708
submitted 8 months ago by JRepin@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

Do you support sustainability, social responsibility, tech ethics, or trust and safety? Congratulations, you’re an enemy of progress. That’s according to the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 210 points 8 months ago

I'm just gonna be straight up that probably none of you have any real experience with VC. Just statistically, it's probably the case. It's anecdotal, but I want to share my story.

I helped found a company about three years ago. It's a software/ services company that focuses on specific kinds of climate change risk. No I won't tell you who we are. Anyways, me and my cofounders are first time founders, although we both have built business segments within companies, this was our first time in our own. We did try for VC that first year. We basically got rejected all around. What I learned is that the basic function of VC isn't to fund good ideas. It's a filter to keep opportunities in the hands of those who already have them. It's a kind of social filter to make sure only the "right" kind of people get funded. It's pure credentialism and institutionalism. Anyways, several of our competitors took the cash. As a result, they ballooned in head count and we're forced to do things the way the vcs expected them to. As a result, almost all of these companies failed or pivoted. We didn't get funded. We got rejected by all fronts. Instead we just built our client base one brick at a time. Well, now their customers are our customers. We're signing deals with the big names and still haven't taken VC money. We've got the best in class technology and they are bleeding money.

VC is a poison pill. It's not there to drive innovation but to filter down who has access to opportunities. Their ideas about what works or doesn't are bad, and largely driven by the culture they are apart of. They worship elitism and credentials, but will the respect for those who are willing to do the work. It's inherently extractive. They add nothing. Want to kill a business? Take VC money.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 30 points 8 months ago

It’s pure credentialism and institutionalism.

Not a coincidence that folks with Ivy League degrees get showered with money, while kids from state schools end up doing all the drudge work that keeps infrastructure running.

VC is a poison pill. It’s not there to drive innovation but to filter down who has access to opportunities. Their ideas about what works or doesn’t are bad, and largely driven by the culture they are apart of. They worship elitism and credentials, but will the respect for those who are willing to do the work. It’s inherently extractive. They add nothing. Want to kill a business? Take VC money.

Its an excellent way to cash out of a mediocre idea. Also an excellent way to elevate a mediocre idea from a regional/niche/insider scam to a national stage.

[-] Taringano@lemm.ee 30 points 8 months ago

Kind of right but of course it's not just a filter to make sure the right kind of people get funded.

But it is a bet that only matters if it pays 100 or 1000x. If it's not paying that it's as good as 0. That's why, most of the times, vc money does not benefit the company, unless it manages to have that insane level of growth. It's also frequently not in the best interest of the founder.

[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 29 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

This right here has been my experience with VC. I was working for an online retail startup when 9/11 happened. Within days, we were all called into the office to be told we were shutting down because the VCs pulled our funding. This despite the fact that we were only two months away from projected profitability and beating our sales projections every single month. But we weren't the biggest paying bet in the casino, so they dumped us when the cash flow got tight.

That would have been a successful company, but it wasn't good enough for the VC class.

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

Like most elements of our meritocracy

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 59 points 8 months ago

For everyone debating numbers, billionaires, millionaires, whatever. The absolute numbers are irrelevant, what matters is the wealth gap. If the absolute top of the wealth pyramid, 0.01%, earns more than the bottom 5% combined, it's a problem. A bigger ratio means more wealth concentration, or inequality, whichever term you prefer. The 1% controlling nearly half the wealth of any place, whether city, state or nation, should sound all alarms to do something ASAP to reduce the inequality.

Which never happens, because when you have that much money, you call the shots. Capitalism became a neofeudalism.

[-] Sanyanov@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago

I'm gonna say what the author - as well as many here - don't dare to.

We all know modern capitalism is bad, many know capitalism in general is bad and its modern form is inevitable, but that's magically where people stop.

I'm gonna say it. We need to revisit socialism. This is the only way.

What ultimately helped to solve the issue luddites have raised is the rise of socialist agenda, the idea of secure workplace, fair pay, and technology bringing equal prosperity for everyone.

You can relate to socialism whichever way you want, but through the previous industrial revolution the socialist rise was the thing that finally delivered that prosperity, even in capitalist countries, and allowed people to actually benefit from progress. When first states turned socialist, we suddenly got fairer working conditions, free education and healthcare (except for redscared America), and yes - a giant boost in prosperity and equality.

Now, on the brink of the next technological revolution, we either allow those on the top to reap everything they can, or we fight back again to reclaim technology for the benefit of everyone. And socialism is the structure allowing us to do the latter.

We should return to that discourse, no matter how much red scare we face to this day. Saying capitalism is bad is not gonna hurt them. Saying "capitalism is bad, and here's an alternative" will.

[-] FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

I agree.

Like, more people should ask themselves, what is the function of a society? Is it to merely deliver wealth to the ruling class? Is it to create endless growth for corporations? Is it to maintain the status quo at all costs?

No, when all is said and done, the core fundamental of society should be the following, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" meaning, if you are able to be a good teacher/ doctor/ engineer/ farmer/ programmer/ writer etc etc then do that. Do what you do well. Society requires all of the above to function effectively. However, on the other hand, as a reward or payment for this, you should be guaranteed all the things that a human needs, like housing, education, medical care, heat, food, water, transport, electricity, internet access etc.

Make sure everyone has at least what they need, so that people can then focus on what they want and like.

Now, the above lacks nuance and is probably a huge over simplification, but I truly believe modern society should be more in line with this philosophy. But it's not. It is largely designed to send wealth and profit to the 1% and everyone else be damned. And there is no good justifiable reason for it.

