Hacker News Reader

Comment by pessimizer | Hacker News Reader

Are you seriously wondering why some people might think (although it hasn't been said once in this thread by anyone other than you) that taking people's money with an argument that you'll use that money to make more money, then failing to make any money might have a moral component?

Saying that Twitter expected success is just both a projection and an anthropomorphization on your part. As you are not psychic, and as Twitter is made up of a large number of people, not a person with expectations, you have no way of knowing if any of them expected success as they marketed themselves for more cash.

They either deceived investors or are failures. Take your pick. It's just odd that you can't even understand how someone could see a moral component to it.

View on HN

First of all, not sure I understand why you're being so hostile.

Next, why would a business failing to make a profit be immoral? What exactly is immoral about a business failing? If it is so obvious, maybe you can explain how it is immoral and exactly who is being immoral.

Next, it seems like you didn't understand what I meant when I said they failed to meet expectations. I meant the investors expectations.

Nothing is immoral about failing to make a profit.

However I think you're mistaking harsh criticism of Twitter's execution and return on investment, for a moral criticism.

Just as it is "ok" for a business to fail, it should also be "ok" for people to criticize that failure, especially if they believe that critical mistakes were made by the leadership they entrusted with their money.

They are failures because they didn't meet the goals they had set themselves and sold investors on. Either that or they are frauds because they never had any intention to meet the goals.

When did failing become immoral?

When did it become immoral to criticize failure?

A certain personality type sees failure as the only sin.

Then that personality type should also believe that "they were either defrauding their investors or they failed at what they wanted to do" doesn't prove immoral behavior -- they could have been defrauding their investors.

>It's just odd that you can't even understand how someone could see a moral component to it.

I'd assume they tried and failed. It's the simplest explanation. On the other hand, attributing a moral component to it implies deliberate malfeasance (such as deceiving investors), which would require evidence.

So, in the absence of that evidence, attributing a moral component to it would seem hard to differentiate from conspiracy theory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com