[balabaster]

> Any time a head-to-desk, business-null developer gets exploited, they say "just desserts"

This behaviour from anyone is just a really big black stain on humanity. It's one thing to leverage someone else's work for the gain of all, it's entirely another to totally exploit their good nature and hang them out to dry while you take all the benefit. Business is supposed to be a win-win-win situation not a win-but-screw-everyone-else-over-in-the-process situation.

While I can see that the author was incredibly naive, I can totally understand his naivete, having been burned like this myself in my earlier years. Being burned like this obliterates any trust you have for working with founders on future startups and makes for a potentially toxic working relationship in any similar situation.

Also, I think people's opinions of situations like this really lets their true colors shine through. Those who are victim blaming and shaming the author by pointing out the lack of apparent contract or that he should have known better are really just justifying the abhorrent behavior of the founders who have totally exploited someone else for their own material gain. The personality trait that lets you treat other people like that is sociopathic. Shame on them.

[RodericDay]

Hey, for what it's worth, I totally agree with you.

Yeah the guy was naive, but also, he's not asking for anything! All these people saying "suck it up and move on"... that's exactly what he did! They seem to be upset that he didn't just go out quietly.

[balabaster]

There could be any number of reasons why they show angst over this:

1. They've been burned like this before and didn't have the courage to stand up for what they believed in. The author's standing up for what they believe in throws this in their face.

2. They identify with those that exploit others and feel that their behavior is justifiable because the author "had it coming to him for being so naive."

3. They are happy to accept that this is just the way things are and deal with it rather than rock the boat for the benefit of everyone in it.

4. They perceive this as just another whiner that got screwed and they're sick of listening to it, but rather than do anything about it, they just tell the whiner to stop whining and suck it up.

5. They see this behavior works for co-founders because most victims slope silently away with their tails between their legs and hope that when they model this behavior, their victims will do the same.

I say kudos to the author for writing the piece. It sucks he had to learn that lesson the hard way. I hope things turn around for him going forward.

[adwn]

> Those who are victim blaming and shaming the author by pointing out the lack of apparent contract or that he should have known better are really just justifying the abhorrent behavior of the founders who have totally exploited someone else for their own material gain.

That's a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible to condemn the exploiter while also pointing out where the exploitee made bad decisions.

Analogy: Advice like "Don't insult random strangers" does not justify or excuse physical violence by people who have been insulted.

[balabaster]

It's not a false dichotomy at all.

When people's default position is "you should have known better and done better" towards the "exploitee" as you put it without any blame portioned to the exploiter, you're victim blaming, in the exact same way as the girl who got raped "had it coming to her because she should've known better than to walk around downtown dressed that way."

[JoeAltmaier]

Sure. But naieve? Worked for weeks on the project, but only talked about ownership for what, 3 seconds? That was galactically bad due diligence. Had they asked anybody for advice, that advice would have universally been "You're being played; get something on paper!"

[caminante]

Also, this is HIS side of the story. At that, it doesn't come off favorably.