Hacker News Reader

Status Labs posted content on this site to improve the profile of their client:

That site is in no way legitimate in its construction or messaging. It makes no mention that it's run by Status Labs, or NOT run by a legitimate medical reporting outlet. Why obfuscate the true governance of such an online property? Why are there zero contributors listed in the masthead or contributors page?

How on earth do you look at this website and think "yeah, they're just trying to help the defenseless welathy"?

> How on earth do you look at this website and think "yeah, they're just trying to help the defenseless wealthy"?

That's a bit of a straw man. 1) I don't think that, 2) I never said they were defenseless. Clearly they are capable of defending themselves.

My entire point is that people, all people, outside of obvious outliers like people who commit extreme violence, are capable of changing their behavior for the better and should have the opportunity for a second chance, and since socially there really isn't one, I understand why they take these measures.

Except this further increases our class divide. The rich can bury any and all negative coverage by spending loads of money creating fake websites and fake news. If you get arrested (not even found guilty, just arrested!) and your mugshot is plastered all over the Internet whenever someone searches your name, can you afford to do the same? Can all people?

That's why I said in most instances, of course there are instances where people without influence have their lives destroyed by negative news coverage. Wouldn't it be great if there was a non-profit organization that operated like Status Labs with a mission like the Innocence Project or even helped ex-cons clean up their reputation upon re-entry into society?

> The rich can bury any and all negative coverage by spending loads of money creating fake websites and fake news.

Ah, that's why nobody has negative views of anyone rich.

I have been hearing lots of positive reviews, even from comment boards themselves. It seems like there are some firms that are too good at it. I think the more positive things I end up hearing about someone rich, the worse feeling I get of them, as if they overspent.. the dirtier you are, the more scrubbing you do.

> Really, this is just criticizing people for acting in their own rational self-interest to protect their reputation.

Yes but normally we limit people's self-interest when it harms other people, and it's totally legit to limit such behaviours by law. This is no different from why you can't just take people's stuff from their house. It's in your interest but not theirs.

Specifically, this harms other people who are interested in doing due diligence in Gottlieb. They are less likely to hear about his failed ventures, which is something people care about.

Rich and powerful people depend on us forgetting their crimes in order to continue to predate us. The moral rules are a bit different for the victims and the powerless.

“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” — Milan Kundera

> but I'd argue that is (in most instances) the only class of people who likely have to deal with a barrage of negative news coverage to begin with.

They experience a barrage of negative press because they deserve it. The ultra-wealthy of the world (I'm not talking SV tech salaries, those are practically working class in comparison) are the ones doing the majority of harm to this pale blue dot we all have to live on. Climate catastrophe is well on its way to undermining society, and it could have easily been addressed decades ago if the ultra-wealthy weren't Biblical levels of greedy.

> They experience a barrage of negative press because they deserve it.

Ah, how could I forget, humans are one-dimensional cartoon characters and moral complexity is tossed out the window the moment you own a certain amount of property.

I have no idea how you would become that rich without awful exploitation of consumers or workers.

You'll find lots of "how they did it" in the biography/business section of the library/bookstore.

Great idea + great execution. Lots of people have made impressive fortunes from widely used everyday things like food packaging (eg Tetra Pak), ballpoint pens (Biro) or escalators (Kone).

This ignores that in order to become rich, you must be paid more money than you can generate with your own labor. You must have your workers make something for cheaper than you sell it for and take the excess and give it to yourself. This is business, and there is literally no way to become wealthy without severe exploitation.

Some exceptions: the lottery (which abuses the desperate), inheritance (which has no meritorious justification)

That's a pretty reductionist view of wealth creation and capitalism.

I hope the inherent irony of making that statement to an audience of people united by a common interest in technological progress, entrepreneurship, and startups (on a forum maintained by the world's most recognized startup accelerator) isn't lost on you.