Did you know? Babson was once again named the #1 school for entrepreneurship by U.S. News & World Report. And we’d like to reward you for sharing the power of entrepreneurship.
There is a belief among some investors that “the timeline, order of operations, and mechanisms of going public need to change” which is why Direct Listings are needed. You see the rules for IPOs were established about a century ago and have not kept pace with many of the trends and changes in today’s capital markets. (Bullshittake!!!). Ice cream has been made the same way for centuries.
I am the proud parent of two teachers, both of whom have Masters degrees relevant to their chosen profession. So, you can imagine my shock when I recently read that the average salary for a worker on the San Francisco “Poop Patrol” is $71,760.00. When combined with benefits a member of this squad can make $184,000.00 per year in salary and benefits! Neither of my children make anywhere close to this amount of money annually.
It has been a while since I’ve witnessed capital destruction the likes of what the botched We IPO hath wrought. Perhaps We (Won’t) IPO is a better way to put it. One month ago We filed an S1 and the estimated value of the company being discussed was $47 billion. Then after a few people who are clearly not suffering from the aftermath of one of the company’s parties took a critical look at the S1 and the attacks on We began to snowball until the valuation expectation fell by a mere $37 billion!
Not a week goes by when someone doesn’t ask me about stock option grants to founders and employees of their startup. The questions range from how much to give to founders and when to vesting schedules and everything in between. This week the following blog post showed up in my Medium thread.
This morning I awoke to the news that Woodstock 50 has been canceled. It’s probably a good thing, since sequels never are as good as the original. That said, the various anniversaries that have been celebrated this year got me thinking about what life was like for me 50 years ago in Silver Lake, an unincorporated swath of land sandwiched in between Belleville, Bloomfield and Newark, New Jersey.
Thirty years ago as a second-year student at Harvard Business School I had the privilege of interviewing Perot for the school newspaper, The Harbus News. I still have a micro cassette of the interview, but alas no player on which to listen to it. However, the book shelf in my home office sits a large format coffee table book that was gathering dust. In it was every issue of The Harbus published between February 1988 and January 1989. It took a lot of page turning, but I found the interview
Lot’s of political spaghetti is being thrown against the walls by 2020 Presidential hopefuls and Congress alike to see what might stick. This week’s hot topic is a call to break up big tech. Senator Elizabeth Warren was the first to call for break up back in March of this year. Now House Intelligence Chair (Yes, Congress is filled with oxymoronic names like this), Adam Schiff chimed in with a group of policymakers calling fro the repeal of protections afforded to tech platforms.
Fred Wilson recently expressed his displeasure with the thought of breaking up big tech in favor of opening up their platforms and treating them as protocols. I must admit it is a clever idea and one that wish I had come up with. However, I’m not sure if it solves the problem that has landed social media companies in the situation in which they find themselves. Privacy, or lack of it, and irresponsibility is the issue at large.
Though I do get a laugh watching Congressional leaders talk about SnapFace and Instabook, it does make me cringe to think that they are the policymakers for the rest of us. And like many issues that plague society today - opioid crisis, asset bubbles, student loan crisis - the roots are often found in misguided policies.
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
The act went into effect in 1996 when few in the world, let alone policymakers, even understood what the Internet was to become. Section 230 protects social media sites from getting sued for information that users publish on their platform. It basically grants them immunity that other news organizations do not have. There are some who contend that this law has had more to do with innovation and growth of the Internet than any other law. I guess if you feel strongly that giving voice to the banal is innovation then you are in this camp. I not sure that I agree.
So, lawmakers are now threatening to make broad changes to Section 230, but haven’t made any concrete proposals at this point. Other countries that have similar laws to Section 230, are now acting to make providers liable if they fail to take "effective and proportionate measures" to prevent users from uploading certain copyright violations and do not respond immediately to takedown requests.
When this law was enacted a bunch of what are now considered “big tech” social media companies didn’t even exist. So perhaps it was necessary to get the ball rolling. After all what would the average student do with all that time wasted watching their friends have a better time than they do? Read?
As I previously wrote, it will take years and cost millions of dollars to break up any one business. Amending Section 230 puts the onus on media companies to police themselves or face fines. Seems fair and equitable to me, but as always your opinions are welcome.
If you have never visited the northern coast of France, I highly recommend doing so before memories begin to fade and a new generation decides to whitewash history. To stand on Omaha Beach and look around is awe inspiring and humbling. From the waterline you can look left, right and center and still see the remnants of Nazi bunkers that contained 80mm cannons and 50 calibre machine gunners. Anyone who landed on the beach that day was greeted by enfilade fire that took the lives of over 12,000 men.