Alright, well can we at least agree that you should disclose when you knowingly give advice that violates US law?

Surely you can see how this could cause problems for someone else who has the bad fortune of taking your advice at face value.

So say that I'm a student. I take his advice at face value, I find a startup worth looking at, I hop in to help out for no pay. Maybe I do it in my free time, mid-semester; maybe I do it during the summer break. Whatever. I'm enlightened enough to know that I'm working for the education. The business doesn't advertise for it; it's a personal decision that I make to work for them.

Cut to John Doe. John is the son of Mr Doe, who owns a law firm. He spends time off working at his dad's law firm, because he intends to become a lawyer. John is not paid.

If I am told to cease and decease by a lawyer/my school/a policeman - no deal, I'll just stop and say: gee, I was in it because I wanted to learn stuff. Out of my own free will. I can't? No problem - I'll just stop. Ditto for John (though for some reason, I doubt anybody'd actually punish John, or even Mr Doe).

I don't see how I'd get in trouble. His article is directed at the non-technical student, not the employer. (If it was written for an employer/startup founder, then perhaps you're right to suggest that he should disclose that he's giving law-breaking advice. I'd be fully behind you on that one, qeorge, I would.)

But the article's fine as it is. And there's a corollary, of course. Entrepreneurs are relentlessly resourceful. If you're not relentlessly resourceful in figuring out a way to get into a startup for the experience, then you're probably not going to make it anyway.

This is all irrelevant to qeorge's point. Wepay is a company (dealing with financial transactions, of all things). The company has a blog post. This blog post advocates something that illegal. The spirit of the law does not change the above facts.

It's an article that belongs on the founder's personal blog, not the company's blog.

I agree - except the last line rubs me the wrong way somehow. I think that it implies that there is a political separation between a founder and the company. Blogging has helped remove this separation and shown us that all companies really consist of humans.

What? This is strictly enforced law, when they catch you. 'Personal responsibility' is precisely about obeying the rule of law, rather than inventing scenarios to avoid it when you wish it didn't apply to you.