I was literally talking to the CEO of Substack last night about how startups attract haters as an automatic almost physics-like consequence of growth, and wondering how long it would take before they did.
Show this thread
-
Maybe it's also that many fast growing start ups do this by exploiting someone? Or have other questionable business practices?
They don't have any more questionable business practices than a million random small businesses you never hear about. Size is the driver of attention, not degree of questionability.
-
-
Brilliant revert.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you take über, lift, or Airbnb, they all had negative effects.
-
Sure, just not net negative.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@matthewstoller’s theory is big=bad automatically. Big co’s wield outsize influence on political processes. Google’s lobbying or FB as a conduit for Russian influence on 2016 election. People might now instinctively grok that, even if not fair to apply to every growing startup. -
Could one simply argue that every company has bad side-effects; it's just that big companies have big side-effects? When the side-effects are big, everyone notices them. Seems parsimonious to me.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
But doesn’t size beget the requirement for a certain degree of responsibility and attention to making sure there are as few faults to find as possible? “With great power comes great responsibility”...
-
So, small mom and pops business can be irresponsible while gigantic amazon must be responsible?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.