Clinkle launches thanks to new partnership
blog.spout.co
blog.spout.co
Why don't the folks who put money into Clinkle just ask for it back, sell, pivot or kill the thing off?
Based on what I've seen referenced on HN, it's an incredibly dysfunctional mess [0], that can't retain anyone [1][2].
I understand how public sector agencies or entrenched behemoths manage to shamble on as zombies, but the popular notion is that startups produce, grow or die.
Bringing in money initially [3] is somewhat understandable, but that such a clown show continues to exist is just baffling.
0: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-work-for-cli...
1: http://recode.net/2014/03/13/clinkles-still-a-hot-mess-as-it...
2: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-14/clinkles-big...
3: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/27/clinkle-raises-celebrity-fi...
We meant the post all in good fun and we knew we'd be opening ourselves up to criticism since we're still in a closed beta ourselves.
We certainly didn't write this in a mean-spirited sense, just wanted to poke a bit of fun at the startup community.
We get fired and blacklisted if we try to unionize, disparage (much less sue) bad actors, or otherwise fight on behalf of talent or labor or even innovation. Ridicule is the one weapon we have left against these assholes.
Deleted comment
My point is that, not only do I argue (subjectively) that it should be acceptable to ridicule undeserving people in positions of power or rank, it's also (objectively) socially useful. If our leaders are poorly chosen, we should replace them. Right now, pedigreed incompetents are ranked above me and probably you. Do you want to change that, or let it stay as it is?
This is self-interest, as well as a general desire to improve society. Emotional state (e.g. bitterness) isn't really relevant here.