One must be prepared, of course, for the ramifications of asking a question and getting an unpleasant answer.
Public, Open markets are there for a reason.
They cost more, but are more ethical.
They aren't.
If you go public, you have zero control of who owns your company. It's not more ethical - it just launders your ethical responsibility.
There are plenty of people or organizations - who also happen to have a horrific ethical record - who can buy shares in a private company. And there's nothing you can do to stop that.
Is it clearly a mistake to take money from the CIA? The DoD?
A couple of current Silicon Valley giants have been seeded by that money.
Really? One still answers to a democratically, elected president and Congress. One does not.
This isn't comparable.
Just because you live in a democracy doesn't mean you can wash your hands of it. The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures.
I mean, I would prefer ethical sources of funding, but drawing the line at "Sadui bad, China bad, Russia bad, American agencies/companies/individuals good" is tribalism.
A detail: They had a monarch with real power in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as a parliament.
If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall.
The empire was governed by Parliament.
The queen/king had some power, sure. Today, Larry Page has some power. Rupert Murdoch has power. The Koch brothers have power. Aristocrats, throughout history have had power, even if they have no formal posts in government. Just because a few well-connected individuals have power in a country, doesn't mean that it isn't a democracy.
> If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall.
Those are both wrong. It was settled in 1911 when George V made clear he would intervene by appointing new life peers if necessary to assure passage of reforms which would strip the House of Lords of its power to reject legislation, which finally settled that the Commons would henceforth be effectively the sole decisive ruling body of the Empire.
Prior to that, the Commons (democratic, approximately) and Lords (decidedly not) had an ebb and flow of power, with the Lord's sometimes being more powerful and the Commons sometimes being more powerful (including, for a period, the Commons abolishing the Lords with Cromwell's support, but that, like Cromwell, didn't last.)
Also, I've never heard the UK of that era referred to as a democracy. Here it says that under Queen Victoria (1837-1901), the role of the monarch transformed from one that exercised real power to one that was purely ceremonial:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Victoria-queen-of-Unite...
Not particularly; I mean, the Commons was democratic and Parliament largely governed the Empire, but the Commons wasn't really the sole meaningful house of Parliament during most ifthe period of the Empire.
Then they passed it on the culture-at-large saying everyone has this problem, when it is vastly concentrated in Hollywood, which has lead to social breakdown [2].
[1] https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/asia-argento-...
Most are against due process, so it is difficult for me to take the movement seriously.
Everyone makes mistakes and it is clearly a mistake to take money from repressive regimes. The #metoo movement should take a look at some of these companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia