[Defenestresque]

I disagree. The people you refer to did not hate Holmes/Enron/etc unilaterally because of a vague feeling that their talents were overestimated. They had, to use PG's term in the article, a dispute with them over a particular issue that they had picked up on, often as a result of having domain-specific knowledge that allowed them insight into their operations (i.e. that financials did not seem to be adding up for Enron or that Holmes's promised device would require significant breakthroughs in analysis that they thought she did not achieve given her evasiveness on technical questions).

[rjdagost]

Did you ever read about the obsessive determination with which Harry Markopolos worked to expose Bernie Madoff? He had a visceral obsession with Madoff, working for almost a decade to expose Madoff's scam. John Carreyrou likewise had a longterm fixation on exposing the Theranos scam. These weren't mere "disputes" over technicalities- they were all-consuming endeavors that became core to the identifies of the whistleblowers. They were most definitely "haters".

[johnwheeler]

That’s crazy. They weren’t haters.

In both cases there were career incentives that drove each to pursuing their targets. At no point did either say to themselves, I hate this fraud because why good on him/her and not me? They thought, I’m going to bust this crooks ass because this is a true injustice that should be exposed, and I’m going to be the one who benefits from doing it.

There’s a big difference between cheating and succeeding (that’s what I think haters don’t want to believe), and in some cases like the two you mention, it wasn’t just perceptual. There was hard evidence of fraud.

[danso]

What is your standard for determining that someone else is actually a "hater"? Because people like Carreyrou were most definitely considered "haters" by Holmes' supporters – Tim Draper in particular called Carreyrou "a hyena" [0].

Your reasoning that Carreyrou is not a hater because he had "career incentives" that drove him is not a sound argument. A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain. If you seek to destroy something by violating your own principles (e.g. journalistic truth), then you can be thought of as "hating"/"despising" that something, whether or not you personally gain from its destruction.

[0] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/bullied-into-submiss...

[johnwheeler]

> A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain.

That is exactly the thrust of PGs essay. Neither of those people violated their own principles. Holmes and Madoff are frauds. Full stop.

Tim Draper did consider Carreyou a hater. Draper was proven wrong the instant Carreyou was vindicated. Carreyou didn’t want Holmes to fail because “why her and not me” like Draper might have thought. He wanted her to fail, if anything, because she deserved to. Truly deserved to.

[danso]

Holmes and Madoff were frauds after sufficient evidence (including the consequences of their business practices) were made public and heavily scrutinized.

That said, I agree PG's essay isn't intended to be about people like Carreyrou, or the SEC investigators into Madoff, etc – I am confused about which real-life people of consequence he's actually thinking of, because it's strange to write an essay about such an abstract strawman.

But referring back to u/rjdagost's top comment, about totally disagreeing with the footnote that begins with "There are of course some people who are genuine frauds", and that PG's reasoning is unsound because Enron, Theranos, Madoff, etc. "were ALL widely celebrated by neutral third parties before being exposed as frauds"...people like Carreyrou were not seen as "neutral third parties". Again, with respect to Carreyrou, Draper and allies accused him of chasing a Pulitzer, i.e. advancing his career.

It's only through the passage of time and accumulation of evidence that people like Carreyrou are vindicated as being "neutral" or "objective". I guess this is a long way of saying that PG's essay feels like drawn out exercise of begging the question.

[philwelch]

> That said, I agree PG's essay isn't intended to be about people like Carreyrou, or the SEC investigators into Madoff, etc – I am confused about which real-life people of consequence he's actually thinking of, because it's strange to write an essay about such an abstract strawman.

The whole point of his essay is that haters are inconsequential and can safely be ignored. If you don't think these are real people who exist, spend more time on social media and they'll inevitably appear.

I think his essay is explicitly addressed less to those of us here in the peanut gallery and more to the people who accumulate haters.

[johnwheeler]

Sure maybe Carreyou wasn’t advancing his career. I should have said that was one possibility. It would be a noble pursuit because he did the world good.

[stanferder]

> I hate this fraud because why good on him/her and not me?

> Carreyou didn’t want Holmes to fail because “why her and not me”

Why is envy assumed to be the motivation of the "hater"? If I recall correctly, Markopolous was driven by the idea that cheaters shouldn't win. Is that any different than the "hater" who is driven by the idea that person/product/concept "X" is unworthy?

The world needs haters for the same reason it needs entrepreneurs. They're usually wrong, but sometimes they're right.

[johnwheeler]

I think you can qualify a hater as someone who wishes someone else would fail for no good reason other than making them feel better about themselves. Maybe that’s envy, maybe it’s not.

[irjustin]

PG's definition qualifies "uncritical". These examples of dogged hatred are extremely critical with merit.

I think we're all saying the same thing just fighting on semantics.

[gizmo]

But that's also true for those who call Elon Musk a fraud. Disputes such as "funding secured" (securities fraud), "full self driving coming later this year" (false advertising), booking warranty expenses as goodwill (accounting fraud), Musk's claim he had "recused himself" from the SolarCity acquisition when he hadn't (securities fraud).

These accusations of fraud are all truth-claims about the world. They are provable, or they may turn out to be false. But what cannot be disputed is that these are claims of substance.

pg argues that accusations of fraud are simply playground style insults lobbed towards those who are too successful by spiteful and bitter haters, who are mediocre and unaccomplished, and therefore not worth paying any attention to. I think that's way too dismissive.

[AndrewBissell]

PG has explicitly defended Elon Musk from criticism and what he considers "haters" before. It's who I thought he had in mind when I read his piece.

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1122987659079618563?...

Of course, when all these substantive points were raised to him on Twitter, he slinked off and didn't respond to a single one. PG also seemed to be implying that Tesla/Musk criticism was "too dedicated" or "too committed" to be organic, lending support to Musk's tactic of deflecting all criticism as oil industry funded propaganda.

[AnimalMuppet]

I don't think PG is talking about accusations that the person is engaging in fraud. I think he's talking about claims that the person is a fraud - that they have (to use the singer example) no actual talent.

If I claim that Tom Brady, say, defrauded someone, that's an accusation about actual deeds involving actual money. If I claim that he's a fraud, though, I'm claiming that he's not actually any good as a quarterback. That's a very different claim. One claim lives in the realm of objective facts about actions; the other lives in the realm of emotional reaction to success.

[anonymousab]

>If I claim that he's a fraud, though, I'm claiming that he's not actually any good as a quarterback.

For many people, calling someone a fraud is simply shorthand for saying they are a fraudster. Not that they have no talent, but that they commit fraud.

[mnl]

Well, it's a great way to shut down whatever criticism without saying "because I say so", at least not straight away.

[jasonmp85]

Is he arguing that or just asserting it because it’s uncomfortable for him to have to hear consistent criticism from people online in a way he was previously shielded from?

[aguyfromnb]

>that financials did not seem to be adding up for Enron or that Holmes's promised device would require significant breakthroughs in analysis that they thought she did not achieve given her evasiveness on technical questions

This is always obvious in hindsight.

But there are companies for which the "haters" are doing this sort of analysis right now, and they are regularly dismissed because "this time it's different" or because "they are on <insert lobby>'s payroll".