Elon Musk bought Twitter for 43 billion. His standard of living didn't change not one iota after the transaction. All he's done is piss people off and drive away staff and users alike since then. He doesn't need 43 billion. Heck, he doesn't even need 1 billion. How many people could be given a home, an education, a clean bill of health with that money. It sickens me to think about it.

But then, if you mention socialism or communism or Marx or Engels, then suddenly, you are the devil incarnate. Like, we don't need to be saluting statues of Lenin or or adding a hammer and sickle to flags, but maybe just implementing legislation that undoes that money siphon from the working class and ensures people have what they need isn't such an evil idea ffs.

Anyhow, feel free to downvote, just my thoughts.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 27 points 8 months ago

What we have now is barely capitalism. Back in the day, companies actually competed. Microsoft wouldn't make a good version of Word for Mac, so Apple reverse engineered the format and created their own office suite that interoperated.

If anyone tried something like that now they'd get sued or get bought. In fact, the practice of simply buying potential competitors is fairly common. Facebook buying upstart social media app Instagram is just one example.

If there's no competition, markets can't work. And to have competition you need to let businesses fail. And to let businesses fail you need a robust safety net so people aren't destitute when some idiot like Musk drives a company into the ground.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

What we have now is barely capitalism.

We have some of the most naked and predatory methods of rent seeking imaginable. How on earth is this "barely" capitalism? It is quintessential capitalism. A near-perfect engine of consolidation, profit-seeking, and value growth.

Back in the day, companies actually competed

Competition isn't the goal of existing capitalist enterprises. It raises unit costs and dilutes profit. Competition is only a means by which a large enterprise temporarily undercuts a smaller local enterprise, until it is starved of revenue and fails. To quote Peter Thiel, "Monopoly is the condition of every successful business."

If there’s no competition, markets can’t work.

The purpose of markets is to marry nodes in the supply chain at an auction rate. But once the marriages are made, the market no longer serves a purpose. Markets are only a transitory vehicle leading to full vertical integration of the supply chain.

Once you've achieved a vertical monopoly, your business model pivots to maximizing margins by raising prices and lowering costs. That's how you maximize profits. And maximizing profits is the only real goal of a private business enterprise.

you need a robust safety net so people aren’t destitute when some idiot like Musk drives a company into the ground

You don't want a robust safety net in a capitalist system. Safety nets create a subsidy for unemployment - functionally a wage floor, beyond which people would prefer to be unemployed. Without the threat of poverty hanging over a worker's head, you won't get the lowest possible wage rate for their labor. This drives up costs and cuts into profits, which is antithetical to the goals of a capitalist enterprise.

Musk driving his business into the ground serves the end goals of a capitalist system overall (even if it marginally inconveniences Musk and his lenders in the moment). The failure of his firm releases workers into the unemployment pool and allows competitors to hire them at a discount - potentially displacing existing workers who command a higher salary. While Musk's business flounders, the overall auto market prospers. The profit generated in an individual vehicle sale rises, as supply of vehicles contracts - driving prices up - and cost of labor falls - driving unit costs down.

This is good for the surviving pool of capitalists. Its even good for Musk, over the long term, as a higher rate of profit means more cheap money in the investment pool that he can borrow from in order to pursue his next project.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jsdz@lemmy.ml 27 points 8 months ago

Who are all these extremist wackos who don't already want to abolish capitalism?

load more comments (75 replies)
[-] oakey66@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

I work in a consulting role and the company I am currently working for is a vc funded provider group specialty healthcare docs. It’s all about volume. They’re completely inept in the way they’re running the company. They are incapable of making decisions that need to be made for the future of the organization so they keep pushing them down the road and papering over the terrible fundamentals because for them it’s all about hoovering up practices to gain market power. Everyone is miserable and always fighting at the highest levels. No one has authority over the organization. And people in lower rungs of the org have some of the worst insticts and are rewarded for it. VCs are making bad businesses significantly worse. They all operate under the same fundamental logic:

Get big enough at all costs until you are undeniable.

Jack up prices.

Then reduce the labor force to reap short term profits.

Then sell off to a bigger player without any regard for how the chips fall.

Or keep getting so big that you are unmanageable.

Consumers suffer.

Rinse.

Repeat.

[-] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 10 points 8 months ago

Don't forget if you can get them to ipo, open a family office and setup some equity swaps with the bank to short over the float of the company without having to report it and rake in profit as they collapse from your untenable growth targets as well while letting the ip get gobbled up by your big chips and find the next sucker pitching his 'big idea'.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

Based on my experience with venture capital, I'm not convinced venture capital has ever produced anything worthwhile.

[-] EnderMB@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

Couldn't agree more. My takeaway from three years working at a VC is that investors are fucking idiots, and lying to get investment is basically normal.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 12 points 8 months ago

My favorite anecdote from "the cold start problem" is how zoom got funding not because they thought it was a good idea - the investors thought it was a solved problem - but because they were personally friends with the founder of zoom.

That's the quality of decisions we're dealing with.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] JewGoblin@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

lol oh yes billionaires care about ethics

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 months ago

But why would they want any change? You not going to talk these people out of been greedy sociopaths

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

I know they're just trying to sound clever but what a dumb framing. "Oh ho ho Greta Thunberg, you want immediate change, let's nuke the North Pole! Not so into immediate change now, are you?"

Obviously people don't want a thing that vaguely aligns with a phrase they use but which is 100% antithetical to their interests.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
708 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

55647 readers
2569 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS