I can understand 3-4 people who are equals between themselves pulling this off, but with 24 people there's no way everyone likes the arrangement, so having everyone to be in it 24/7 is wrong.
I think it's safe to assume everyone there is pretty ok with it. It's not like anyone there doesn't have 3 recruiters/week asking them if they want a more traditional arrangement.
The negative reaction isn't because anybody thinks those engineers are being held against their will. It's to avoid the race to the bottom that could happen when some fad-addled PHB decides that nerd labor camps are the latest hot trend.
Mechanisms of social disapproval don't exist because anybody cares overmuch for the choices of a few people. They exist to forestall potential trends.
I'd say it's more a matter of "preventing others from dragging down society to competing at a level we as a group don't find socially acceptable." This is a legitimate function of society, and opprobrium and derision is a key tool for enforcing social norms that keep a check on undesirable behavior.
Start-ups have been hot-housing like this for years. I have friends who went through YC who did it. PG even suggested in one of his essays "Ever notice how much easier it is to hack at home than at work? So why not make work more like home?" [1]
This is just a scaled-up version of what has already existed for years. The reason it's not more common is because it's logistically difficult to organise. I doubt that difficulty will suddenly decrease. The majority of people will always have families or different lifestyle preferences.
So I'm doubtful that society will be "dragged down" to a point where this is the social norm.
Hence, I think that the opprobrium and derision in this thread is stronger than it needs to be.
Apply your logic to another group which is dragging down society to competing at a level "we" don't find socially acceptable. Yay for slut shaming?
(For the record I don't advocate slut shaming and enjoy the company of promiscuous women. Just pointing out that Rayiner's logic applies equally well here.)
"Slut shaming" is sexual morality + misogyny and sexism against women. I'd argue that it's the latter elements that make it objectionable. I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with gender-neutral social norms that discourage certain undesirable behaviors in the marketplace for sex and relationships. For example, I'm not one of those people who think prostitution should be legal even when its voluntary and not abusive. I also think its shameful behavior for banks and VCs to be investing in companies like AshleyMadison. Like I said, barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for liberal pluralism.
At virtually every company I've worked with, there's something fucked up. (Can't even afford to be unaware of it, as it affects the work.) Yes, I've been privileged enough to leave... for yet another fucked up company.
(So no point in speaking for everyone, like managers typically do. "At our company, we think...")
Like others, I'm very curious how it works with non-work relationships like families and friends.
did you watch the video? nowhere does it imply you're forced to work 24/7 - it's a huge house, I suppose you can just go somewhere else when you need some time alone.
Yeah, it's pretty unfortunately that they interview people without telling them about this situation, and then people get there and boom, they are involved in a cult!
OK, so I'm being sarcastic there, but seriously, isn't it nice for a free society that there are a lot of different kinds of workplaces, and if people don't want to work in one situation, then they have the option to quit that job and work in a different one?