Accepted and ghosted: interviewing for a leadership position at Stripe

I am not sure about "HN code of conduct" here, but personally I dislike serious allegations posted anonymously and without any proof to back it up.

You may well be right, but posting these kinds of things this way is best way for HN to devolve to be unusable for any serious discussion on anything.

--

EDIT: (I can't answer any more because I am being throttled by HN for posting "low value content").

How hard do you think it is to create multiple fresh, throwaway HN accounts to post "corroborating" comments?

I dislike these comments not because I think they are incorrect but because if this is the discussion standard we accept it is basically open season for trolling.

Because of the power dynamic they have to do this. It is sad, but having been in a similar situation with a billionaire, you can't say it with your name attached.

Everybody can say that. Regardless of whether they are or are not leading a large company.

For all I know, one insider holding a grudge could be creating multiple accounts claiming to be leading large companies and thus not being able to divulge their names.

That sounds like a pretty fair position. It does seem difficult, on the other hand, because I don't think we really have mechanisms to protect whistleblowers as a society. The options seem like stay silent, speak out anonymously (clearly subject to abuse), or speak out publicly with the threat of retribution. None of these feel like great options.

Having anybody be able to create a noise of slanderous comments seems like absolutely worst option to me.

I personally back my posts by my real name and I think this is fair. If I did not feel safe posting something important, I would make sure to include proofs. If I can't include either, I keep my mouth shut.

Proof could even include some examples of stories that were quashed, or other examples of abuse. I don't think they necessarily need to out themselves to make a stronger case.

If this were a standard we stuck by any number of famous instances of gross misconduct would remain unknown to us.

Think about this: without any proof or name to back the claim, the only purpose the post serves is to (possibly) slander a person.

As a bystander you have no way of knowing who is right. There is a huge disparity between the person being slandered and the person trying to post slander.

The person being slandered can't defend themselves due to either volume of it or just impossibility of proving you haven't done something.

On the other hand person posting slander can quickly create multiple usernames and crate a lot of "content" looking like a discussion.

An exception could be a criminal case (when it might be ok to both stay anonymous and not have a proof, because of an important reason like public safety). But even in such case Police or whatever other official will try to confirm the claim in some way.

---

emodendroket: I can't respond because I am being throttled by HN (for apparently posting low value content).

Again: how do you know these are actually separate people? Without any real name on it there is no way for you to know.

Do you think trolls haven't thought about it?

Another possibility is that many more people come forward, making it less and less plausible that it's baseless slander.

Totally agree, it kind of sucks to have to do this. But this is sadly the world we live in. People like the Collison's and Stripe have immense power to ruin people and companies, and there are a lot of ruined bodies in their wake. So there is zero chance myself or anyone will do anything publicly.

Hard to give proof on this, so I understand how everything needs to get taken with a grain of salt. The only thing I can say is to talk (or just email) any fintech company founder in the states and I'm 100% sure they will privately agree with what I've posted.

Dislike? Sure. See the need for? Also true.

Especially considering these are corroborating messages (two of them), I am quite fine with this.

As a leader of a competing company, attaching your name to messages like those would be quite the bold and risky act (and likely not in line with duties to investors and shareholders, etc.)

Well you're a stronger person than me!

I'm not trying to be slanderous or have a hit piece. They've clearly been immensely succesful (much more than me!). However, there is a veneer around Patrick and Stripe that needs to be broken. So many founders and employees look up to a false image that has been purposely crafted and is completely false. I'm not going to say that Patrick and John are bad people - but they're definitely not good, honest or kind. And they are definitely not who their online profiles, hn and the media would portray. Is an anonymous post the best way to show this - absolutely not, so down for other ideas.

It doesn't really matter who you are, you could still be a paid shill.

Or do you have some way to definitively prove that you are not on pc's payroll?

Paranoia goes both ways, and I think it's sufficient to just have the reader use their best judgement...otherwise we'll just always be in an endless spiral of "no puppet no puppet you're the puppet."

Just today I was reading a post that said "Stripe is a startup no one seems to hate" [0]. No matter how you cut it, that's clearly incorrect based on the discussion here. So, I fully believe this is a PR engine in motion.

[0] https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/11-big-things-the-35b-st...

This is a role that I think journalists have more traditionally played. Source is known to the journalist but anonymous to the public and the public then chooses whether to trust the named journalist who is representing the nameless source.

However, with forums, I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe having verified accounts reporting on behalf of anonymous accounts, because the current way, I just have to trust an anonymous account and with how easy it is to defame people anonymously because of no ultimate accountability, I tend to view anonymous posts skeptically. With the journalist way, there isn't anonymity but rather veiled identity, because it's ultimately traceable.

