simonw
3 hours ago
"YC created X" is a bit of a misleading framing, as is "it's their company".
Flock were part of the YC Summer 2017 batch: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
"YC funded Flock" is a more accurate representation.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies lists 6,202 funded companies now. I'm sure anyone on HN could find at least a few there that they fundamentally disagree with.
jmathai
3 hours ago
YC funded Flock 10 years ago is even more accurate.
I get that Flock is now a pretty obnoxious company but it's hard to attribute that to YC.
hungryhobbit
3 hours ago
You're missing the point. If YC only funded one baby murdering startup, would you really argue "they funded 6,201 non-baby murdering startups, stop making such a big deal out of it"?
The point is, even VC's should have some moral standards, and should not make pursuing profit more important than supporting mass surveillance (in violation of one of America's most important founding principles).
simonw
3 hours ago
How about if YC funded a startup in 2017 that offered solar powered cameras to help prevent package theft, and that startup then later evolved into a nation-wide surveillance network?
(I personally am not a flan of Flock, and I've been worrying about the privacy impact of automated license plate readers for years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073385#43073939 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45996860#45997278)
hungryhobbit
3 hours ago
I hear VC funders have these things called "boards" that allow them to shape the companies they invest in.
(EDIT: and even when they don't, they own a major % of the company; that doesn't give them control, but it absolutely gives them a say in its future.)
In your scenario, the funders would be directly responsible (along with other investors) for growing the company in that direction ... again, for their own personal profit.
simonw
3 hours ago
YC's seed round funding does not get them a seat on your board.
They also don't own anything close to a controlling stake.