Because they're fundamentally about maximizing personal gain regardless of the cost to society. This is in direct violation of the covenant upon which societies are founded. Most people take this violation as an immoral act.
Shame and phrases like “violation of the covenant upon which societies are founded” are tools used by people to try to convince you to do things that are in their best interest.
That's a whole 'nother can of worms concerning participation / nonparticipation elections by various services.
And the question of when a service ought / ought not allow participation.
I'm strongly in the camp of controlling my own personal online interactions. Which is somewhat curious in the case of HN as that's not possible -- there are no user blocks. HN's moderation policies and practices ensure that this is virtually never necessary.
However I've got issues with how and why various online services draw the line at participation. I agree with some of the groups banned from Reddit, for example. I take exception to Imzy's banning my account (largely for being hounded, misrepresented, and harassed by others on the service). I'm exceptionally critical of Google, on Google+, but that's not resulted in repercussions (there are times when an adversary's belief in "the marketplace of ideas" is an advantage).
I'd prefer a world in which relying on access to other's soapboxes and spaces wasn't so necessary.
A secretary working for a VC firm and a GP are both part of the VC world.
Please make clear which part of the VC world you're targeting. The path to become a clerk at a VC firm is way different tha the path to become a GP there.
Why would anyone be ashamed to advertise tax-haven services???