9 ms·

Jonathan's Card Experiments And Outcomes

53 points by robryan 15y ago

pathik 15y ago
Well, as someone tweeted, "Odio is just another variable in the experiment". It wasn't really a fair experiment if you wanted the outcome to be positive. This is how it works. There might have been many who were gaming it; Odio is facing the backlash only because he admitted to it.
- darklajid 15y ago
  I guess the difference was (and is) that some didn't understand experiment being used in the scientific way. For a number of people (and I guess I'm on that side as well, although I never enter a StarBucks if I can avoid it and just watched from a distance) this was more a 'Let's see if we can keep this thing running' challenge. Experiment as in experimental and beta, novel, new, interesting. Not experiment as in 'how much pressure can I apply to this before it breaks'. A misunderstanding that causes these name calling now..
- raganwald 15y ago
  There are two different things to judge here, and your comment appears to conflate them. First, we can judge whether Sam’s action was “Part of the experiment.” Second, we can judge whether Sam’s action was repugnant. I think that it is possible to believe that Sam’s action was part of the experiment and also repugnant.
  - chrischen 15y ago
    But I'm sure Sam's actions were contingent on it being an open experiment. Had Jonathan openly requested people not scrape the service do you think Sam would have broken that request to prove a point? It would only have been repugnant if Jonathan requested people not to do what Sam did. But the game had no rules and what is deemed a good or bad outcome is purely subjective. Who's to say free coffee for some is better than charity with this experiment? Just because the majority dream this specific experiment to be something that it isn't doesn't mean someone who comes along and dashes those dreams is an asshole. If you want his actions to be deemed repugnant, then setup a new Jonathan's Card experiment, define the rules the way you want with the no-scraping clause. Then wait until Sam breaks those rules. Then you can call his actions repugnant. EDIT: I'll admit it's probably not the nicest thing to do if he knew that people (wrongly) assumed their donated money would go to buying coffee for others. But the risks were clearly defined and anyone donating money should have realized that their money is actually going to the experiment, and not necessarily to buying coffee for someone.
    - Kadrith 15y ago
      I don't drink Starbucks coffee, so I didn't participate in this. There was already an implicit request that this be used for something at Starbucks; otherwise why would he have used a Starbucks gift card? Does Starbucks now sell iPads? From what I've read I do think this guy would have broken an explicit request concerning scraping; he seems like just another crook that believes they are innocent and always has an excuse.
      - chrischen 15y ago
        If you think he would have broken the rules explicitly then you are simply being cynical. If you are judging him based on that speculation then you should reconsider, because I highly doubt most people you've read here actually know Sam.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      If I do business with you and I’m an asshole, is my moral defence really that you should have realized I would be an asshole? We have to disentangle asshole/nice guy from legal/illegal. Being an asshole in business is legal. But that doesn’t mean it’s not repugnant. Sure, we can say that Sam has not broken Jonathan’s law, and we can argue that he doesn’t need to reverse his transactions legally. We can also argue that he was or was not acting like an asshole. Perhaps he wasn’t. But the question of whether his actions were in accordance with the “rules of the game” has very little bearing on whether they are repugnant.
      - chrischen 15y ago
        If you do business with me, and you're an asshole, your moral defense can be that you didn't know you were being an asshole. I'd personally give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course the next time you do the same thing it'll be clear. >But the question of whether his actions were in accordance with the “rules of the game” has very little bearing on whether they are repugnant. If you break an explicit rule or request, then it's clear that you knew you were being an asshole, doing things other people don't want. When that rule is not explicit, it's hard to say if you knew you were being an asshole. The rules weren't explicit, and could have very easily specified not to scrape. If Sam took advantage of anyone it would have been naive experiment participants who donated money under the false assumption it would be used for a specific purpose. But even then, Sam's actions could be interpreted as Robin Hood-esque by some. There is NO DOUBT, from the view point of the supposed victims that Sam's actions are repugnant because they go against what they wished, but so did the people who Robin Hood robbed from I bet. However, from a more global perspective, who's to say they're repugnant? Assume some of that Stark Card money actually reached some unfortunate children in the third world and made their lives slightly better... Would a non-victim really believe that to be a worse appropriation of that money than buying coffee for some first-world person (assuming the money actually reached those kids)? Many would argue that is a better use of the money, regardless of what the original experiment participants expected the money to be used for, because the experiment participants wrongly assumed in the first place.
Tichy 15y ago
I must say, I can relate. The discussion almost sounds as if Jonathan's card would have saved the world (transformed us all into happy altruists, drinking free coffee ever after) if only Sam hadn't ruined it. Maybe the "hack" was not such a good idea after all, but I am willing to believe that it was not done in a mean spirit, but simply to experiment. Come to think of it, perhaps in this way the whole experiment (Card+iPad hack) brings out other, more ugly facets of humans than the desired altruism. Like the tendency to gang up on other people - and sometimes people who want to make the world a better place are the most aggressive ones.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- overgard 15y ago
  I do think you have a good point with the ugliness of ganging up on this guy. My feeling is: if this was actually an "experiment", as people claimed -- and not some lame attempt at proving people are really fluffy teddy bears inside -- then what happens in context of that experiment should stay in that context. We shouldn't be making stabs at this guy's character for doing something that was basically part of the game. The experiment was asking "what will happen if we do this". We got our answer: "someone will take advantage of it". At least the guy that took advantage of it was willing to fess up, and we all (should have) learned something.
- niklas_a 15y ago
  What could Sam possibly learn from his experiment? Everyone on hacker news knew that what he did was possible technically and that it would put an end to the experiment. He basically said so himself in his original blog post. He didn't like the experiment and decided to end it by donating it all to charity.
Kwpolska 15y ago
> In that light it would be hard to understand the negative reaction to my participation. After all, it's an experiment and isn't finding interesting new uses for the card fair-game? Even after Starbucks shut down the card, isn't the experiment living on? Why the outrage? Because the card would likely still be alive if you wouldn't act like a dick? > For those who are hurt, angry, or frustrated with the role I played, I sincerely apologize. Had I known so many were so invested in this, I would have certainly done things differently. A hint for you: create Asshole's Card with the $625 you stole and continue the experiment. You shall add even more funds and give some back to Jonathan himself.
- darklajid 15y ago
  While I disagree with his actions: His post was moderate, he apologized and promised a longer reply and explanation in the future. Please stop the name calling.
  - Thangorodrim 15y ago
    He did not apologize for his actions. He apologized that silly emotional people got upset at the obvious outcome of this entire stunt. A sincere apology takes three words. When those three words are buried in hundreds of words of qualifications and context its no longer an apology. The entire thing is redolent of a condescending tone. Sam, you see, is a scientist! Anyone who questioned his behavior is just an having an emotional reaction and does not understand the real world - where there is always a Sam to piss in the well. The thing is, most of use knew this already, and his demonstration did not teach anyone anything other than about Sam's character. EDIT: Oh, I don't care about the gift card. I am simply commenting on the 'apology.'
    - darklajid 15y ago
      Fair enough. I guess you can read that from the article. For me, I can't see these things. Someone else already said that he should've apologized first, unqualified - and I agree that this would make a difference. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd have started like that - it feels natural to me to explain first, reason about my actions and end with an apology. We're not talking about a company here (see the AirBnB comparison), we're talking about a random guy as far as I'm concerned. Lastly: I guess a lot is getting lost in translation for me. Lots of advices on this forum are hard to get for me, because they are about nuances of English words, implied meanings, 'tone' and cultural rules. While it might very well be possible that you/most of the posters and Sam are sharing the same standards and therefor 'better' understand the content or see a subtext: I cannot.
mattdeboard 15y ago
I'm about as uninterested as possible in hearing any more about this, especially from Sam Odio.
aymeric 15y ago
This Sam Odio seems to have ruined his reputation in one hack.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Then again, there is no such thing as bad news. At least he put his name on the map.
  - robryan 15y ago
