<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>tptacek</author><text>Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better.&lt;p&gt;Do it and I&apos;ll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways to Partners In Health.&lt;p&gt;There&apos;s an idea common to forums that I don&apos;t frequent that I recently learned of called an &quot;ideological Turing test&quot;. The idea is to take a group of people divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a coherent argument that capture&apos;s the other side&apos;s perspective. Then everyone tries to tell, &quot;which is the real argument, and which is the cunning fake?&quot;.&lt;p&gt;In that spirit: if you think you understand what &apos;grellas is trying to say so well, go ahead and take a whack at saying it better, and demonstrate that you actually grok his perspective.</text><parent_chain><item><author>corporalagumbo</author><text>Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are focusing  on the weakest part of Greenspan&apos;s argument - the point where he comes closest to bitterness - I was wondering if you&apos;d like to invest $20,000 in my new venture. I&apos;d like to sell crack heroin to junkies in Detroit. I&apos;m sure as a fellow champion of guilt-free founder consciences, you will support my endeavour as I give gangbangers the chance to flock to this exciting new industry and do something they scarcely thought possible - to help give people a diversion from life&apos;s burdens and problems.&lt;p&gt;And don&apos;t worry, I&apos;ll do it with plenty of integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just like Zynga : )</text></item><item><author>grellas</author><text>&lt;i&gt;Institutional investors made the mistake - again, and again, and again - of validating Mark&apos;s duplicitousness by pouring literally billions of dollars into his company, and then billions more into startups seeking to emulate it. Some of their investments created out of thin air industries that contribute absolutely nothing to, and in many cases even detract from, society. . . . Most mind-boggling of all, it&apos;s been clear for a long time that Mark&apos;s &quot;social&quot; business model doesn&apos;t work anyway: venture capital returns are down, and not just a little bit. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost to society is enormous: with engineers and capital allocated to virtual-sheep-throwing, worthless advertising and sharing ad nasuem, almost a decade&apos;s worth of real innovations got the short end of the stick, including but not limited to mine.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;There needs to be a label placed on the idea of feeling the need to bow to the wishes of critics who try to limit the idea of valid entrepreneurship to activities deemed &quot;beneficial to society.&quot; I propose Founder&apos;s Guilt Complex.&lt;p&gt;Why on earth - when life is so big and beautiful and complex - should I feel guilty if I make money from an activity that does nothing more than give people a diversion from life&apos;s burdens and problems? College football may be a joke to pointy-head types but then reading Latin (my own peculiar idea of fun) is equally a joke to the cheering fans who join in inter-collegiate rivalries. Likewise for playing video games or hiking in the woods or listening to rock-and-roll or producing reality-TV shows or most any other activity you can name whose main goal is relaxation, entertainment, escape from life&apos;s burdens, or just plain self-indulgence. And social networking is no exception. I may not do much on Facebook (I don&apos;t) but so what? Others can and do like to share things with people of varying degrees of relationship to them and more power to them for liking to do this. It is their choice. It is a free country. It is not for me to be a scold who upbraids them for doing so. Nor should I be crabbed or pinched about what founders choose to do to create and market products and services designed to satisfy such proclivities or to make money from them.&lt;p&gt;Yes, I can set about in life to conquer diseases or to abolish poverty or to alleviate people&apos;s suffering and all such things are ennobling. I can do such things via a profit-making venture or I can make my money on other things and then use it to advance higher goals through giving. Or I can devote time and energy to helping others in my personal life. All of that is great but it hardly defines the boundaries of worthwhile human activity. Life has enough problems without having someone of a judgmental spirit continually taking us to task for wanting to have some fun as well or for trying to promote fun things for others. In a free society, there is room for fun things as well and for those who see it as worthwhile to take risk in building companies that seek to market less-than-weighty things to the public.&lt;p&gt;Life certainly can be perverse. In 17th century England, as modern western society was taking shape, you had, on the one side, royalists who despised political freedom, who valued rule by a church hierarchy, and yet who were much given to licentious habits in their lifestyles while, on the other, you had those who agitated for political freedom, who fought oppressive forms of centralized rule, who ultimately broke away to form what became America, and yet who in their personal lives bore the grim face of the puritan that sought at every turn to chain, quarter, and shame everyone all about who thought it might be fun to dance or to have a little fun in life. It seems that in our modern society we have ported over the spirit of the puritan in castigating others even as we have won the freedoms that allow us under law to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, if the pursuit of happiness was deemed a worthy goal of a society&apos;s founding documents, far be it from me to stand grim-faced telling others that they should feel guilty in not conforming to my narrow view of acceptable life activities - and that &lt;i&gt;includes&lt;/i&gt; how I choose to make my living or start my business.