Venture capitalists benefit from giving toxic and dangerous advice to startups. That's because the risk to the VC is bounded — the amount invested — whereas the costs to founders and workers' health, to society, to democracy, and to the environment are unbounded.
Early-stage and seed VCs externalize more of these costs and hence have an even greater incentive to give harmful advice.
Of course, advice from venture capitalists isn't just advice. I can't think of another group with a bigger gap between power and accountability.
This is why the VC-as-thinkfluencer genre bothers me so deeply. They're not like the rest of the chattering class. Because of their messed up incentives, we should view their punditry with a few extra doses of skepticism.
Yes. But that's irrelevant.
What's interesting about this rhetorical question is the implication that outsiders' views are irrelevant. I found this attitude pervasive in Silicon Valley. It's an additional barrier to meaningful reform.
What's interesting about this rhetorical question is the implication that outsiders' views are irrelevant. I found this attitude pervasive in Silicon Valley. It's an additional barrier to meaningful reform.
https://twitter.com/arrington/status/1345205182167089158
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
