I'd respect some of these people (like SamA, and Zuckerberg, and others) much more if they were consistent in their views.
These millionaires/billionaires who supported Sec. of State Clinton during her election, fully knowing the loss of Muslim life her actions caused abroad, now virtue signaling about Trump -- I just don't know how to take them seriously.
Another way to look at it is the problem that many people rely on the news to tell them when something bad is happening. If you don't analyze your sources constantly due to a variety of reasons, then you are suspect to being rendered blind simply by omission. If you don't realize how badly the media sphere has gotten polarized since the 2000s, it is easy to dismiss valid critiques as bad faith partisan smears. Consumption of the news in a single source method is a great way now to turn yourself into a partisan.
In the age of a non stop stream of content with an unprecedented amount of choice, it can be difficult people to exert the discipline needed to consume in a method that creates a nuanced world view. People have jobs, kids, and things they'd rather do than confronting and synthesizing opposing viewpoints. It's just easier to wrap yourself in a bubble rather than change your worldview. The destruction of the era of responsible, sober journalism due to the economic realities and consumption habits of people is wreaking havoc in our political system. It doesn't help that there are inherent biases in many journalists themselves.
We've placed an increased burden on the American population to sort through a cacophony of bias to create the truth. Is it a small wonder than considering people never had to before, we're falling so short now?
Another way to look at it is the problem that many people rely on the news to tell them when something bad is happening.
That is really true. The media doesn't report news, it interprets news for you as well.
Whenever I see an outrageous headline I always think "That sounds like BS. There is probably a pretty good reason for this happening."
A great example was the man who found a line on his hospital bill for "holding his baby". The outrage!! Those greedy hospitals!
Turns out that the hospital needed to have nurse in the room and that's just how they bill for that time. Completely innocuous and reasonable. But did the media dig that up? Of course not. No one would click on an article that said "Hospital bills man for nursing services."
Why the nurse? Were these people out on parole/probation/bail for child abuse? No, they were not. They are adults. They can hold their own baby without supervision, and obviously do as soon as they go home.
For eight years, Obama's detractors have been ranting how he's a spineless Muslim sympathizer because he's "afraid" of bombing his way through Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't think those internet warriors would have voted for Hillary Clinton.
So where are they now, and who are all these peace-loving people who suddenly came out of the woods in the last year to denounce Clinton for "loss of Muslim lives"?
If I had to rationalize their stand it's to signal to potential foreign startups that YC is taking a stand on their behalf --YC relies on a lot of foreign talent to drive their portfolio, so it stands to measure that they would have concern about any potential impact on their business model.
If they were concerned about poor immigrants, the ones without anything beyond basic elementary education, they'd be taking a stand against Japanese policies, Singaporean policies, Korean policies, Brazilian policies, etc. (given they project internationally). Of course they'll say they are an American company so they can only affect American policies -well, but obviously they care more than just for Americans given their display of concern, so it should not be a reason not to express concern abroad as well but they don't because it does not impact how potential foreign talent view them (i.e. the poor Indonesian trying to get a visa to work in Japan, Taiwan or China, is little concern of theirs.)
People in the US have been outraged since Bush's response to 9/11. To torture, to Guantanamo, to black sites, to the invasion of Iraq, to drones, to all manner of things. If you're going to cherry-pick items, be honest about doing so, or come up with a supported thesis as to why your chosen points are different from all these others.
There are a couple of things at work, here. One, you're restricting your view to only those on the internet. There are plenty of other places people express their outrage. Two, use and reach of the internet has only increased over time, amplifying the response you're seeing.
As for what you expect or would like Altman to express in his post, do you agree with his post and your issue is that it doesn't also address other points you'd like it to, or do you disagree with it entirely?
I suspect you'll find that it's a minority of people who hold all of the same values and prioritize them the same as you. Don't feel bad, I'm sure I'm in the same boat. That's why it's important to figure out how to work together on our common goals. Expressions like "I can't fathom how" lend themselves to a very close-minded view. On some level, you have an expectation that Altman is reasonable, otherwise I don't think you'd be expressing yourself the way you are. Even if you disagree with him, strive to understand him so you might better be able to engage with him and others who hold similar views, especially if you hope that they, in turn, will take you seriously. Dismissing those who don't toe the line on each and every issue is a great way to get nothing done.
Edit to respond to the above edit: I understand how the points are related in the larger picture, though they are separate points. Altman likely has reasons why he hasn't coupled them in a single blog post. It's not unreasonable for him to address them separately, even though you may wish for him to do so.
Obama or any of his predecessors campaign on drone strikes because Muslims? Anyone think Obama carried out drone strikes in order to attack Muslims? Or carried out drone strikes in order to exploit xenophobia for self-interested political reasons?