&lt;p&gt;I don&apos;t think this is a mere technical issue either. I believe that no guilt or stigma should attach to ventures doing legal things just because they don&apos;t set out to solve World Problems. The poor have always been with us. So too have wars, rapes, and murders. Ditto for disease and death. I am the first to say &quot;bravo&quot; to those who do not sit resigned to accept all these destructive elements in life but who instead spur themselves to do something to help make things better not just for themselves but for the broader society too. That said, such activities cannot be the only things that define our goals in life, nor should they be. There is value in having enjoyment and fun in life and this is a transcending value that betters society. In the entrepreneurial world, there is no room for a spirit of self-righteousness. Therefore, I say away with Founder&apos;s Guilt Complex. If you want to do a venture, do it honestly and with integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just don&apos;t let others tell you that you should feel guilty about offending their scruples. Enjoy and make it work without guilt. You can deal with Weighty Issues too if you are so led. Just don&apos;t listen to those who say that what you are doing is not worthwhile unless it is narrowly confined to them.&lt;p&gt;So if the VC industry chose to pour all kinds of money into creating something called social networking, and if all kinds of talented engineers have flocked to that industry in pursuit of money or other personal goals, that is by definition a great benefit to society because it has given many, many people the chance to do things that were scarcely thought possible just a decade ago - and to derive simple pleasures from the diversions or other benefits afforded to them through such networking. Whatever the flaws associated with individual people or companies in such an industry, there is nothing whatever wrong with those who devoted their money and their efforts to making all this possible.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Lost Chapter</title><url>http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=80</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>lifeisstillgood</author><text>In a free society, he is free to write as much as he likes and you are free to neither read nor reply to it.&lt;p&gt;The base of his argument is offending a persons &lt;i&gt;preferences&lt;/i&gt; is not sufficient to self censor ones own actions - and I agree.&lt;p&gt;I also agree where he said any &lt;i&gt;legal&lt;/i&gt; start up is fine and free of guilt - but don&apos;t worry I would be behind any start up or government initiative that &lt;i&gt;gave away&lt;/i&gt; heroin to Junkies.  The so called British System worked very well for many years, until the Puritan guilt pressure ended it in spite of empirical evidence that harm reduction did in fact reduce harm&lt;p&gt;so convert your start up to social entrpreneur status, and go make something to be proud of&lt;p&gt;the only reason to feel guilty is to have talent to create and not do so.</text><parent_chain><item><author>corporalagumbo</author><text>Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are focusing  on the weakest part of Greenspan&apos;s argument - the point where he comes closest to bitterness - I was wondering if you&apos;d like to invest $20,000 in my new venture. I&apos;d like to sell crack heroin to junkies in Detroit. I&apos;m sure as a fellow champion of guilt-free founder consciences, you will support my endeavour as I give gangbangers the chance to flock to this exciting new industry and do something they scarcely thought possible - to help give people a diversion from life&apos;s burdens and problems.&lt;p&gt;And don&apos;t worry, I&apos;ll do it with plenty of integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just like Zynga : )</text></item><item><author>grellas</author><text>&lt;i&gt;Institutional investors made the mistake - again, and again, and again - of validating Mark&apos;s duplicitousness by pouring literally billions of dollars into his company, and then billions more into startups seeking to emulate it. Some of their investments created out of thin air industries that contribute absolutely nothing to, and in many cases even detract from, society. . . . Most mind-boggling of all, it&apos;s been clear for a long time that Mark&apos;s &quot;social&quot; business model doesn&apos;t work anyway: venture capital returns are down, and not just a little bit. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost to society is enormous: with engineers and capital allocated to virtual-sheep-throwing, worthless advertising and sharing ad nasuem, almost a decade&apos;s worth of real innovations got the short end of the stick, including but not limited to mine.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;There needs to be a label placed on the idea of feeling the need to bow to the wishes of critics who try to limit the idea of valid entrepreneurship to activities deemed &quot;beneficial to society.