> Probably because HN is not a law enforcement agency for New York City.
True, but irrelevant, as that's not the only reason to do it. YC has a brand whose value they surely wish to maintain. Presumably that gives them an interest in not directly aiding companies in breaking the law.
Ethical behavior, to me, includes considering more than one reason someone or some company does something I don't like. Possibly these companies posting on HN deliberately intended to break the law. Equally possibly (more likely, in my opinion) those companies don't know about the law, or haven't had time to comply since the law went into effect just a few weeks ago. Any number of explanations present themselves, and only a few come down to "deliberately breaking the law" or doing anything unethical or shady.
So I don't think a reasonable person should quickly (and publicly) jump from "this job posting apparently for NYC doesn't include salaries" to "the company broke hiring laws" and "HN directly aids companies breaking the law." Try a more generous interpretation on.
I don't believe I said anything about intent. Indeed, my comment is rooted in the assumption that YC wants to do the right thing here. Did you mean to reply to somebody else?
Even assuming the best of intent -- in fact, especially when we assume that -- YC's role as a guide to often-novice entrepreneurs means they should be helping out here. Both by educating them on changing hiring laws and by sending back inadequate job postings for reworking.
Regarding your last paragraph, I'll also note that whether "the company broke hiring laws" is a purely factual question, as is whether or not HN publishes job ads that break the law. A generous interpretation involves why and how they did it, but can't include denying the facts.
Since the OP didn't quote or link to any of the supposedly offending job posts we can't judge the "purely factual question." That would require seeing the job posting in question and then reading the text of the NYC law. We would have to determine if the NYC law applied to every specific case. If OP implies that job postings from YC companies "break hiring laws" then the OP should support that with some facts.
The NYC Commission on Human Rights has a complaint process documented at NYC.gov/HumanRights. If someone has evidence of an actual violation perhaps start there rather than posting unsubstantiated accusations and implying illegal behavior on the part of un-named employers and YC.
Again, are you sure you're replying to the right person? The one saying this happened is not me. I'm replying to a specific point about the extent to which YC would want to prevent this from happening.
I'll also note that the person who did post about this perhaps left the company names out because they were being considerate, not wanting to invite trouble for people who could be entirely well meaning when they are just examples of a broader problem. So as long as you're arguing for assuming good intent, maybe you could try that yourself?
I did think you wrote the original post. My mistake, I have corrected my comment.
Whether YC would want to prevent illegal or unethical behavior is a question I can't answer. I would hope so. But I don't think it's reasonable to put the burden of enforcing various employment posting laws on YC/HN, especially when the laws are new and have jurisdiction questions and exceptions. My reading of the NYC law tells me job boards are not subject to any enforcement -- only the companies posting the job ads have to comply.
I don't object to a discussion about what responsibility YC and HN have in regards to allowing job posts that don't include salary ranges. Personally I would ignore job posts that don't voluntarily include that. I objected to the OP characterizing the job posts from YC companies as "breaking hiring laws." Whether the law was broken or not would require more facts than the OP gave. Maybe the OP didn't name the companies that supposedly "broke hiring laws" out of consideration, but in the original post it seems clear OP intended to call them out in comments but couldn't comment on the posts, not that the OP decided to take the considerate path of not naming them.
True, but irrelevant, as that's not the only reason to do it. YC has a brand whose value they surely wish to maintain. Presumably that gives them an interest in not directly aiding companies in breaking the law.