday shopping season sucks for a B2C retail company. Moving up the start date of the new CEO they've already vetted and recruited earlier this year seems to me like Away's only opportunity to save their shopping season.

Edit to add Tweet from Verge Staff:

> Away knew we were reporting on this for months

https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1204278032468307968

> Bad press like the Verge article or a CEO shakeup in the middle of a shorter-than-usual holiday shopping season sucks for a B2C retail company. Moving up the start date of the new CEO they've already vetted and recruited earlier this year seems to me like Away's only opportunity to save their shopping season.

Maybe? How concerned is the bulk of their potential customer base aware of any goings on in the leadership of the company? What is the latest developments at the C-level of the company who supplied your canned corn or bike tires?

I imagine the Verge would have started working on the story around the time the board started its search...

Abrasive CEO fires a bunch of people and generally pisses underlings off; her bitter victims leak some genuinely salacious details of her behavior to the press; story picks up eyeballs and board that has grown tired with her affect on morale decides it's time to pull the trigger on getting rid of her now that the cat's out of the bag. I don't understand why a conspiracy is necessary here.

This has to be the case. Think about it, why would the reading audience of the general public care about working conditions in such a random, relatively small company?

It’s a <500 employee company. The plight of tens of thousands of Amazon or Uber employees and contractors is much more relatable, more people are likely to know someone who has worked in those environments.

Some small startup company with a CEO with hubris isn’t exactly news.

Because Silicon Valley is seen as a utopia for innovation, and it massively shapes our world and our culture? It's important to report on how it works.

This was a prominent Instagram brand. It has all the trimmings of the Silicon Valley Startup: they make suitcases but talk about themselves as a "travel company" with lofty missions, they "value transparency" but not when employees actually use it.

This kind of story continually happens, at Uber, at WeWork, at Zenefits, at Riot Games, at Nest, and at startups I've worked at too. The more we bring these stories to light, the better working conditions will be at these places.

EDIT: Someone pointed out below that the company is actually in NYC, not Silicon Valley. Still, this style of startup culture exists all around the world.

> Because Silicon Valley is seen as a utopia for innovation

Is this really the generally held consensus with the public? I certainly don't believe this, but I work here so I'm biased.

I think most people think Silicon Valley is full of overpaid engineers churning out things nobody actually wants - there's a reason the show Silicon Valley was such a hit.

Also a fun fact - Mike Judge (creator of Silicon Valley) actually worked in the Valley for a bit after college. He felt like people here were just ridiculous - the basis for the show is largely rooted in his own experiences working here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Judge#1985%E2%80%9397:_Ea...

Silicon Valley's writers met with Google X's boss, Astro Teller [0]. He got so pissed they were making fun of him, he stormed out of the room, supposedly on rollerskates, and yet Google still pays him top dollar money.

There are a large enough number of people here who believe it that they continue to start startups and play startup-dressup, talk about changing the world, and elevate the world's consciousness or whatever. The number of applications to Y Combinator every year is growing, not shrinking.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-x-astro-teller-hbo-si...

Not sure what your point is - where they taking the piss in the meeting he walked out of or was it just the show in general.

TBH Hollywood / film /tv does not have a good track record in portraying us do they.

Given the inevitable bad behavior by big tech companies -- remember Google's "don't be evil" slogan? -- it's amazing they have a track record of portraying SV in a good light?

The sociopaths showed up in the 90s and have been there since. At this point it's mostly Wall Street with pseudo-progressive window dressing.

I think it sounds like we agree - most of the people who want to "change the world" are really opportunists looking to get rich. That's not to say there really aren't some fantastic people trying to make a difference, but in my anecdotal experience they are drowned out by people who really only care about money. And ultimately it's investors who dictate what companies get funded, and they definitely care about the money.

That's certainly a major narrative, and the one which SV companies (and their very well-compensated PR engines) are promoting.

The Techlash, dating to about 2017 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_economy#Post_2017_bac..., I also consider Tim Bray's "You Might be Evil" blog post from September 2017 a watershed, https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2017/09/20/Tech-is-E...), is one of the occasional reversals in popular sentiment for technology and innovation.

These arise from time to time, and are not generally irrational. The Luddite movement, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist–Modernist_contr...), numerous examples in Bernhard J. Sterns' excellent "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological Innovations" (1937) (https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag..., retyped as Markdown: https://pastebin.com/raw/Bapu75is), various back-to-land movements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-the-land_movement), notably the 1960s-70s commune movement in the US, and others.

Public opinion is probably evenly split between 'utopia for innovation' and 'collective of delusional narcissists' (CDN if you prefer an acronym)

The fact that it’s NYC is highly, highly relevant, since they have essentially been taken down by New York magazine.

This company is based in New York not Silicon Valley.

"Silicon Valley" is a metonym for the tech industry generally, with interpretation dependant on context. It's often implied, but occasionally explicitly stated.

