[dang]

YC does not go along with unethical practices. I'm not involved with that side of the business but they're serious about it and have disowned companies (by returning their investment and excluding them from the YC community) for being unethical.

I'm confused about what the issue in this case is. It sounds like some people are complaining that the product isn't open source because it's not self-hostable, while the founders are saying that it both is open-source and self-hostable? This sounds like a misunderstanding to me.

Even if it's not a misunderstanding, but rather a difference of opinion about how words should be used, that's not likely really an ethical issue. Rather, the definition of 'open source' is a classic flamewar topic that people regularly post zealous denunications about (including fiery charges of unethicalness and the usual "you should be ashamed" etc.). Of course this is not helpful—it just leads to flamewars, which are off topic on HN, and makes clear communication harder.

It does seem like "open core" is emerging as a term for startups that have open-sourceiness in some sense but not in every sense. That's one way to short-circuit flamewars and we've helped at least a couple YC startups launch themselves that way. But I don't know if it would be a solution in the present case because I don't understand what the issue really is.

(I'm not saying any of this because I think you personally need to hear it! I'm just posting it here out of caution, because if I jump into the argument directly, people will accuse me of putting a moderator thumb on the scale. We have to moderate HN less, not more, when a YC startup is involved: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...)

[tmpz22]

Simply put it hits a nerve because the community is inundated by companies saying one thing and doing another when if they had just been straight forward in the first place it would have been no big deal. These one-off dramatic events (like Google shutting down a minor service) and comments (like "it's Founders are highly unethical") are often small-fries or based on weak and ineffective arguments. But they are straws on the camels back and the camel is overburdened like a Valheim character carrying too many items.

I believe accusations of YC being unethical is a secondary affect of this zeitgeist as well. Whether it's the musings of PG or a portfolio company that goes off the reservations on extremely rare occasion, people connect the dots back through YC and see some culpability - even if YC's influence over poor decisions of founders is non-existent or contextually irrelevant. YC is in the supply chain and comments like "Startups often have to do slightly devious things" do not help.

Granted its unfair for Supabase or YC to be smeared by the general discontent of parts of the community. However it's also true that they are in positions of leadership and privilege (and candidly also often multi-millionaires) and should expect some flak as a result.

I think all Supabase's CEO or PR person should do now is post a short timeline outlining Supabase's public statements of being a self-hostable product (or lack thereof), clearly define the company's position at the time of any statement(s), clearly define what their position is going forward, and make a brief show of humility and apologize for not being as clear as they could be to their users. Granted this takes time, and its a singular internet comment evoking the response - but it would negate the negative sentiment and provide a basis for defending against similar statements in the future.

Anyways, I won't miss the opportunity to thank you for the support and moderation you do for the community, its been a valuable resource for me and I hope my personal perspective contributes to the general conversation.

[truetraveller]

Agree with what you said. I do not want to paint YC and PG as unethical, that would be wrong. I've reworded. Thanks for the write-up.