No, I'm saying fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck anyone that celebrates doing business with them. This was one of those little cash cows that Cloudant should have kept to themselves. Any PR person probably could've saw this coming.
I'm sure there are many evil corporate dealings in the world that would warrant such a "content-free rant"; however, those companies are smart enough not to celebrate their evil doings on a site as popular as HN.
Perhaps YC should provide media training: Item 1; keep your skeletons in the closet.
EDIT: Furthermore, Cloudant isn't supplying Monsanto with something as simple as a car. They, as they themselves put it, are fundamentally helping shape the way Monsanto does business.
I also find it troubling that instead of addressing the issue at hand, or at least providing a defense for this company, you instead ridicule your own userbase for putting my "content-free" rant at the top of this thread. That seems infinitely more content-free than anything I've added/not added to the discussion.
The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here.
Don't you see that you're insulting yourself by saying that you need to have news spun/censored for you in the way PR firms do? I noticed this in the comments about the recent Airbnb and Dropbox controversies too. People did not seem to grasp the irony of complaining that Airbnb and Dropbox were bad at PR.
"The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here."
A couple of things.
Why are we talking about the "PR issue"? I offered Cloudant an alternative reality where, if they insisted on being evil, that their evil doings be kept in the closet. It makes wise business sense if you're going to accept money from anyone under the sun. That has nothing to do with thinking like a PR person, nor does it have anything to do with having this article spun or censored. You seem to think this deal is ok, so I tried to provide a solution that suited your own interests.
However, it is perhaps ironic that by spinning your own comments to focus on these PR irrelevancies, you have successfully avoided providing any significant contribution. Worse yet, was the "PR spin" of yours by comparing Cloudant's strategic and "fundamentally business shaping" partnership with Monsanto to someone selling a car or a computer... I guess though that's not PR talk, that's politician talk. Expert level diversion.
Monsanto is a disgusting, despicable, horrible company of the worst variety. Should we give Cloudant a pass for dealing with these people because you have a vested interest? I will happily leave HN forever if you think that is the case.
Google started their company with the motto "Do No Evil." Ethics have a substantial place in business practice, so I don't see why they shouldn't have a place on HN.
I think sometimes tone is important. Both jubilantly celebrating a massive association with an incredibly awful company, and condescending to users by calling them stupid, don't really seem to serve anyone.
The problem isn't that they aren't spinning right, the problem is that it's pretty obvious that Cloudant doesn't care about working with evil companies, and that you're feeling somewhat disdainful of a lot of your users.
Both are unbecoming, and I think that's all people are trying to reflect (even if they are somewhat confused in how they frame their statements). People want to believe that you all aren't just smart, that you're good guys, so to speak, ie. that all the talk about "being good" isn't opportunistic, or that you aren't mean and reactive. I don't think either of those things matter particularly, and maybe they aren't germane to the kinds of conversations you'd hoped to be having, but I understand the impulse.
> The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here.
So, companies shouldn't spin, but people commenting here should?
That's not what you mean, I'm sure. But I'm pretty sure you can see how it would be easy to say the same thing you just said with the roles of company and commenter reversed and it would make the same amount of sense.
I see. It would have been preferable for Cloudant to do business with Monsanto as long as they never talked about it.
What possible difference could that make in the moral calculus? They're a small company that has found financial security in their contract, that's why they are making it public it.
I'm sure there are many evil corporate dealings in the world that would warrant such a "content-free rant"; however, those companies are smart enough not to celebrate their evil doings on a site as popular as HN.
Perhaps YC should provide media training: Item 1; keep your skeletons in the closet.
EDIT: Furthermore, Cloudant isn't supplying Monsanto with something as simple as a car. They, as they themselves put it, are fundamentally helping shape the way Monsanto does business.
I also find it troubling that instead of addressing the issue at hand, or at least providing a defense for this company, you instead ridicule your own userbase for putting my "content-free" rant at the top of this thread. That seems infinitely more content-free than anything I've added/not added to the discussion.