See for comparison, "Foggy Bottom" (US State Dept.), "Hollywood" (film industry), "Nashville" (country music), "White House" (US Office of the President, or United States), "Pentagon" (US Department of Defence), "10 Downing Street" (UK / UK Prime Minister), "Westminster" (British Monarchy), "Berlin" (Germany), "Moscow" (Russia), Rome ("The Vatican" / "Catholic Church" / "Pope"), "Vegas" (gambling industry), "Wall Street" (finance), "Madison Avenue" (advertising), "Fleet Street" (British press), "Detroit" (US, sometimes global, auto industry, also R&B music), "Kitchen" (cooking/food generally), "Danish" (pastry), "Napa" (California wine industry).

Cheddar, denim, burgundy, champagne, parmesan, dalmatian, italic, duffel, lyme (disease), chihauhua, torquois, jalapeno, paisley, sherry, port, chantilley, marathon, hamburger, pilsner, balaclava, varnish, limousine and lesbian are all words originating from place names, most with generally generic descriptions (attempts at appellation notwithstanding).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

Also Synecdoche:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

For Russia they usually say "the Kremlin."

Also I always thought Westminster referred to the parliament, not the crown which would more typically be referred to by Buckingham palace.

Fair points. My goal was examples, not toal accuracy.

And again: the key is that the language usage is metaphorical, rather than literal.

> "Silicon Valley" is a metonym for the tech industry generally

I dispute that. I've never seen it used in that way.

By this time, “Silicon Valley” had become shorthand for an entire industry that was concentrated in Santa Clara County but had outposts in cities like Seattle, where Amazon had set up shop. The “continuing irony,” O’Mara writes, lay in the fact that “some of those most enriched by the new-style military-industrial complex were also some of the tech industry’s most outspoken critics of big government.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/books/review/the-code-mar...

Numerous other examples can be found. The meaning is often implicit, e.g.,

"Silicon Valley Needs Regulation"

This includes my own cohort of Silicon Valley professionals. A recent Stanford study involving nearly 700 “elite technology entrepreneurs”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/opinion/silicon-valley-re...

"Silicon Valley Learns Washington’s Language (and Vice Versa)"

Big Tech’s presence in the capital is unmistakable, and its interests intersect with more and more issues, says David McCabe, a tech policy reporter.

Discussion is of Google and Facebook (both in the geographical Silicon Valley), but also:

All eyes are on Amazon and, more specifically, on its second headquarters in Northern Virginia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/technology/personaltech/s... That is, "Silicon Valley" is "elite technology entrepreneurs".

The notion that the only portion of the tech sector which requires regulation is that bounded within Santa Clara County, or Santa Clara - San Mateo, or the SF-OAK-SJ MSA, is clearly absurd.

Tim Harford at the BBC:

"Silicon Valley stands for cutting-edge technology, bold ideas that change the world."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49742270?intlink_from_url=...

etc., etc., etc.

It's akin to "Wall St" back in the 2000s. Financial firms rarely were located on literal Wall St. Yet, the firms were referred to as such.

I’ve seen it plenty? As someone well outside of the actual geographical place

I think this is the critical point. I’m also well outside of the geographical place (US Midwest), and hear this term used to apply generically to the tech industry. I’ve had interactions with people from that geographical area who not only don’t do this, but also get a bit irritated and quickly correct anyone who does.

It “has to be the case” because the company has fewer than 500 employees? That’s very weak reasoning. Is no story about mismanagement at a company with fewer than 500 employees genuine? They’re all just manufactured PR stunts? Can you in any way justify this bizarre claim?

Away has raised $181m, and punches above their weight in visibility because they are a b2c business and have a b2c advertising strategy. Also, a rich entitled asshole of a ceo berating employees making $40k in nyc doesn't happen that often with a written record.

If you think people can't relate to an abusive boss more than Amazon working conditions then you haven't worked much.

Amazon and Uber are just sad, this is entertaining in the individual drama sort of way. Plus the abusive boss get kicked out in the which gives readers a happy ending.

Same answer as why the real general public would care about the contestants on Judge Judy. Let's all enjoy a good story about miscreants and comeuppance. The Verge aims to tech and startup people anyway, not the general public, and this is a startup.

> why would the reading audience of the general public care about working conditions in such a random, relatively small company?

I think from the most reader's POV, whether this is a 500 or 500K-people company makes no difference, it's just a number next to the word "employees". The actual amount doesn't register emotionally, so the story is the same regardless of size. And it's easier for reporters to find a small company with problems, especially now that public displays of hubris are a somewhat popular startup marketing strategy.

Looks like there are four board members: Korey, Rubio, and two VCs. If they held equal votes, it's possible the two VCs wanted to oust Korey but Rubio did not.

As a result, the VCs probably waged a backchannel PR war to pressure Rubio to support Korey's firing.

I mean, Occam's razor says that they were already looking, and the article just pushed them to go with the best they'd found as soon as possible to avoid this becoming a long drawn-out mess.

I believe she’s awful just from a few of the slack messages. But I’d believe her cofounder is probably just as awful. That there was so much ammo lying around is the problem.

Highly doubt it. All the employees who came forward were jr customer service agents. Would anyone actually believe that board members would even know who they were, track them individually down and know why they left the company?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com