    He was already fairly well known. Don't think it ruins his reputation at all, this is similar really to the kind of stuff that gets celebrated as innovative thinking around here. Sure this particular instance has stuck a chord with some people.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      Or maybe some people around here can at least accept that if you never make mistakes, you are not trying hard enough.
      - sorbus 15y ago
        There's a difference between making an honest mistake and going into something that is obviously a mistake to a lot of the community while possibly lying about it[1]. Sort of like how if I intentionally drove a car off a cliff I wouldn't get any sympathy if I claimed that I didn't understand that cliffs are different from roads. [1] Look at his comment history, especially his two comments on the original Jonthan's card post. He's admitted that, since the 7th, he's been skimming off the top of the card, yet on the 8th he said "That would imply that the card is currently being used as intended" and explained $25 vanishing from the card as him buying food for two homeless people. Even if he wasn't intentionally misdirecting people or lying, it certainly looks suspicious.
        Tichy 15y ago
        If he was lying about it, why would he have written a blog post about it? Doesn't seem to make sense.
alexandros 15y ago
Since the context was human (online) society, the backlash is part of the experiment too. Also, the experiment continues. I personally wonder if the experiment will produce a regret reaction from the publicly non-cooperating participant. For the moment it seems to be producing a 'deflect / damage control' reaction.
- darklajid 15y ago
  Feeling kind of weird being on the defensive side here, but - wouldn't you consider "For those who are hurt, angry, or frustrated with the role I played, I sincerely apologize. Had I known so many were so invested in this, I would have certainly done things differently." a "regret outcome"? That's part of the blog entry and the 'sincerely apologize' part is bold and hard to miss.
  - alexandros 15y ago
    Fair point. I must admit I only skimmed through. I guess the answer to my question is yes.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
andrewcooke 15y ago
here's a free tip: apologies should be near the start and unqualified. put the self-justification and excuses afterwards. this reads like he's working for airbnb.
- wisty 15y ago
  Still, it works. The tone here has gone from "Sam eats babies alive" to "Sam was wrong, and maybe committed a crime, but he's was honest about it, and people are taking it way out of proportion". A little more "I understand now why so many people were pissed off", and a little less "someone else would have done it" would work better, but maybe he's writing what he thinks, and not just what he thinks the best PR move would be. It's hard to honestly admit you were wrong.
Tichy 15y ago
I haven't followed J's card too closely, but wasn't it set up in a very lenient way? How about creating a more "secure" system, for example without the possibility to get money out of the card other than by drinking coffees?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
molbioguy 15y ago
The negative comments and name calling against Sam Odie is way out of line. Jonathan made an "experiment" and launched it. It was wildly successful and he got lots of data about how people react to the experimental situation he created. Real experiments don't have outcomes that are pre-ordained. Let it go. Learn and move on.
- jonhohle 15y ago
  I'm slightly concerned that more people here don't get this. The whole point of an experiment is to have a hypothesis, perform a test, observe the result, and make some conclusion related to your original hypothesis. It seems like what most people wanted was a "challenge". I don't have any issue with that, but call a duck a duck. If this really was a social "experiment", you have to expect people to behave as they would in society, including leaches. This experiment is a reminder of why we can't have nice things on an honor system. There will _always_ be actors who game the system - typically for personal gain, but sometimes for the lols.
- chrischen2 15y ago
  People are just angry that the experiment didn't go the way they had hoped.
- mechnik 15y ago
  Are these "negative comments" "way out of line" compared with stealing $600? Are they somehow less "real" outcomes of Jonathan's experiment?
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  This was never an experiment. Where was the hypothesis? Where was the control? It was no more an experiment than me "experimenting" with Elbonian food is an experiment. To write off somebody's lack of understanding of social mores because "we were all just ants" is disingenuous. That said, this whole thing has actually been very interesting to watch from the outside, and there is little doubt Odie made it far more interesting (if not somewhat dishearening).
  - 15y ago
dustineichler 15y ago
You take a penny, you leave a penny. That's it, that's the unwritten rule.
nestlequ1k 15y ago
Would have been much funner if Odio just bought himself an ipad and used it to write a detailed blog post about the glaring flaws with the premise of the experiment. I would have respected that quite a bit. Instead he tried to donate other people's money to charity. That takes the cake for douchbaggery. I thought Jonathan's card idea was funny, but unbelievably stupid (in the common tragic kind of way). Being morally outraged at the result reminds me of those of you who like to say Communism should work in theory, then point the finger after the mass murders, saying it could have been different if it hadn't been for that one guy who ruined everything.
flocial 15y ago
According to the other post (Q&A), if Jonathan reported it as theft it would become a police matter. I think that sums it up in moral terms. If he bought himself $625 of coffee probably not. A nasty prosecutor might treat each cash transfer as a separate case of wire fraud. At the end of the day I just ask myself "what the hell was that about?" and the idea of donating an iPad to the poor is the most idiotic use of diverted coffee money. With all that philosophy you're going to give one kid an iPad and add to the bottomline of one of the richest corporations in the world. Much better than strangers buying each other coffee. Way to change the world.
- darklajid 15y ago
  Are you sure that you followed the whole story? "With all that philosophy you're going to give one kid an iPad and add to the bottomline of one of the richest corporations in the world." seems to indicate that you believe that he's buying (or bought) an iPad to send it off to the 3rd world. That's - erm - quite wrong. From all I can tell he - wrote a script to tell him that more than $ X is on the card - transfer money to a gift card by going to the counter (he was sitting in a StarBucks) - repeat - he said he got $625 (on two cards, it seems those top out at $500) His initial blog post used the iPad 2 as link bait and said 'You could buy an iPad with that cash!'. Afterwards he put these gift cards on eBay and claimed he'd give the return to charity. No iPad in sight. No money to Apple. So - posts like yours are showing that this is a very emotional thing. It's not helpful to jump in and bash people though, especially if you misunderstand the situation. Correct me if I failed to understand you?
  - flocial 15y ago
    Thanks for the correction. The $500 card is going for $510 now. I've donated to Save the Children before and no doubt it's a good cause. Can't argue that I find this mildly offensive. I guess it's the violation of implicit rules of an experiment that gives false hope on anonymously reciprocated altruism.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I would be surprised if police would investigate or a jury would convict. If you're doing something that looks like a social experiment, police usually don't really want anything to do with enforcing it. If someone stole your gift card out of your wallet, sure. But if you post your gift-card information on the internet and invite people to use it, it's not really their job to enforce your unwritten rules on how people should've used it. At least if there were formal written rules on proper usage, you could make an argument that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should cover misuse of a card number, when the user agreed to an EULA in order to acquire it. Though I think that approach of turning EULAs into criminal law is also dangerous.
chrischen 15y ago
If you hate Sam Odio for this, just ask yourself if you think Sam would still have done it if Jonathan had explicitly requested people not to scrape it. What Sam done was inevitable and no doubt crossed Jonathan's mind as a possible outcome of the experiment (there was even an API to simplify the process)... If the answer is no, then it should be clear that there was no malice in Sam's intent because it was clearly within the rules and clearly recognized by him as so. I'm sure lots of people are angry that they made donations assuming it would go to the specific purpose of buying coffee for others, but the risks were clear and the experiment rules were laid out. Granted, Sam probably knew this and still appropriated the money to charity which was probably a bad move.
Terretta 15y ago
This post stil feels disingenuous. Part of the experiment? Odio came along and scraped all the carbohydrates out of the Petrie dish, to give to ants outside the lab. As pointed out by HN readers, absolutely everyone here knew the experiment could be broken, so nothing was proven or gained by doing what any of us could have. I was given an EcoSphere (a glass ball containing a supposedly self-sustaining ecosystem) as a boy. For a kid, it's a fascinating experiment to see if it works over time. "One possible outcome" is to drop the glass ball on the floor. Not a particularly inventive or interesting outcome, and if you do that in front of a class of kids, you'll get the same reactions. A lot of people were enjoying being kids again, watching the glass ball's energy supply surge and fall, till Odio broke open the EcoSphere protesting that's valid science too. In a large enough classroom, there's always at least one.
