a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00
kleinbl00  ·  163 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: What happened when a venture capitalist told the truth about a Mark Zuckerberg-backed start-up  ·  

If this guy:

    Prior to his current role, Jason served as Deputy Director at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, leading postsecondary innovation efforts to improve the outcomes of disadvantaged college students by investing in colleges, universities and entrepreneurs pursuing digital and adaptive learning, student coaching and advising, financial aid innovation, and employer pathways. Prior to the Foundation, Jason founded and grew three investor-backed technology and services companies before holding a series of executive positions at Microsoft, SchoolNet, Kaplan and StraighterLine. At Kaplan, Jason led three education businesses as general manager or president, in addition to founding and leading the company’s venture capital effort.

doesn't "get it" then "it" shouldn't be gotten. If your business is investing in educational technology and you aren't allowed to point out educational technology that shouldn't be invested in, this whole artifice needs to come down, man.

These guys should be allowed to comment. If you're following them on Twitter, it's because you want to know what they think about stuff. A Zuckerberg and Thiel-funded libertarian spankbank that eats shit to the tune of $250m? We need the world to talk about that shit.





Odder  ·  163 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    These guys should be allowed to comment.

Nah, not on Twitter though - if I'm actually getting hypothetical investment advice from these guys, it won't be on twitter and I'll probably be paying for it. Also it won't be investment advice on currently bankrupt companies like in this case. And I would expect that advice to be a bit more negative and critical than those people would admit publicly.

I honestly don't know why anyone famous has a twitter unless they either have enough self control to just post stupid trivial shit, or they hire a PR firm to run it. It's doubly stupid for anyone who is famous and also in some sort of corporate or investment role. If you're following these types of twitter users expecting something critical and insightful you're wasting your time.

Also - semi-old people not understanding social media is practically a trope at this point- i.e. if you weren't a cringey twelve year old on social media you sometimes need to learn the hard way as an adult that whatever you post on the internet will come back to haunt you.

kleinbl00  ·  163 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Wait you're literally saying that professional investors shouldn't be allowed to opine about professional investing on Twitter?

But it's totally okay for the rest of FinTwit to pillory this guy and declare that he's blackballed forever?

Jason Palmer is under 50. What's the cutoff for using Twitter? What, to you, is "semi-old?"

Odder  ·  163 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yeah pretty much that - especially the bit about calling him out for irresponsible internet usage as a reason to blackball him. If you're smart you've got a Twitter so you can promote companies that you're invested in and hope that doing so will cause more people to invest in those companies or ask you to invest in their company. If you're not smart you use twitter like a normal person - which looks about the same until something like this happens.

And "semi-old" as I mean it is Gen X, basically. Not tech-illiterate like we all stereotype boomers or pre-boomers, but perhaps still tech-irresponsible. My generation had it drilled into us from age 10 onward that anything you put on the internet stays there forever. Which doesn't mean we all learned, but hey. The number of people who ought to be "old enough" to know better - who put things they'd be careful about saying in mixed company on the internet for everyone to see - is amazing. That's the disconnect I'm talking about - they obviously know they shouldn't say things like this in front of e.g. the CEO of the company that just went bankrupt, but they'll still post it on Twitter where the same CEO and everyone else can see it.

kleinbl00  ·  163 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You are literally, actively calling for internet Omerta.

This is an insane position to take.

And you're arguing that anybody who doesn't agree with the code of silence is stupid.

This is a more insane position to take.

Odder  ·  162 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Nah - I'm arguing that using Twitter when you're famous is equivalent to directly saying anything negative to someone's face.

Let's use a non-tech example:

If Joe Biden were to say something disparaging and mean about a fellow democrat's weight to his wife, nothing would happen and nobody would know or care. If he said the same thing at a private dinner event he might risk someone recording it or writing it down, and it could cause a political scandal. If he said it directly to that democrat's face while being broadcast on national television his presidential run and career would probably be over - and CNN would be talking about it at least until Trump did something dumb again.

What's stupid is not realizing that Twitter is equivalent to the third scenario, and not either of the former two. It's not a gentleman's agreement of silence, it's basic decency of not insulting someone to their face in front of all their friends.

kleinbl00  ·  162 days ago  ·  link  ·  

...I mean I get that your beef is with Twitter. And I get that you're trying to make a point here that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and I want to notice in passing that you're arguing that people should realize that Twitter is public (the Cheeto Benito has made that thunderously obvious).

What you're steadfastly refusing to acknowledge is that your argument 100% GLOSSES OVER OTHER PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS eating this guy's lunch. On Twitter.

This is a case of "say whatever the fuck you want" SO LONG AS IT'S PRO-STARTUP or ANTI-STARTUP CRITICISM. And three comments deep here, you are still arguing that "say nothing at all" is somehow a reasonable position to take in response to an article in which business criticism is systematically crushed by business interests.

Odder  ·  162 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    This is a case of "say whatever the fuck you want" SO LONG AS IT'S PRO-STARTUP or ANTI-STARTUP CRITICISM

I mean yeah - those are also things you can pretty safely say in public though. Generally people get more of a pass on saying "Hey you're kind of an asshole" so long as their ingroup generally agrees that that's the case.

I mean, maybe it was a bad idea to post anti-startup criticism on Twitter too - since the NYTimes posted an article about it. it's clear some people outside that particular tech bubble thought their comments were uncalled for and some of those comments probably were, e.g. “I wish I could short your portfolio,”.

Then again, maybe all the professional investors don't care what us hoi polloi think anyway so it's fine for them.

kleinbl00  ·  161 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    t's clear some people outside that particular tech bubble thought their comments were uncalled for

NO. The whole problem is that people inside that tech bubble went to war over comments that were negative. And they went to war in an extremely negative way.

The whole problem is that you can say whatever you want about stuff you're selling to investors so long as you don't say anything that might ever make an investor question the idea of investing. THAT is the issue.

Odder  ·  161 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yeah, i just don't really grasp why that's a problem or a scandal.

The alternative - venture capitalists freely dispensing investment advice and potentially bankrupting competitors' startups sounds much worse.