> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://werd.io/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# The myth of the good venture startup is dead
- URL: https://werd.io/the-myth-of-the-good-venture-startup-is-dead/
- Published: 2022-11-01T02:09:47.000Z
- Updated: 2022-11-01T02:09:47.000Z
- Author: Ben Werdmuller
- Tags: #Import 2025-06-13 09:22

![](https://old.werd.io/file/636080680e42bd13c401fb62/thumb.jpg)

One thing that might be over is the conflation of venture-funded technology companies with organizations in the public interest. There was a time when companies like Twitter could be confused with public squares or other public works. Now, with the possible exception of Medium, I don’t think there’s a single example of venture funding being used in the public interest left. Any remaining names from that era (Flickr etc) have long since been bought back and taken fully-private.

On one hand, this is a real shame: a fundamental breakdown of what the promise of startups once was declared to be. I even was funded by, and then was part of, a fund that *explicitly* used the language of venture capital to be a positive force for change. Matter, too, is gone, and I’m still sad about it.

On the other hand, I think it’s a useful clarification. One could even consider it a moral correction. The commons that the web represents is an amazing collaboration of people sharing their voices from all over the world. It’s a force for good. But every venture-scale tech company exists to make money for its shareholders. It is unambiguously a force for *profit*. These are not the same thing, and when the going gets tough, finance and business show their true faces.

I’m in no way arguing that a force optimized for profit is in itself a good thing. But it’s at least an *honest* thing. We know what it is and can name it, and can make better decisions as a result of that clarity. We know that Facebook is a company that [turns a blind eye to genocide](https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-bangladesh-myanmar-united-nations-f7d89e38c54f7bae464762fa23bd96b2) because that’s the best thing for its bottom line. We know that Twitter’s culture is going to go the way of Tesla’s - “the worst place I’ve ever worked” [is a common refrain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism%5Fof%5FTesla,%5FInc.) \- and that leadership will [potentially support people who perpetuate fascism](https://newrepublic.com/article/168309/elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-ruin-america) because it will be profitable. We know that when people show us who they are, [we should believe them](https://austinkleon.com/2018/10/03/when-people-show-you-who-they-are-believe-them/).

I’m also not arguing that all businesses are fundamentally anti-human. Clearly, there are small businesses, Public Benefit Corporations, and co-operatives that are ethical and kind. I’m just no longer convinced that an *exponential* business can also be humanist. There’s something of the Ayn Rand mercenary objectivist in all of them, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing for the internet at large to be reminded of that. If nothing else, it helps more people realize that they need to self-organize to create alternatives.

*Photo by [Alexander Grey](https://unsplash.com/@sharonmccutcheon?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/s/photos/capitalism?utm%5Fsource=unsplash&utm%5Fmedium=referral&utm%5Fcontent=creditCopyText)*