- Terretta 15y ago
  Addendum – Came back at the end of the day to add this clarification: Nothing in Sam's comments about this lead me to believe he's a bad guy, just that he's missing something about this particular scenario. On the contrary, spotting rules begging for breaking is a very helpful trait for an entrepreneur – as most here know, the YC questionnaire asks for examples of "hacking the system for your own gain". (Though the PG "no jerks" rule[1] implies hacking that's not at someone else's expense.) ”There's always one“ who's constantly challenging conventions, and when that one zeros in on the line between audacious and antisocial, 20 years later he often winds up running things. For more human background, this Washington Business Journal profiles the Odio brothers.[2] 1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1632477 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1632477 2. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/11/focus1.html http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/11/foc...
urbanjunkie 15y ago
And once again, he demonstrates that he doesn't understand what's going on. A lot of the backlash focuses on his dubious claim to the moral high ground. I, once more, invite Sam to explain how much of his OWN time and money he donates to charity. Being a moralising prick is easy, after all, when stacked up against children starving in Somalia, almost any other use of money that doesn't pertain to basic survival can be viewed as frivolous. His apology post is basically nothing more than a "Sorry you all got upset about it, if I'd know you cared that much I wouldn't have done it". In his mind he hasn't really done anything wrong - he feels that if he doesn't agree with the aims or the social value of something, he can suborn it to his own ends. There's nothing wrong with being nice to other people - it might not save the world, but one of the issues we face in the so called developed nations is the erosion of basic social courtesies - the ability to be polite to each other and not act like dicks. EDIT: I also stand by my offer to hook Sam up with some contacts in Uganda who would love to have time with a geek to help with real problems.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
DevX101 15y ago
Without enforcement of the social contract, society would quickly collapse, or transform from something very different from it is today. We all want to believe that people are all good, but the sad truth is we're not...at least, not all of us. And it only takes a few renegades to disrupt this whole thing we call society in the absence of enforcement. I don't ascribe any particular moral judgment on Odio. He was a part of the experiment and his actions only confirmed my belief that any exploitable system will be exploited. An interesting additional outcome from this social experiment to me was how 'the community' reacted to Odio. Like adultery, what Odio did was one of those rules that he wasn't supposed to do, but he did anyways. We can't throw people in jail for cheating on their wives. So what do we do and have done for thousands of years? We shame them. And that's exactly what's been happening to Odio here and I'm assuming on Facebook too.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > Without enforcement of the social contract, society would quickly collapse When you're dealing with strangers' money, an unspoken "social contract" is entirely inadequate. You need an explicit contract, real enforcement, and oversight. This is why charities have things like mission statements, operational guidelines, and independent audits, and why the law gets involved when there's misappropriation of funds. This is why we have things like Charity Navigator. When you don't have those things, you get a situation like this -- funds get directed to causes the donors did not intend. As misappropriations go, this one was relatively tame; rather than giving coffee money to starving children, someone might use "feed the children" money to bomb a bus in the Middle East, or "stand up for the Constitution" money to fund McVeigh type domestic terrorism. Some sort of abuse was inevitable with the way Jonathan's Card was set up. I'm sad that Sam chose to abuse it, since he's a valued member of this community and it sucks to see him alienate so many. But I'm also glad that he's the one who abused it, as many others would've actually bought themselves an iPad instead of sending the money on to charity.
shiven 15y ago
It seems like Freshplum is a YC company and what Odio has done clearly puts him over and across the "No Assholes" rule that pg talks about. (I don't know how that correlates contextually, but I feel there should be a connection). Regardless, Odio acted like an utter douchebag, IMHO. And he is just making it worse with his un-apology apologies.
philk 15y ago
I know this is going to be unpopular and I know Sam has been remarkably tone deaf[1] when it comes to dealing with people but I'm disturbed by how much damage one stupid, somewhat douchey action is going to do his reputation. [1] Yes, and even this latest pseudo-apology is poorly handled. He should have just stuck to a simple "didn't think that through, sorry to those I've offended, I've cancelled the auction and will return the money to any starbucks card Jonathan nominates" message but sometimes it can be hard to admit you've screwed up, particularly when you're getting a kicking for it.
- mebesilly 15y ago
  "I'm disturbed by how much damage one stupid, somewhat douchey action is going to do his reputation." Every message that I have seem from him, both on HN and on his blog confirms that he IS a douchebag.
- TillE 15y ago
  Well, it's a good lesson in thinking about the consequences of your actions before you act. What you choose to do matters. Not sure that would've helped in this case, though, since Odio still doesn't seem to get it.
  - equalarrow 15y ago
    Agreed. I felt like his post still seems to talk about the experiment as a whole and his action in the experiment vs. the 'why'. I felt immediately that I got the why and a co-worker and I used two drinks on the card. We talked about it and the concept of the goodwill behind it. We definitely didn't feel like yuppie developers and we talked more about how different the world would be if more things were like this. Even about startups along these lines and what bigger ideas like these could change the world. Yes, a fantasy, but we felt that's what this was about. Anyway, Odio's OP felt very much like business as usual in a cynical world vs. JC's actually doing something positive (even if it is just yuppie coffee). Odio's recent apology seems hollow and in my mind the damage has been done.
- avree 15y ago
  Sorry, but he could have easily saved the situation with a little bit of social understanding and thought. Tweets like this: https://twitter.com/#!/sodio/status/102435437930479616 https://twitter.com/#!/sodio/status/102435437930479616 are ridiculous. "@sodio Sam Odio Starbucks gift card now up to $660. I've offered to sign it if that increases anyone's willingness to donate. cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d…"
napierzaza 15y ago
It's nice that Odio gets to call the outcome on the experiment. Secondly, is he still stealing money from it?
lubutu 15y ago
Aside from all the hatred for Odio, in utilitarian terms this outcome may have been better than if the experiment were just to continue. One can complain that it's all about higher horses, but I doubt the children who may be fed or clothed as a result will care. I know, I know, Odio's moralising is irritating. But people are acting as though he's taken our capability for altruism. I assure you, people are able to be nice without Jonathan's instruction.
nhangen 15y ago
I don't believe that he's sorry; I believe he's sorry that he was demonized. He apologized, but kept the money. That's silly.
tung 15y ago
It's easy to lash Sam Odio, but doing so robs us of some really interesting questions and answers. First, why was the idea so popular to begin with? Collective funds aren't new, nor is using Twitter as an API for tracking things in the real world. I don't have any good guesses here. Second, why has the community reacted so passionately? Even here on Hacker News, mostly made up of people who put reason over emotion, have been extremely upset. One: Having the money taken broke people's faith in the greater good of humanity, so indignation naturally follows. Two: Diverting funds was akin to telling people what to do, and nothing makes people angrier than being forced to do things against their will. People got very emotional over what, in perspective, isn't that much money. $625 could get you an iPad... or a really lousy computer. If somebody had that much stolen from a home break-in, that wouldn't even make local news, let alone Hacker News. It's very curious. Also, it shows money not just as a means of gaining goods and services, but as a way for people to make a mark on the world; 'voting' for things they believe in by giving money, and denying it from things they don't. I don't approve of what Sam did, but it's better to step back and really see what's going on here, rather than just being a mob about it.
- blhack 15y ago
  Despite what the common perception of hackers is, we're actually highly community driven. Look at places like HN. Look at the concept of the hackerspace, or the computing clubs that preceded them. Jonathan's card was in the same spirit as a hacker space, which is [bluntly]: if we all pitch into this, and we're all nice about it, we can have something that's pretty freaking cool. Assume that instead of a starbucks card, we were talking about a hackerspace. What Sam Odio did was the equivalent of showing up, then taking a bunch of the the tools so that he could sell them and donate the money to homeless people. To take it a step farther he then used his website to encourage other people to do the same thing. He tried to destroy the community (and succeeded). Hackers love communities, and they tend to hate the people that destroy them.
  - gruseom 15y ago
