zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
It's fascinating to me the extent to which executives don't consider themselves "public figures" when it comes to potential downsides, but they do in terms of upsides.

It feels so obvious to me that the CEO of such a high-profile org should at the very least quickly check public-facing social media posts against someone sensible, if not laundering them all through the experts at their org. But somehow they keep making these mistakes over and over again.

>>BobaFl+84
I'm a YC alum and it's an important bullet point on my resume.

I would rather YC leadership kept their political positions to themselves as much as is reasonably possible. It dilutes the value of that bullet point -- I want it to communicate things about my work ethic and competency. I don't want it to imply _anything_ about my political opinions.

I don't have a problem with tech leaders holding political positions, nor do I have a problem with them making personal donations based on those opinions. Quietly.

>>jnovek+kc
Why the double standard? Why should or shouldn't it be couth for someone to talk about their political positions? Everyone is a human, and you don't get anything done in politics unless there is mass action, which means we must have conversations, public AND private, about politics.

I'm sorry, if you are like "I'm glad they gave me the money and the label" and can't take it when someone associated makes an embarassing human moment, you are just trying to have your cake and eat it too. Do better.

>>throwa+Hj
Do better? No, Tan and YC need to understand this will impact their image.

Free speech has consequences. And speech that has unhinged threats (even if it has a disclaimer that it's not) has potential consequences with law enforcement.

I don't think it's out of line for someone who's investing their time and effort into an organization to be critical of leadership.

>>r00fus+Et1
nobody is saying free speech doesn't have consequences. I'm saying taking money and reputation has consequences too.