Disagreed. It’s clear it’s a throwaway and they’re saying unsubstantiated things, but the readers can make their own minds up about what to believe in and what not to. I like HN to get the insider scoop, precisely this type of comment. I’m not gonna hate on stripe or PC, but now I’ll know to look a little more carefully at someone asking questions about my future company (lol) to see what their intentions maybe. What’s wrong with that?

That’s a privileged stance that is not always practical. When you’re subjected to injustice (or just not-cool move) by a party with significant power imbalance, and known history of retaliation, what do you do? Just sit silently and take it?

Be it professional or social, many people are disadvantaged in their ability to express their opinions freely without retaliation, and any “you have nothing to hide or you’re just a coward” attitude only comes off as insensitive to others.

When everyone's pseudonymous, how much credibility do multiple allegations have?

There's many other ways for you to share some of your story, without revealing too much.

> If I did not feel safe posting something important

So far so good...

> I would make sure to include proofs.

Why do you imagine GP's comments could be made public under their own name if they included proof, given the concerns they have put forward? Their company could still be ruined by Stripe afterward, no amount of proof will change that. A court cannot force them to accept payment traffic as long as they pretend to refuse them for a different reason.

> If I can't include either, I keep my mouth shut.

This is how dictators and other perpetrators of abuse stay in power. In essence, you are colluding with them by keeping what they do a secret on purpose.

Actually, what you defend is how dictators work today. Throw unsubstantiated allegations around, make everything moot in deluge of conflicting information.

Sorry but even if the anonymous OP allegations are all completely true, so what? I don't see anything there that Stripe did that was illegal - only aggressive/predatory along the lines of what happens daily in business. You could probably google up multiple examples without ever leaving the first page of results.

If I were a Stripe investor I would honestly be validated that the leadership is acting so boldly in the company's favor.

Maybe speak to a prominent journalist anonymously?

How can I be a paid shill?

I am not giving any facts or creating impression I know any facts.

I am just discussing the general process of what is and what is not ok to post online anonymously.

> I like HN to get the insider scoop, precisely this type of comment.

How can you treat it as "insider scoop" if there is no way to tell whether the facts are true or the person is what who they claim to be?

Would you accept that level of journalism? We can see what journalism does to society when you forgo any checks on the fact or the provenance. Just watch Fox News and come back to tell what you think about it.

If you are taking unsubstantiated, anonymous posts as facts you are just easy to manipulate.

Well, I am not saying you are, but it's not really that hard to imagine that someone would pay a "troll farm" to write facially reasonable concerns that cast doubt on what are actually true allegations of misconduct. It's no less plausible than a competitors paying a troll farm to post false allegations.

It depends; if we started hearing from long-active community members I would be inclined to think the allegations are pretty strong.

Well, for starters, what if I wanted to discredit any negative opinions, so I paid a team to work on that for me? Wouldn't that team want people to also post arguments like you are, where in principle it sounds reasonable (because your position is) but the source and scale were not?

Like, I could see some merit in convincing people that they aren't "allowed" to post anonymous criticism as a means of quieting bad press.

I am not taking these things as gospel, I’m not sure why it’s hard to grasp that you can hold different pieces of information at different levels of trustworthiness. Of course whatever that person said is hearsay, I’m not gonna form an inviolable judgement on stripe just from it. It’s another piece of information though.

Perhaps for someone in a small town who’s brain is half dead unsubstantiated facts become reality but I’m hoping to be in a place where I’m afforded more freedom to form my own opinions on things from what others say.

Well, we would all like to think we are intelligent people and resistant to being manipulated.

There are studies that show that most people think they are resistant to marketing ads.

There are also studies that show that ads are effective on almost everybody.

> I’m hoping to be in a place where I’m afforded more freedom to form my own opinions on things from what others say

It is not the problem with freedom to form your opinions, it is the problem with the process of forming those opinions.

Unfortunately, most people form their opinions by accepting "facts" that already agree with what they know, feel or believe and by refusing most of what is conflicting with it.

And this thread shows this. People are already suspicious of the person or the company and so they will gladly skip the logical process and accept as facts something that is not even hearsay (hearsay still requires that you have a person testifying they heard something, which we don't have here because the poster is anonymous).

All valid points but isn’t this the fundamental perennial fight with freedom of speech? Of course this is a private forum but from what I can see it’s at least trying to be open. The benefits of letting people make unsubstantiated claims (as long as they are not inciting) seems fair to me is all.