    In fact, Sam Odio is a very community-minded person. He started the original Hacker House in Palo Alto (http://hackerhouse.bluwiki.com/ http://hackerhouse.bluwiki.com/). He was an early enthusiast for the Hacker Dojo in Mountain View (http://wiki.hackerdojo.com/w/page/25442/Incubees http://wiki.hackerdojo.com/w/page/25442/Incubees). More significantly, when other people were offering advice to an unemployed hacker, it was Sam who offered his couch for a few weeks (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2827635 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2827635). I'll add a personal data point: he once insisted on giving my co-founder and me a ride to the train station even though it was completely out of his way and we had only met a few minutes earlier. Trivial, yes, but trivial indicators of decency are often the most reliable, especially when no one is watching. My 2¢ is that Sam seems to process social norms in an unconventional way and it occasionally gets him into a pickle. It also leads to good things. More good than bad, I'd bet.
wzdd 15y ago
I completely agree with Sam's analysis here. People were not interested in the experiment qua experiment, but were attached to one particular outcome. The most interesting part, for me, was reading people's angry reactions afterwards, phrased in the flowerly language of altriusm and community -- about a card that lets rich people buy overpriced coffee for other rich people! (And let's be completely clear, if you are in the position either to use Jonathan's card or have it used for you, you are almost certainly quite well-off.) Jonathan's Card was only succeeding temporarily because it was novel. People behave differently around novel things. If these things worked long-term, then there would be more of them around. Edit: Downvotes without comments? Pretty uninspiring, HN.
- themgt 15y ago
  Completely agree. Wasn't JC a Starbucks marketing op in the first place? This guy giving the money to charity was stupid, but so was people feeling altruistic by participating in a commercial coffee chain's latest astroturf viral ad campaign
  - danso 15y ago
    No, someone made the accusation that it was a marketing op. No real proof was ever shown.
- glenra 15y ago
  You're missing the larger picture. Things like this do work in small scale. There are restaurants that let you "pay whatever you want"; there are musicians that make a decent living selling music that one can get for free either from them or from third parties. People obey traffic signals even when nobody is around to enforce them. Churches survive despite the option of stealing from the collection plate as it goes by. So this sort of thing can work and in many places does work. The main question here is whether one can establish a social norm that encourages more cooperation than defection. For that to work, defection has to garner shame and social disapproval. Hence the reaction you see here. > about a card that lets rich people buy overpriced coffee for other rich people! (And let's be completely clear, if you are in the position either to use Jonathan's card or have it used for you, you are almost certainly quite well-off.) The exact thing being shared is irrelevant to the principles involved because if you got it work, it could scale. Something that starts by providing the public good of coffee-sharing might grow to provide other public goods. If the idea isn't strangled in its crib by a wise-ass. Related analogy: the internet might once have best been described as something that "lets overeducated rich people talk to other overeducated rich people! (And let's be completely clear, if you are in the position to make use of the internet or have it used for you, you are almost certainly quite well-off.)" When I used to use "mapquest" to print directions or use "google" to find answers to some question, that was once a novel thing that only strange nerdy people did. But because the people who used it benefited back then, everyone benefits today. Almost every new innovation helps "the rich" or well-connected before it helps the masses. At the time silk stockings were invented, the queen of england was among the few who could afford them. TVs were only for rich people when they were invented; ditto VCRs, radios, microwave ovens, cars... So saying "this only helps well-off people!" as an excuse to dismiss an innovation is something most nerds just intuitively reject. So obviously wrong as to be not worth explaining. Hence (I suspect) your downvotes.
trotsky 15y ago
I'm sure that this outcome was inevitable, even if Sam had never been born. I even think there are a few good lessons here. If everyone managed to calm down a bit we might even come out better off. I'm pretty sure it looked like the card had been running for a good while, maybe a few weeks, before it went viral. It looked like it was working out pretty well. A few hours in, I checked out the twitter feed again and it was a mad house. $30 would show up one minute and be gone the next, donors were getting thanked long after the money was spent, and people were chatting about how you could turn it into a money laundering scheme or if it was all gorilla marketing. I imagined people rushing up to the counter shoving their phone at the barista before it got emptied again. It felt as unsustainable as a politician on a coke binge. Now I'm sure lots of you didn't see it that way, and I'm not saying I'm right. But it was that same feeling that made me feel like throwing a wrench in the gears somehow, and I'm sure I'm not completely alone. Internet wisdom says you're pretty lucky it didn't end up with someone taking the money, loudly and publicly donating it to the KKK then inviting half of 4chan over to rub it all in. One insight might be that wild, unchecked growth can end up really hurting things. I wonder if it was going a fair bit slower would Sam have bothered? Or maybe he'd have just gotten $70 and that would have felt like an easier thing to just shrug off. Maybe Jonathan would have split it into a few cards, so it could all be a little less chaotic and more personal. For me I associate that pretty strongly with the 90's tech boom. My friends worked at netscape and my gf at a yahoo purchase and people were paper loaded. The vibe was sketchy but it all rubbed off and I left a profitable old school startup for what turned out to be a worsening series of disasters culminating with watching $260M get turned into a $20M firesale with nothing much to show for it. And predictably the place with real, lame customers managed to make it through the downturn without laying anyone off. Crazy growth can feel amazing but it can also make you lose sight of things, and the psychology of a crash can be that much worse. Switching gears, society operates within a complex system of morals, laws and customs. Those aren't symbols of the weakness of humanity - I think they show our ability to organize and keep our faults in check, allowing us to achieve more together. Most rules and disincentives exist to help good people stay good. The lock on my neighbors door wouldn't stop a determined burglar, but if it wasn't there people would get nosy from time to time and sneak in guiltily. Jonathan's card looked to expose a bit of whimsical generosity and faith in humanity. But with no checks in place and a growing volume of cash it instead became a test. With one person able to fail the test for everyone it was practically inevitable that it all would end in tears. I think you could see the experiment as a pretty decent success. Pretty much everyone turned out to be good, even the great villain seems more good and misguided than evil to me, I believe his plan really was to help folks who don't have enough. Plus scumbags don't stick around apologizing and asking where the money should go.It'd be easy to turn this story from a tragedy to a triumph. The best way to demonstrate people's continued faith in humanity and generosity would be to come back with just as much positive energy. It was classed as an experiment, and you shook out a bug. Maybe if you could retain the fun and spirit but with a bit of a safety net. Say two cards existed one getting donations and transferring manageable amounts to the public card every few minutes. Maybe encourage a picture or thought from people who got a cup, just to humanize it a bit and make a few connections while discouraging abuse. (PS I hate starbucks)
niklas_a 15y ago
He is very inconsistent. In his original post he states that "yuppies buying yuppies coffee is uninteresting" and he goes on to say that he will instead take all the money to his own card and donate it to charity. Now he is saying that it was all just an experiment and he didn't understand the outcome of his actions. Which one is it gonna be Sam?
akkartik 15y ago
How does getting notified of a certain balance help take money off the card? Does starbucks allow people to transfer money between gift cards?
- pentryslampan 15y ago
  He just bought giftcards instead of coffee, then transferred it into one with 500 and another one with 125. The hack just read Jonathans open api and started itunes when the balance reached a certain amount. There were better hacks for displaying the account balance. Everyone knew you could buy giftcards but i believe not many people did. I run a café too (not a Starbux...) and we also have a plate with coins where you may take or leave some. Buying giftcards with these isn't ok.
sliverstorm 15y ago
To be clear, my apology is intended to be complete, sincere, and unqualified. I'm sorry Sorry enough to make a new card, and fill it with the money you lifted?
BSeward 15y ago
This would have happened. The odds that it would have gone to a charity and not to an iPad are pretty small. I see a lot of irate comments on Jonathan's blog and the card's Facebook wall from people who likely cannot appreciate the ease with which money could be siphoned from this card. As far as I'm concerned Sam demonstrated an obvious and intrinsic security hole and then owned up to it, but most of the complaining crowd are convinced that his Evil Genius alone is the reason their feel-goodery has to come to an end. The alternate conclusion I see is that unknown agents would take advantage of this card until the experiment because too unpleasant to continue and then no one would feel anything.

