Sponsor the next email to 200,000+ entrepreneurs →
This past Sunday, on X, Harry Stebbings posted a short 29-second clip from his 20VC podcast. His guest was Ryan Petersen, the CEO of Flexport, a logistics and shipping company that’s been valued as high as $8B.
The clip headline was, “Why Remote Work is White Collar Fraud.”
If you watched the short clip, you get to hear Ryan’s argument. He has a three-year-old and a five-year-old at home. The kids come home at 3 pm, and even though he has a bigger home than most people, it’s just too crazy. Working from home is a fantasy for him. Therefore, he’s highly against it, and he labels it as such:
“White collar fraud.”
Last time I looked at the post, over 5.3 million people had seen it on their timeline.
As you can probably imagine, the replies split into two camps almost immediately. One group said Ryan must be right because he’s successful and rich and runs a company worth lots of money. If someone’s rich, they must be right…right?
The other group basically said it’s a skills issue or a “Ryan problem” and said they work just fine from home. Some argued they are even more productive. Which in turn caused the first group to tell those people they aren’t as successful as Ryan, so they’re wrong. Both camps spent days arguing with each other. Around and around it went.
But nobody stopped to ask the more obvious question, which is this one:
Why is a 29-second clip about a very nuanced workplace policy debate titled “White Collar Fraud”?
Because the point of the clip isn’t to actually figure out if work from home is good or bad. The entire point of the clip is the 5.3 million views.
Harry recognized the moment immediately. He clipped it, titled it “White Collar Fraud,” and posted it. You can’t blame him for that. That’s what you do when you’re good at the internet, and your job is to market your podcast and venture firm. Because a measured, contextual conversation about the tradeoffs of remote work, who it serves well, who it doesn’t, what the research actually says, how it depends on role and company stage and personal circumstance…that version generates maybe 40,000 views. If they’re lucky. The provocative 29-second take with “fraud” in the title generates 5.3 million and keeps the comment section burning with arguments for three or four days straight. Smart marketers know which one the internet rewards.
The outrage is the product, and the controversy is the engine. And if you want to generate outrage and controversy, it’s important that the very first things that get cut are nuance and context. Because they are the enemy of virality.
This is nothing new. But it’s become so normalized that most people have stopped noticing it’s happening. Your timeline is likely crammed full of it. Millions of overly declarative, aggressive, non-nuanced statements about things that definitely require nuance are being engineered to travel as far as possible by removing anything and everything that might slow them down.
The cheat code to win at life is to grind like a maniac!
If you’re not sleeping at the office, you’re gonna fail!!
Depressed? You’re so stupid! Just go to the gym!!!
The compression of complicated ideas into mind-numbingly simple takes is the new normal. Strip out the “it depends,” the “this worked for me in these specific circumstances,” or “your situation may be different,” and what’s left travels faster, gets more likes, and builds a bigger following. The internet rewards fake certainty like Ryan’s at a scale that nuance simply can’t compete with.
And so the incentive shapes the content.
It’s become so commonplace that we’ve been trained to expect (and be on the lookout for) declarative takes. We’re trained to hunt for them, respond to them, argue with them, and share them. I know that I’ve logged onto X before actively looking for something that will upset me.
Complex answers feel slow now. If you hedge or use language that suggests you’re unsure, you’re a weakling. The person who says “it depends” loses to the person who says “I know this thing for a fact and everyone else is wrong.”
And that has a cost.
I’ve watched several of my entrepreneur friends absorb this kind of content and take it as gospel. The person saying it is successful, and their confidence is overwhelmingly convincing. So they start to change their life or business based on it.
They start making different decisions about how they treat employees, or their family, or how they spend their time, or even what products they build. And I’m not immune at all. I’ve fallen victim to this kind of content myself hundreds of times and made changes that, in hindsight, were very wrong for me.
The part that stings is the big reveal. When, somewhere down the line, you find out that the thing that made it work for them was the part they conveniently left out. Their impeccable timing, the existing network of helpful people, the financial cushion that made it easier, or even their specific personality type. All of that stuff is nowhere to be found in the 29-second clip you just consumed.
The truth might be that Ryan Petersen can’t work from home with two young kids and no separation between his work and family life. If he can’t, that’s cool. There’s nothing wrong with him saying, “I can’t do that.” And I certainly won’t judge his skills for it. I suck at working from home, too, sometimes.
But if it is true, it’s true in his specific circumstances, with his specific constraints. The big leap from “this is true for me” to “this is fraud and should be applied to everyone” is both enormous and, frankly, ridiculous. The version of this conversation that’s actually valuable would be a lot more boring. It would probably sound something like this:
“Remote work functions well for some people, in some roles, at some stages of life, under some conditions. Here’s what those conditions might look like, and here’s how to think about whether any of it applies to your situation, business, or life.”
The problem is that a nuanced version doesn’t get 5.3 million views. Nobody watches it. It doesn’t go viral. Nobody argues. But it’s the version of the conversation that might actually help the people who watch it make better decisions.
I’ve started applying a very simple filter to everything I read online. The minute I see declarative language on a topic that I know requires nuance, I scroll on by and don’t participate in the conversation. I’m not interested in padding the stats of something that lacks the nuance and context required to be valuable.
Anything important that’s worth understanding is worth the full version. And when it’s stripped down to a 29-second “hot take” with “white collar fraud” in the title, they’ve already told you exactly what they’re optimizing for.
And I can promise you this. It’s not for your understanding.
That’s all for this week.
See you next Saturday.