&quot; I propose Founder&apos;s Guilt Complex.&lt;p&gt;Why on earth - when life is so big and beautiful and complex - should I feel guilty if I make money from an activity that does nothing more than give people a diversion from life&apos;s burdens and problems? College football may be a joke to pointy-head types but then reading Latin (my own peculiar idea of fun) is equally a joke to the cheering fans who join in inter-collegiate rivalries. Likewise for playing video games or hiking in the woods or listening to rock-and-roll or producing reality-TV shows or most any other activity you can name whose main goal is relaxation, entertainment, escape from life&apos;s burdens, or just plain self-indulgence. And social networking is no exception. I may not do much on Facebook (I don&apos;t) but so what? Others can and do like to share things with people of varying degrees of relationship to them and more power to them for liking to do this. It is their choice. It is a free country. It is not for me to be a scold who upbraids them for doing so. Nor should I be crabbed or pinched about what founders choose to do to create and market products and services designed to satisfy such proclivities or to make money from them.&lt;p&gt;Yes, I can set about in life to conquer diseases or to abolish poverty or to alleviate people&apos;s suffering and all such things are ennobling. I can do such things via a profit-making venture or I can make my money on other things and then use it to advance higher goals through giving. Or I can devote time and energy to helping others in my personal life. All of that is great but it hardly defines the boundaries of worthwhile human activity. Life has enough problems without having someone of a judgmental spirit continually taking us to task for wanting to have some fun as well or for trying to promote fun things for others. In a free society, there is room for fun things as well and for those who see it as worthwhile to take risk in building companies that seek to market less-than-weighty things to the public.&lt;p&gt;Life certainly can be perverse. In 17th century England, as modern western society was taking shape, you had, on the one side, royalists who despised political freedom, who valued rule by a church hierarchy, and yet who were much given to licentious habits in their lifestyles while, on the other, you had those who agitated for political freedom, who fought oppressive forms of centralized rule, who ultimately broke away to form what became America, and yet who in their personal lives bore the grim face of the puritan that sought at every turn to chain, quarter, and shame everyone all about who thought it might be fun to dance or to have a little fun in life. It seems that in our modern society we have ported over the spirit of the puritan in castigating others even as we have won the freedoms that allow us under law to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, if the pursuit of happiness was deemed a worthy goal of a society&apos;s founding documents, far be it from me to stand grim-faced telling others that they should feel guilty in not conforming to my narrow view of acceptable life activities - and that &lt;i&gt;includes&lt;/i&gt; how I choose to make my living or start my business.&lt;p&gt;I don&apos;t think this is a mere technical issue either. I believe that no guilt or stigma should attach to ventures doing legal things just because they don&apos;t set out to solve World Problems. The poor have always been with us. So too have wars, rapes, and murders. Ditto for disease and death. I am the first to say &quot;bravo&quot; to those who do not sit resigned to accept all these destructive elements in life but who instead spur themselves to do something to help make things better not just for themselves but for the broader society too. That said, such activities cannot be the only things that define our goals in life, nor should they be. There is value in having enjoyment and fun in life and this is a transcending value that betters society. In the entrepreneurial world, there is no room for a spirit of self-righteousness. Therefore, I say away with Founder&apos;s Guilt Complex. If you want to do a venture, do it honestly and with integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just don&apos;t let others tell you that you should feel guilty about offending their scruples. Enjoy and make it work without guilt. You can deal with Weighty Issues too if you are so led. Just don&apos;t listen to those who say that what you are doing is not worthwhile unless it is narrowly confined to them.&lt;p&gt;So if the VC industry chose to pour all kinds of money into creating something called social networking, and if all kinds of talented engineers have flocked to that industry in pursuit of money or other personal goals, that is by definition a great benefit to society because it has given many, many people the chance to do things that were scarcely thought possible just a decade ago - and to derive simple pleasures from the diversions or other benefits afforded to them through such networking. Whatever the flaws associated with individual people or companies in such an industry, there is nothing whatever wrong with those who devoted their money and their efforts to making all this possible.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Lost Chapter</title><url>http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=80</url></story>