53 points by robryan 15y ago

Well, as someone tweeted, "Odio is just another variable in the experiment". It wasn't really a fair experiment if you wanted the outcome to be positive. This is how it works. There might have been many who were gaming it; Odio is facing the backlash only because he admitted to it.

darklajid 15y ago
I guess the difference was (and is) that some didn't understand experiment being used in the scientific way. For a number of people (and I guess I'm on that side as well, although I never enter a StarBucks if I can avoid it and just watched from a distance) this was more a 'Let's see if we can keep this thing running' challenge. Experiment as in experimental and beta, novel, new, interesting. Not experiment as in 'how much pressure can I apply to this before it breaks'. A misunderstanding that causes these name calling now..
raganwald 15y ago
There are two different things to judge here, and your comment appears to conflate them. First, we can judge whether Sam’s action was “Part of the experiment.” Second, we can judge whether Sam’s action was repugnant. I think that it is possible to believe that Sam’s action was part of the experiment and also repugnant.
- chrischen 15y ago
  But I'm sure Sam's actions were contingent on it being an open experiment. Had Jonathan openly requested people not scrape the service do you think Sam would have broken that request to prove a point? It would only have been repugnant if Jonathan requested people not to do what Sam did. But the game had no rules and what is deemed a good or bad outcome is purely subjective. Who's to say free coffee for some is better than charity with this experiment? Just because the majority dream this specific experiment to be something that it isn't doesn't mean someone who comes along and dashes those dreams is an asshole. If you want his actions to be deemed repugnant, then setup a new Jonathan's Card experiment, define the rules the way you want with the no-scraping clause. Then wait until Sam breaks those rules. Then you can call his actions repugnant. EDIT: I'll admit it's probably not the nicest thing to do if he knew that people (wrongly) assumed their donated money would go to buying coffee for others. But the risks were clearly defined and anyone donating money should have realized that their money is actually going to the experiment, and not necessarily to buying coffee for someone.
  - Kadrith 15y ago
    I don't drink Starbucks coffee, so I didn't participate in this. There was already an implicit request that this be used for something at Starbucks; otherwise why would he have used a Starbucks gift card? Does Starbucks now sell iPads? From what I've read I do think this guy would have broken an explicit request concerning scraping; he seems like just another crook that believes they are innocent and always has an excuse.
    - chrischen 15y ago
      If you think he would have broken the rules explicitly then you are simply being cynical. If you are judging him based on that speculation then you should reconsider, because I highly doubt most people you've read here actually know Sam.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    If I do business with you and I’m an asshole, is my moral defence really that you should have realized I would be an asshole? We have to disentangle asshole/nice guy from legal/illegal. Being an asshole in business is legal. But that doesn’t mean it’s not repugnant. Sure, we can say that Sam has not broken Jonathan’s law, and we can argue that he doesn’t need to reverse his transactions legally. We can also argue that he was or was not acting like an asshole. Perhaps he wasn’t. But the question of whether his actions were in accordance with the “rules of the game” has very little bearing on whether they are repugnant.
    - chrischen 15y ago
      If you do business with me, and you're an asshole, your moral defense can be that you didn't know you were being an asshole. I'd personally give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course the next time you do the same thing it'll be clear. >But the question of whether his actions were in accordance with the “rules of the game” has very little bearing on whether they are repugnant. If you break an explicit rule or request, then it's clear that you knew you were being an asshole, doing things other people don't want. When that rule is not explicit, it's hard to say if you knew you were being an asshole. The rules weren't explicit, and could have very easily specified not to scrape. If Sam took advantage of anyone it would have been naive experiment participants who donated money under the false assumption it would be used for a specific purpose. But even then, Sam's actions could be interpreted as Robin Hood-esque by some. There is NO DOUBT, from the view point of the supposed victims that Sam's actions are repugnant because they go against what they wished, but so did the people who Robin Hood robbed from I bet. However, from a more global perspective, who's to say they're repugnant? Assume some of that Stark Card money actually reached some unfortunate children in the third world and made their lives slightly better... Would a non-victim really believe that to be a worse appropriation of that money than buying coffee for some first-world person (assuming the money actually reached those kids)? Many would argue that is a better use of the money, regardless of what the original experiment participants expected the money to be used for, because the experiment participants wrongly assumed in the first place.

