[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.

[stanferder]

I don't think it makes sense to include as unknowable as a hater's internal motivation as a defining characteristic.

Moreover even when there is "no good reason" initially, good reason might be found eventually. Scrutiny usually begins with the intuition that something doesn't add up, with the actual evidence arriving later. The "hate" for the fraudster precedes the exposure of the fraud.