I think they are both right (or both wrong). Or maybe they are not talking about the same thing.
I think O'Neill believes Monsanto to be a far worse company than pg (or I, for that matter) do. It's an agrochemical company that does engage in strong-arm legal tactics, but at the same time, it's not on the level of IBM working with the Germans in the 1930's. O'Neill does have a point in that in a free society, consumers have a right to choose which products to purchase and which companies to support, and if they want to politicize that decision it is entirely their right to do so. pg would likely agree with statement. So the only real disagreement between the two would probably come down to how "bad" a company Monsanto is, in their view. pg obviously views it in a far more benign light than O'Neill does.
the "99%" talk is irrelevant. The 99'ers focus seems to be (or should be) on the parasitic nature of Wall Street and their close relationship to the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve, and not on corporate ethics in general.
I'm not sure it is irrelevant (in so far as one buys into the logic connecting Wall Street to Treasury).
If Goldman Sacs can be described as a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity", for the way they are intertwined and tangled up with the regulatory frameworks in the US financial system, surely the same holds true for the way that Monsanto and Cargill have such monumental sway over the Department of Agriculture and the way that farmers do business.
That said, i agree with PG that the original post was content-free. I'd actually go further and say that even within gigantic evil corporations, good can be done. That's not to say that it will offset the awful things that Monsanto does, but i don't know that the Cloudant guys are (necessarily) being assimilated into the Borg. On the other hand, there is clearly a gap between the author's ethical judgements and PGs. So if he doesn't trust PG or the Cloudant guys, i can see why he'd be pissed.
It is a fundamental difference. Some people will sit in a wooden house and decry the lumber industry for deforestation. Others will try to figure out how to make bricks cheaper.
By analogy, imagine someone wearing an Abercrombie & Fitch shirt.
They are trying to associate themselves with a well-known brand in order to gain some kind of status or legitimacy.
But when you do that, you are also at risk of people associating you with things like Jersey Shore and sweatshops, employment discrimination, superficiality, and so on.
(A&F was so concerned that it has offered to pay Jersey Shore cast members to STOP wearing their brand.)
Large corporations tend to avoid issues seen as "controversial". It's not necessarily about right or wrong, it's about anything divisive enough to possibly be a significant detriment to their brand image.
When the NUMBER ONE Google result for "world's most evil company" has your name on it, you are PR kyrptonite.
The only person to blame is the flabbergastingly unaware CEO of Cloudant.
This is on par with "YC robotics startup chosen as #1 supplier of automated puppy-gassing chambers by animal control!"
There seems to be two similar but fundamentally different arguments here. The first is that this press release was unwise, because many people will be upset that Cloudant would do business with Monsanto. The second is that actually doing business with Monsanto is unwise/immoral/unethical.
PR is a fuzzy science at best, and I'm no expert, so I won't claim to know how wise the press release is. I'm sure that Cloudant was excited to acquire a large customer (rightfully so), and that issuing a press release can impress investors, other potential customers, and the start-up community.
It's the second argument that I vehemently disagree with. If some corporation feels that it would be unethical to do business with Monsanto, then by all means refuse to do so. But to argue for an embargo against Monsanto, and imply that any company that does business with Monsanto is in the wrong, is wildly inappropriate and unfair. No doubt countless other corporations do business with Monsanto: PC manufacturers, construction teams, office suppliers, not to mention utility companies that keep Monsanto running, shipping companies that deliver to and from Monsanto, etc. I agree with pg that to argue for an embargo against Monsanto is quite extreme, and it's unfair to hold Cloudant to such a standard.
> and imply that any company that does business with Monsanto is in the wrong, is wildly inappropriate and unfair.
First, if this applies to any company partnering with Monsanto, they are receiving equal treatment.
Secondly, your value judgment of it being "wildly inappropriate" rings hollow. Who determines what's "appropriate"? Usually that terminology is employed when referring to social convention, and social convention is determined by majority opinion.
Quoting PG:
But the best thing of all is when people call what you're doing inappropriate. I've been hearing this word all my life and I only recently realized that it is, in fact, the sound of the homing beacon. "Inappropriate" is the null criticism. It's merely the adjective form of "I don't like it."
Ironically, majority opinion here is clearly on the opposing side from where you stand, which seems to inform your "wildly" modifier, being revealing of being upset that your view isn't the prevailing one.
As for "unfair", if you read Monsanto's Wikipedia page you'll find out that what it has done to the planet and people fits that description better by ORDERS of magnitude than people deciding not to use some web service or other.
This must be a fundamental, deeply ingrained, clear-cut difference in the way people think.