Tichy 15y ago

I must say, I can relate. The discussion almost sounds as if Jonathan's card would have saved the world (transformed us all into happy altruists, drinking free coffee ever after) if only Sam hadn't ruined it. Maybe the "hack" was not such a good idea after all, but I am willing to believe that it was not done in a mean spirit, but simply to experiment. Come to think of it, perhaps in this way the whole experiment (Card+iPad hack) brings out other, more ugly facets of humans than the desired altruism. Like the tendency to gang up on other people - and sometimes people who want to make the world a better place are the most aggressive ones.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
overgard 15y ago
I do think you have a good point with the ugliness of ganging up on this guy. My feeling is: if this was actually an "experiment", as people claimed -- and not some lame attempt at proving people are really fluffy teddy bears inside -- then what happens in context of that experiment should stay in that context. We shouldn't be making stabs at this guy's character for doing something that was basically part of the game. The experiment was asking "what will happen if we do this". We got our answer: "someone will take advantage of it". At least the guy that took advantage of it was willing to fess up, and we all (should have) learned something.
niklas_a 15y ago
What could Sam possibly learn from his experiment? Everyone on hacker news knew that what he did was possible technically and that it would put an end to the experiment. He basically said so himself in his original blog post. He didn't like the experiment and decided to end it by donating it all to charity.

Kwpolska 15y ago

> In that light it would be hard to understand the negative reaction to my participation. After all, it's an experiment and isn't finding interesting new uses for the card fair-game? Even after Starbucks shut down the card, isn't the experiment living on? Why the outrage? Because the card would likely still be alive if you wouldn't act like a dick? > For those who are hurt, angry, or frustrated with the role I played, I sincerely apologize. Had I known so many were so invested in this, I would have certainly done things differently. A hint for you: create Asshole's Card with the $625 you stole and continue the experiment. You shall add even more funds and give some back to Jonathan himself.

darklajid 15y ago
While I disagree with his actions: His post was moderate, he apologized and promised a longer reply and explanation in the future. Please stop the name calling.
- Thangorodrim 15y ago
  He did not apologize for his actions. He apologized that silly emotional people got upset at the obvious outcome of this entire stunt. A sincere apology takes three words. When those three words are buried in hundreds of words of qualifications and context its no longer an apology. The entire thing is redolent of a condescending tone. Sam, you see, is a scientist! Anyone who questioned his behavior is just an having an emotional reaction and does not understand the real world - where there is always a Sam to piss in the well. The thing is, most of use knew this already, and his demonstration did not teach anyone anything other than about Sam's character. EDIT: Oh, I don't care about the gift card. I am simply commenting on the 'apology.'
  - darklajid 15y ago
    Fair enough. I guess you can read that from the article. For me, I can't see these things. Someone else already said that he should've apologized first, unqualified - and I agree that this would make a difference. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd have started like that - it feels natural to me to explain first, reason about my actions and end with an apology. We're not talking about a company here (see the AirBnB comparison), we're talking about a random guy as far as I'm concerned. Lastly: I guess a lot is getting lost in translation for me. Lots of advices on this forum are hard to get for me, because they are about nuances of English words, implied meanings, 'tone' and cultural rules. While it might very well be possible that you/most of the posters and Sam are sharing the same standards and therefor 'better' understand the content or see a subtext: I cannot.

mattdeboard 15y ago

I'm about as uninterested as possible in hearing any more about this, especially from Sam Odio.

aymeric 15y ago

This Sam Odio seems to have ruined his reputation in one hack.

Tichy 15y ago
Then again, there is no such thing as bad news. At least he put his name on the map.
- robryan 15y ago
  He was already fairly well known. Don't think it ruins his reputation at all, this is similar really to the kind of stuff that gets celebrated as innovative thinking around here. Sure this particular instance has stuck a chord with some people.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Or maybe some people around here can at least accept that if you never make mistakes, you are not trying hard enough.
    - sorbus 15y ago
      There's a difference between making an honest mistake and going into something that is obviously a mistake to a lot of the community while possibly lying about it[1]. Sort of like how if I intentionally drove a car off a cliff I wouldn't get any sympathy if I claimed that I didn't understand that cliffs are different from roads. [1] Look at his comment history, especially his two comments on the original Jonthan's card post. He's admitted that, since the 7th, he's been skimming off the top of the card, yet on the 8th he said "That would imply that the card is currently being used as intended" and explained $25 vanishing from the card as him buying food for two homeless people. Even if he wasn't intentionally misdirecting people or lying, it certainly looks suspicious.
      - Tichy 15y ago
        If he was lying about it, why would he have written a blog post about it? Doesn't seem to make sense.

alexandros 15y ago

Since the context was human (online) society, the backlash is part of the experiment too. Also, the experiment continues. I personally wonder if the experiment will produce a regret reaction from the publicly non-cooperating participant. For the moment it seems to be producing a 'deflect / damage control' reaction.

darklajid 15y ago
Feeling kind of weird being on the defensive side here, but - wouldn't you consider "For those who are hurt, angry, or frustrated with the role I played, I sincerely apologize. Had I known so many were so invested in this, I would have certainly done things differently." a "regret outcome"? That's part of the blog entry and the 'sincerely apologize' part is bold and hard to miss.
- alexandros 15y ago
  Fair point. I must admit I only skimmed through. I guess the answer to my question is yes.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

andrewcooke 15y ago

here's a free tip: apologies should be near the start and unqualified. put the self-justification and excuses afterwards. this reads like he's working for airbnb.

wisty 15y ago
Still, it works. The tone here has gone from "Sam eats babies alive" to "Sam was wrong, and maybe committed a crime, but he's was honest about it, and people are taking it way out of proportion". A little more "I understand now why so many people were pissed off", and a little less "someone else would have done it" would work better, but maybe he's writing what he thinks, and not just what he thinks the best PR move would be. It's hard to honestly admit you were wrong.

