Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
67 61 73 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
60 44 76 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 0 promises resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 66 (likely 61 to 72, high confidence), from 105 claims: 94 factual claims, 11 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Marc Andreessen's claims
“I expect this essay to be the target of criticism.”
Marc Andreessen, a16z co-founder, essay author 18 April 2020 It's Time to Build (a16z)
The essay "It's Time to Build" will be the target of criticism.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
The claim is that the essay 'It's Time to Build' (published 18 April 2020) would be criticised. TRUE: published commentary (op-eds, articles, essays, or widely covered public responses by identifiable commentators) explicitly criticises the essay. MOSTLY TRUE: criticism exists but is sparse, e.g., only a few minor pieces. MOSTLY FALSE: the only negative reactions are passing, low-profile remarks with no substantive critique published. FALSE: the essay's documented reception shows it was received essentially without criticism. Positive coverage alongside criticism does not reduce the verdict.
Evidence
- What bugs me about @pmarca's 'Time to Build' essay Jerry Brito blog · 22 April 2020
“And this is why I felt vexed by Andreessen’s essay. Because he does not give even a hint of how we might solve that problem, and that left me cold.”
- For Whom Shall We Build? The New Atlantis · 8 January 2025
“But Andreessen’s diagnosis of the problem at times mistakes the deepest roots of our lethargy, and therefore undersells his case for the future.”
- How, What, and Where to Build Contraptions (Venkatesh Rao) · 24 April 2020
“What’s interesting to note is that unlike the SWEW, ITTB has had a very divided reception, which to me is an indication of the stage of the historical building cycle we’re in more than the specifics of what Marc is arguing.”
- Billionaire Marc ‘It's Time to Build’ Andreesen Is a NIMBY Vice · 5 August 2022
“It’s clear that Andreessen was serious when he said it’s time to build, but only what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants.”
Reasoning
Several identifiable commentators published direct criticism of the essay. Jerry Brito wrote that the essay "left me cold" because it offered no hint of how to solve the problem (E1). The New Atlantis argued that Andreessen's diagnosis "mistakes the deepest roots of our lethargy" (E2), and Vice criticised him in direct reference to the essay's slogan (E4). Venkatesh Rao also described the essay's reception as "very divided" (E3). This meets the TRUE criterion of published commentary explicitly criticising the essay.
Cite this claim
Marc Andreessen, “The essay "It's Time to Build" will be the target of criticism.” (said 18 April 2020). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_da91ca553f20, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_da91ca553f20
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Marc Andreessen? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.