Its amusing to me to see the tech industry continue to play the underdog card. "We don't need anyone's permission (not when we have the full backing of Wall Street, the advertising industry, and some of the most profitable corporations in the world)."
You saw this with SOPA and PIPA. A "grassroots" movement, supported by a slate of tech companies, some of which are by themselves comparable in size to all of Hollywood.[1] I support the position, I support the underlying message, but I find the pretense rather silly.
[1] Global Hollywood box office and DVD revenues are about $90 billion (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2012/how-much-does-hol...). Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are listed as opposing SOPA, and are each in the $50-$80 billion range. Apple, which stayed neutral on SOPA but is usually more aligned with the content distributors than the content producers, is about twice the size of Hollywood at $170 billion.
Not to mention, the debatably distasteful choice of advertising his 'Hipmunk' startup so blatantly under the pretense of supporting startups. And you're definitely not the underdog when you're a repeat-founder who's raised $20 mil in funding, and were a graduate of the most prestigious startup incubator in the valley.
Alexis is not the tech industry. This is a guy doing a book tour. And as for SOPA, while some companies opposed it, the opposition to it was far more grass-roots than the support for it.
Isn't this submission about Y Combinator joining him on that book tour?
> We’re thrilled to announce that Y Combinator will be joining Alexis Ohanian on the road starting next week for the Without Their Permission tour.
I think this is how a lot of people here will inevitably read this: The most famous startup incubator is going to be joining Alexis, a well-liked guy, Reddit cofounder, on a tour to promote his book (and by extension, the personalities of the participating parties themselves -- this is just the nature of promotion tours, you don't just raise the profile of a book, album, or movie, you're also raising the profile of the parties involved). The first three stops are Harvard, MIT, Tufts. At each stop there are successful YC alums telling budding entrepreneurs that YC is the way to go. Something I don't necessarily disagree with because I like YC, I'm just pointing out that it's perhaps a bit disingenuous to reduce what's going on here to "just Ohanian's book tour".
From YC's blog: "The tour celebrates Alexis’s recently published book, Without Their Permission, a 'blueprint and rallying cry for entrepreneurship.'"
Ohanian's message is: "you don't need 'their' permission to found a tech start up." No, of course you don't. You have the full weight of "their" support. Admittedly, Ohanian isn't the tech industry, but he's hardly the only one playing the underdog card. I guess it helps with recruiting or something.
It becomes less amusing when the same industry, start-ups and tech giants alike, apply the same "without their permission" attitude to governments trying to protect their citizen's civil rights.
Just because you're a tech company and your opponent is a government, doesn't mean you're on the "right" side of every fight.
I understand what you're saying, because that has merit too, but the point of the book is that you don't need to wait for permission to get off your ass and build the idea you've been wanting to. It's easier now than ever before.
Ethics? In my science and technology? I'm sorry, I'm too busy bootstrapping my lean startup gearing up for a long runway so I can exit right before the pivot. I'm sure someone else like the EFF can figure out the ethics part. I'll just cut them a check.
"Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology!
Ain't got time to make no apology"
-Iggy Pop
There are people who work on the ethics of science and technology full time and they are awesome. If every technologist worked on ethics full time nothing would ever get done. I recommend checking out the work of the STS department of MIT though Open Courseware if you are interested in ethics.
Also, if there is actually something unethical going on, it's best to enunciate it using straight/clear prose following the satire if you actually want to affect the external world.
The introduction to the book is ripe with a myopic optimism wrt. the egalitarian effects of the Internet. It doesn't touch the inequalities in the redistribution of wealth in the technology sector, the secondary effects it's having on unskilled labor and the social impact of a hyper-competitive market of over-achievers. It's a little off-putting but the author is highly successful and a philanthropist so I'm looking forward to see if he is capable of drawing any interesting conclusions by the end of it.
Given the reviewers of the book however I think that curiosity has certainly bested me this time.
Economic inequality is a broad concept and only one in which I don't think the Internet is playing as positive a role as Alexis is bragging about in the introduction to this book. I know the Internet has made some people rich but it's not as flat and egalitarian a world as his optimism and unbridled enthusiasm seem to admit.
However I am reserving any conclusions until I've finished reading it.
Thought experiment: Without the Internet, where would the recent 20,000 new IPO-based millionaires in SF/SV have come from? What else would they be doing?
From the book itself (this excerpt happens to come from the conclusion):
By the way, being entrepreneurial is not limited to entrepreneurs. The last part of this book is a testament to that. Charles Best, Debby Guardino, Zach Anner, Zach Weinersmith, Lester Chambers, and countless participants in the fight against SOPA and PIPA wouldn’t necessarily be thought of as traditional entrepreneurs, but in spirit, they are undoubtedly entrepreneurial. They’ve found success because they could use this great equalizer—the open Internet—to spread their ideas, find their audiences, and ultimately surmount traditional barriers.