Tichy 15y ago

I haven't followed J's card too closely, but wasn't it set up in a very lenient way? How about creating a more "secure" system, for example without the possibility to get money out of the card other than by drinking coffees?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

molbioguy 15y ago

The negative comments and name calling against Sam Odie is way out of line. Jonathan made an "experiment" and launched it. It was wildly successful and he got lots of data about how people react to the experimental situation he created. Real experiments don't have outcomes that are pre-ordained. Let it go. Learn and move on.

jonhohle 15y ago
I'm slightly concerned that more people here don't get this. The whole point of an experiment is to have a hypothesis, perform a test, observe the result, and make some conclusion related to your original hypothesis. It seems like what most people wanted was a "challenge". I don't have any issue with that, but call a duck a duck. If this really was a social "experiment", you have to expect people to behave as they would in society, including leaches. This experiment is a reminder of why we can't have nice things on an honor system. There will _always_ be actors who game the system - typically for personal gain, but sometimes for the lols.
chrischen2 15y ago
People are just angry that the experiment didn't go the way they had hoped.
mechnik 15y ago
Are these "negative comments" "way out of line" compared with stealing $600? Are they somehow less "real" outcomes of Jonathan's experiment?
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
This was never an experiment. Where was the hypothesis? Where was the control? It was no more an experiment than me "experimenting" with Elbonian food is an experiment. To write off somebody's lack of understanding of social mores because "we were all just ants" is disingenuous. That said, this whole thing has actually been very interesting to watch from the outside, and there is little doubt Odie made it far more interesting (if not somewhat dishearening).
- 15y ago

dustineichler 15y ago

You take a penny, you leave a penny. That's it, that's the unwritten rule.

nestlequ1k 15y ago

Would have been much funner if Odio just bought himself an ipad and used it to write a detailed blog post about the glaring flaws with the premise of the experiment. I would have respected that quite a bit. Instead he tried to donate other people's money to charity. That takes the cake for douchbaggery. I thought Jonathan's card idea was funny, but unbelievably stupid (in the common tragic kind of way). Being morally outraged at the result reminds me of those of you who like to say Communism should work in theory, then point the finger after the mass murders, saying it could have been different if it hadn't been for that one guy who ruined everything.

flocial 15y ago

According to the other post (Q&A), if Jonathan reported it as theft it would become a police matter. I think that sums it up in moral terms. If he bought himself $625 of coffee probably not. A nasty prosecutor might treat each cash transfer as a separate case of wire fraud. At the end of the day I just ask myself "what the hell was that about?" and the idea of donating an iPad to the poor is the most idiotic use of diverted coffee money. With all that philosophy you're going to give one kid an iPad and add to the bottomline of one of the richest corporations in the world. Much better than strangers buying each other coffee. Way to change the world.

darklajid 15y ago
Are you sure that you followed the whole story? "With all that philosophy you're going to give one kid an iPad and add to the bottomline of one of the richest corporations in the world." seems to indicate that you believe that he's buying (or bought) an iPad to send it off to the 3rd world. That's - erm - quite wrong. From all I can tell he - wrote a script to tell him that more than $ X is on the card - transfer money to a gift card by going to the counter (he was sitting in a StarBucks) - repeat - he said he got $625 (on two cards, it seems those top out at $500) His initial blog post used the iPad 2 as link bait and said 'You could buy an iPad with that cash!'. Afterwards he put these gift cards on eBay and claimed he'd give the return to charity. No iPad in sight. No money to Apple. So - posts like yours are showing that this is a very emotional thing. It's not helpful to jump in and bash people though, especially if you misunderstand the situation. Correct me if I failed to understand you?
- flocial 15y ago
  Thanks for the correction. The $500 card is going for $510 now. I've donated to Save the Children before and no doubt it's a good cause. Can't argue that I find this mildly offensive. I guess it's the violation of implicit rules of an experiment that gives false hope on anonymously reciprocated altruism.
_delirium 15y ago
I would be surprised if police would investigate or a jury would convict. If you're doing something that looks like a social experiment, police usually don't really want anything to do with enforcing it. If someone stole your gift card out of your wallet, sure. But if you post your gift-card information on the internet and invite people to use it, it's not really their job to enforce your unwritten rules on how people should've used it. At least if there were formal written rules on proper usage, you could make an argument that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should cover misuse of a card number, when the user agreed to an EULA in order to acquire it. Though I think that approach of turning EULAs into criminal law is also dangerous.

chrischen 15y ago

If you hate Sam Odio for this, just ask yourself if you think Sam would still have done it if Jonathan had explicitly requested people not to scrape it. What Sam done was inevitable and no doubt crossed Jonathan's mind as a possible outcome of the experiment (there was even an API to simplify the process)... If the answer is no, then it should be clear that there was no malice in Sam's intent because it was clearly within the rules and clearly recognized by him as so. I'm sure lots of people are angry that they made donations assuming it would go to the specific purpose of buying coffee for others, but the risks were clear and the experiment rules were laid out. Granted, Sam probably knew this and still appropriated the money to charity which was probably a bad move.

Terretta 15y ago

This post stil feels disingenuous. Part of the experiment? Odio came along and scraped all the carbohydrates out of the Petrie dish, to give to ants outside the lab. As pointed out by HN readers, absolutely everyone here knew the experiment could be broken, so nothing was proven or gained by doing what any of us could have. I was given an EcoSphere (a glass ball containing a supposedly self-sustaining ecosystem) as a boy. For a kid, it's a fascinating experiment to see if it works over time. "One possible outcome" is to drop the glass ball on the floor. Not a particularly inventive or interesting outcome, and if you do that in front of a class of kids, you'll get the same reactions. A lot of people were enjoying being kids again, watching the glass ball's energy supply surge and fall, till Odio broke open the EcoSphere protesting that's valid science too. In a large enough classroom, there's always at least one.

Terretta 15y ago
Addendum – Came back at the end of the day to add this clarification: Nothing in Sam's comments about this lead me to believe he's a bad guy, just that he's missing something about this particular scenario. On the contrary, spotting rules begging for breaking is a very helpful trait for an entrepreneur – as most here know, the YC questionnaire asks for examples of "hacking the system for your own gain". (Though the PG "no jerks" rule[1] implies hacking that's not at someone else's expense.) ”There's always one“ who's constantly challenging conventions, and when that one zeros in on the line between audacious and antisocial, 20 years later he often winds up running things. For more human background, this Washington Business Journal profiles the Odio brothers.[2] 1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1632477 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1632477 2. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/11/focus1.html http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/11/foc...

urbanjunkie 15y ago

And once again, he demonstrates that he doesn't understand what's going on. A lot of the backlash focuses on his dubious claim to the moral high ground. I, once more, invite Sam to explain how much of his OWN time and money he donates to charity. Being a moralising prick is easy, after all, when stacked up against children starving in Somalia, almost any other use of money that doesn't pertain to basic survival can be viewed as frivolous. His apology post is basically nothing more than a "Sorry you all got upset about it, if I'd know you cared that much I wouldn't have done it". In his mind he hasn't really done anything wrong - he feels that if he doesn't agree with the aims or the social value of something, he can suborn it to his own ends. There's nothing wrong with being nice to other people - it might not save the world, but one of the issues we face in the so called developed nations is the erosion of basic social courtesies - the ability to be polite to each other and not act like dicks. EDIT: I also stand by my offer to hook Sam up with some contacts in Uganda who would love to have time with a geek to help with real problems.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

