I've found that when there is some sort of disaster that hurts people and there's nothing I can do directly to fix things, it makes me feel better to at least go and help someone. I went to Watsi and funded a bunch of treatments after the Sandy Hook shootings too. It compensates in some way for random acts of violence to commit random acts of kindness.
That's not why the people of Twitter are upset. Everyone wants to see money given for relief. All of my Facebook/Twitter friends are asking for people to donate.
However, there's a perceived conflict of interest in promoting one of your own portfolio companies as opposed to neutral charity institutions such as the Red Cross.
Y Combinator is trying something new this batch: we're including a nonprofit along with the for-profit startups we're funding. Meet Watsi, where donors can fund medical treatments for people in need. [...] I've never been so excited about anything we've funded.
If Watsi is not a portfolio company, that fact should be more explicit.
I'm not sure if you're including that quote because you think it contradicts what I said or reinforces it, but just in case it's the former: A portfolio company means a company that an investor has stock in, i.e. that is part of their portfolio of investments. We don't own any stock in Watsi. When we fund a for-profit startup, we trade money for stock. In Watsi's case, we simply gave them the money.
A lot of people seem to have been confused about this. I feel like I've explained several times in HN threads that we have no financial interest in Watsi. We thought it was clever idea to start including nonprofits in YC, but it seems to have been such a left turn that it threw a lot of people off.
If they are not aware Y Combinator does not hold stock in Watsi, then by implication they are not aware it's meaningless for Y combinator to hold stock in an organization like Watsi.
The 'contrarian opinion' is a problem that really needs fixing. Every time anyone says anything there's always someone who says "ZOMG!! You're a bad person".
I find the hostile reaction to your tweet baffling.
To be clear: constructive criticism is useful and valuable and desirable and all those other good words. But the level of harshness aimed at some things is just weird.
Although your intentions may be noble, it seems too soon after the tragedy to promote something you have a direct interest in. It comes across as opportunistic, in a bad way.
You may not have equity in Watsi, but the YC name is directly attached to it.
I understand you were targeting people's immediate feelings of repulse towards violence. I would have taken this a lot better had you written an essay about it a few days down the line. Right now its distracting from the task at hand - make sure the people we care for are ok.
Whenever the world is shaken by some awful tragedy, the event is followed by an outpouring of kindness. I remember a trip to NYC right after 9/11; the good will was palpable from our cabbies to our friends. Sandy Hook had a similar affect...
In every case I can think of, the cumulative good will so vastly outweighed the malice behind the incident that it felt like the worlds Karma account was being made whole again and then some. From what I've seen, most everybody pitches in with some kind gesture.
Regarding @paulg's Tweet, the volume of RTs/Favorites so vastly outweighed the few negative comments, I'm led to believe that most people empathized with the reaction to do something kind.
As for the few who reacted negatively: It seems that any comment that is heard by a sufficiently large audience will be misinterpreted by some. I tend to doubt that they willfully misinterpreted the intent... but that's just a hunch.
Is the idea here that Paul Graham chose the wrong time to suggest funding skin grafts for a 12 year old boy in Burma who was horribly burned in a petrol fire?
A charity that I'm very close to, Operation Breakthrough, serves the needs of poor children in Kansas City. After the Newtown, CT shooting, one of the founders, Sister Berta Sailer, issued a challenge to the people of KC to do something, anything to make a difference for kids locally.
She wasn't trying to promote her charity over other charities that might directly lend assistance to families affected by the Newtown tragedy. She said "We need to show them there are more good people than bad people" [1]. PG is reflecting this sentiment -- when something bad happens that you can't provide aide for directly, do something, anything good that helps others.
It's not about self-promotion, it's about being a good person.
16 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 42.7 ms ] threadHowever, there's a perceived conflict of interest in promoting one of your own portfolio companies as opposed to neutral charity institutions such as the Red Cross.
Per the announcement:
Y Combinator is trying something new this batch: we're including a nonprofit along with the for-profit startups we're funding. Meet Watsi, where donors can fund medical treatments for people in need. [...] I've never been so excited about anything we've funded.
If Watsi is not a portfolio company, that fact should be more explicit.
A lot of people seem to have been confused about this. I feel like I've explained several times in HN threads that we have no financial interest in Watsi. We thought it was clever idea to start including nonprofits in YC, but it seems to have been such a left turn that it threw a lot of people off.
I find the hostile reaction to your tweet baffling.
To be clear: constructive criticism is useful and valuable and desirable and all those other good words. But the level of harshness aimed at some things is just weird.
You may not have equity in Watsi, but the YC name is directly attached to it.
I understand you were targeting people's immediate feelings of repulse towards violence. I would have taken this a lot better had you written an essay about it a few days down the line. Right now its distracting from the task at hand - make sure the people we care for are ok.
In every case I can think of, the cumulative good will so vastly outweighed the malice behind the incident that it felt like the worlds Karma account was being made whole again and then some. From what I've seen, most everybody pitches in with some kind gesture.
Regarding @paulg's Tweet, the volume of RTs/Favorites so vastly outweighed the few negative comments, I'm led to believe that most people empathized with the reaction to do something kind.
As for the few who reacted negatively: It seems that any comment that is heard by a sufficiently large audience will be misinterpreted by some. I tend to doubt that they willfully misinterpreted the intent... but that's just a hunch.
She wasn't trying to promote her charity over other charities that might directly lend assistance to families affected by the Newtown tragedy. She said "We need to show them there are more good people than bad people" [1]. PG is reflecting this sentiment -- when something bad happens that you can't provide aide for directly, do something, anything good that helps others.
It's not about self-promotion, it's about being a good person.
1. http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/kansas-city-child-ad...