What in the article (sentence or paragraph) contradicts what I wrote?
The article is about how YC defended one of its funded companies against a legal attack. It doesn’t say anything about YC refusing to fund someone who criticized it.
> Y Combinator was the sort of unforgiving power player that remembered the names of investors who had crossed portfolio companies in the past, *or who had disseminated unflattering portraits of YC*, and blacklisted them from any YC dealings, or from the minds of YC founders
If you said something unflattering about YC once and got uninvited from demo day, that's on you. But being black listed from ever investing in any YC-backed startup even if you reach out to founders directly is taking things too far. And potentially an antitrust issue. Cabals are illegal, after all.
The quoted book was being purposefully colorful and inflammatory for literary effect, but it still doesn’t make any claims of investors being “blacklisted” just because they said something unflattering about YC. (“Disseminating unflattering portraits” implies some kind of organised campaign to damage YC, and I have no idea if that really happened or if it’s just part of the colorful/exaggerated writing).
The only cases I know of where an investor was banished from Demo Day/YC’s network was for acting in bad faith towards founders. If YC banished investors who had a track record of being great to founders, they would be doing a disservice to founders, and therefore acting against YC’s own interests.
That aside, my original comment doesn’t contradict anything in the article (I can’t speak for the entire book - honestly when I tried reading it I couldn’t get past the first few pages).
The article is about how YC defended one of its funded companies against a legal attack. It doesn’t say anything about YC refusing to fund someone who criticized it.