The open Internet is not a magic wand, but as a technology it has the potential to do tremendous things—to allow awesome people to reach their full potential. It is ultimately incumbent upon us, as builders and users of this platform, to see that it lives up to its own full potential. As we look, wide-eyed, into the future, let’s remember that the baggage of our society comes with us online. While the Internet as a technology is flat, as long as all links are equal, the world we live in is still full of inequality. Most of my now-lionized peers, the founders of the Internet’s original startups, are straight white young men. But as it turns out, the world is not full of only young straight white guys—in fact, far from it. What excites me so much about this technology is how it democratizes knowledge as well as distribution. But the system lives up to its full potential only if all of us have access and the skills to make the most out of it.
In sum, it’s not enough to just go forth and create without asking anyone’s permission, or to help others who are trying to do the same. Like the Internet itself, we are greater than just the sum of our parts. We’re not yet taking full advantage of all our parts, but we get closer every day, thanks to all the individuals and organizations striving toward it. Think of all the genius the world has missed out on simply because otherwise-awesome people got bad “life lottery” tickets. It motivates me and many more to work toward building an open Internet, if for no other reason than it’s going to mean better stuff—better businesses and better nonprofits, better artists and better activists, and, yes, even better politicians. It’s going to enable awesome people to actually be awesome in a way that they couldn’t have been before.
Remember, this is just the beginning. Everything I’ve written about has happened only in the last decade, which is but a moment given the speed of innovation online. Imagine what this next decade will bring. Every child who grows up with an Internet connection and the skills to make the most of it is yet another potential founder, or artist, or activist, or philanthropist, or . . . I don’t know, that’s just it: I can look her in the eyes and tell her that she doesn’t need to ask anyone’s permission to go learn about the printing press, or start publishing her photography, or rally her community to fix a dilapidated playground, or begin working on the next big thing.
No, none of these things are going to be easy, but I’m certainly not going to be the one to tell her she can’t do them.
Let me put it this way: if the Industrial Revolution changed the world, the current revolution, powered by software and the Internet, is destined to do the same, but far more democratically. Instead of opening a factory, you need only open your laptop.
I hope you’re convinced. And more important, I trust you’ll do something good with that conviction. Spread the word, give this book to someone who needs to read it, put your politicians on notice, and make things people love.
Does anybody know why Alexis is skipping the Southeast? I'd love to make it and we have some very big cities, but he's not headed for this direction according to the schedule:
I know we aren't hitting them all, but we are going to 77 schools (150+ stops) over 5 months, which is already unprecedented for a book tour. I wish we could go everywhere folks have asked, but there's only so much time I can take my team away from their lives and loved ones.
I guess I was assuming you'd target the top 20 largest cities. When you passed through North Carolina, for instance, you skipped over Charlotte. It's a solid 2 and a half hours away from Raleigh, so not an easy trip for students.
I also thought that was pretty lame. I tweeted at him about coming to the University of Alabama when he was asking about where to stop. If any area needs to know that disruption is not just an option, but absolutely possible, is the South.
I saw the talk at U of M. It was both insightful and entertaining. Unfortunately the Q&A was dominated by questions about Reddit. I wanted to hear your thoughts on bitcoin, but knew you'd never get through the line at the mics. Have you written about it anywhere? Ever thought of selling the book for BTC?
Do you see the 'donate bitcoins' link on the sidebar of http://withouttheirpermission.com/? That's because after the book dropped I started getting PMs on reddit from folks who had.. err.. acquired it ... and wanted to comp me. Pretty rad.
I'm an investor in coinbase.com and buttercoin.com, so I'm rather optimistic about bitcoin. I've spoken about this a bit to the media + in public:
No Southeast!
I guess that Georgia Tech, University of Georgia, Auburn, University of Alabama, Clemson, University of South Carolina etc. didnt give their Permission!
Alexis what do you think about shifting the startup capitalization process entirely to bit coin? Like what if I don't want to take fiat money investments and I don't want my shares to be listed on fiat stock exchanges? Maybe there should be some flag on Angel list or something to indicate whether investors are sophisticated/progressive enough to do a bit coin round or understand a bit coin based cap table.
I subsist on 100% locally mined and tumbled Bitcoins. All my bills including food, rent, and even my employees salaries are paid in Bitcoin. I am liberating them from the fiat prison camp and setting them free into the Cryptocurrency Paradise. I am Harriet Tubman 2.0 beta.
They used to post stuff on Posterous and when that was shut down, they moved to Posthaven (set up by one of the partners, Gary Tan, who was cofounder of Posterous).
It's not really a blog as such but more a collection of press/news about portfolio companies.
Are you guys just stopping at these places and hoping people come to you? Or do you have an event scheduled at each one? I'm specifically talking about Yale.
We have an event scheduled at each location, and we're scheduling additional office hours at a few of the stops. Shoot me an email at kat at ycombinator and I can get you more info about the event at Yale.
You saw this with SOPA and PIPA. A "grassroots" movement, supported by a slate of tech companies, some of which are by themselves comparable in size to all of Hollywood.[1] I support the position, I support the underlying message, but I find the pretense rather silly.
[1] Global Hollywood box office and DVD revenues are about $90 billion (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2012/how-much-does-hol...). Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are listed as opposing SOPA, and are each in the $50-$80 billion range. Apple, which stayed neutral on SOPA but is usually more aligned with the content distributors than the content producers, is about twice the size of Hollywood at $170 billion.