DevX101 15y ago

Without enforcement of the social contract, society would quickly collapse, or transform from something very different from it is today. We all want to believe that people are all good, but the sad truth is we're not...at least, not all of us. And it only takes a few renegades to disrupt this whole thing we call society in the absence of enforcement. I don't ascribe any particular moral judgment on Odio. He was a part of the experiment and his actions only confirmed my belief that any exploitable system will be exploited. An interesting additional outcome from this social experiment to me was how 'the community' reacted to Odio. Like adultery, what Odio did was one of those rules that he wasn't supposed to do, but he did anyways. We can't throw people in jail for cheating on their wives. So what do we do and have done for thousands of years? We shame them. And that's exactly what's been happening to Odio here and I'm assuming on Facebook too.

lotharbot 15y ago
> Without enforcement of the social contract, society would quickly collapse When you're dealing with strangers' money, an unspoken "social contract" is entirely inadequate. You need an explicit contract, real enforcement, and oversight. This is why charities have things like mission statements, operational guidelines, and independent audits, and why the law gets involved when there's misappropriation of funds. This is why we have things like Charity Navigator. When you don't have those things, you get a situation like this -- funds get directed to causes the donors did not intend. As misappropriations go, this one was relatively tame; rather than giving coffee money to starving children, someone might use "feed the children" money to bomb a bus in the Middle East, or "stand up for the Constitution" money to fund McVeigh type domestic terrorism. Some sort of abuse was inevitable with the way Jonathan's Card was set up. I'm sad that Sam chose to abuse it, since he's a valued member of this community and it sucks to see him alienate so many. But I'm also glad that he's the one who abused it, as many others would've actually bought themselves an iPad instead of sending the money on to charity.

shiven 15y ago

It seems like Freshplum is a YC company and what Odio has done clearly puts him over and across the "No Assholes" rule that pg talks about. (I don't know how that correlates contextually, but I feel there should be a connection). Regardless, Odio acted like an utter douchebag, IMHO. And he is just making it worse with his un-apology apologies.

philk 15y ago

I know this is going to be unpopular and I know Sam has been remarkably tone deaf[1] when it comes to dealing with people but I'm disturbed by how much damage one stupid, somewhat douchey action is going to do his reputation. [1] Yes, and even this latest pseudo-apology is poorly handled. He should have just stuck to a simple "didn't think that through, sorry to those I've offended, I've cancelled the auction and will return the money to any starbucks card Jonathan nominates" message but sometimes it can be hard to admit you've screwed up, particularly when you're getting a kicking for it.

mebesilly 15y ago
"I'm disturbed by how much damage one stupid, somewhat douchey action is going to do his reputation." Every message that I have seem from him, both on HN and on his blog confirms that he IS a douchebag.
TillE 15y ago
Well, it's a good lesson in thinking about the consequences of your actions before you act. What you choose to do matters. Not sure that would've helped in this case, though, since Odio still doesn't seem to get it.
- equalarrow 15y ago
  Agreed. I felt like his post still seems to talk about the experiment as a whole and his action in the experiment vs. the 'why'. I felt immediately that I got the why and a co-worker and I used two drinks on the card. We talked about it and the concept of the goodwill behind it. We definitely didn't feel like yuppie developers and we talked more about how different the world would be if more things were like this. Even about startups along these lines and what bigger ideas like these could change the world. Yes, a fantasy, but we felt that's what this was about. Anyway, Odio's OP felt very much like business as usual in a cynical world vs. JC's actually doing something positive (even if it is just yuppie coffee). Odio's recent apology seems hollow and in my mind the damage has been done.
avree 15y ago
Sorry, but he could have easily saved the situation with a little bit of social understanding and thought. Tweets like this: https://twitter.com/#!/sodio/status/102435437930479616 https://twitter.com/#!/sodio/status/102435437930479616 are ridiculous. "@sodio Sam Odio Starbucks gift card now up to $660. I've offered to sign it if that increases anyone's willingness to donate. cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d…"

napierzaza 15y ago

It's nice that Odio gets to call the outcome on the experiment. Secondly, is he still stealing money from it?

lubutu 15y ago

Aside from all the hatred for Odio, in utilitarian terms this outcome may have been better than if the experiment were just to continue. One can complain that it's all about higher horses, but I doubt the children who may be fed or clothed as a result will care. I know, I know, Odio's moralising is irritating. But people are acting as though he's taken our capability for altruism. I assure you, people are able to be nice without Jonathan's instruction.

nhangen 15y ago

I don't believe that he's sorry; I believe he's sorry that he was demonized. He apologized, but kept the money. That's silly.

tung 15y ago

It's easy to lash Sam Odio, but doing so robs us of some really interesting questions and answers. First, why was the idea so popular to begin with? Collective funds aren't new, nor is using Twitter as an API for tracking things in the real world. I don't have any good guesses here. Second, why has the community reacted so passionately? Even here on Hacker News, mostly made up of people who put reason over emotion, have been extremely upset. One: Having the money taken broke people's faith in the greater good of humanity, so indignation naturally follows. Two: Diverting funds was akin to telling people what to do, and nothing makes people angrier than being forced to do things against their will. People got very emotional over what, in perspective, isn't that much money. $625 could get you an iPad... or a really lousy computer. If somebody had that much stolen from a home break-in, that wouldn't even make local news, let alone Hacker News. It's very curious. Also, it shows money not just as a means of gaining goods and services, but as a way for people to make a mark on the world; 'voting' for things they believe in by giving money, and denying it from things they don't. I don't approve of what Sam did, but it's better to step back and really see what's going on here, rather than just being a mob about it.

blhack 15y ago
Despite what the common perception of hackers is, we're actually highly community driven. Look at places like HN. Look at the concept of the hackerspace, or the computing clubs that preceded them. Jonathan's card was in the same spirit as a hacker space, which is [bluntly]: if we all pitch into this, and we're all nice about it, we can have something that's pretty freaking cool. Assume that instead of a starbucks card, we were talking about a hackerspace. What Sam Odio did was the equivalent of showing up, then taking a bunch of the the tools so that he could sell them and donate the money to homeless people. To take it a step farther he then used his website to encourage other people to do the same thing. He tried to destroy the community (and succeeded). Hackers love communities, and they tend to hate the people that destroy them.
- gruseom 15y ago
  In fact, Sam Odio is a very community-minded person. He started the original Hacker House in Palo Alto (http://hackerhouse.bluwiki.com/ http://hackerhouse.bluwiki.com/). He was an early enthusiast for the Hacker Dojo in Mountain View (http://wiki.hackerdojo.com/w/page/25442/Incubees http://wiki.hackerdojo.com/w/page/25442/Incubees). More significantly, when other people were offering advice to an unemployed hacker, it was Sam who offered his couch for a few weeks (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2827635 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2827635). I'll add a personal data point: he once insisted on giving my co-founder and me a ride to the train station even though it was completely out of his way and we had only met a few minutes earlier. Trivial, yes, but trivial indicators of decency are often the most reliable, especially when no one is watching. My 2¢ is that Sam seems to process social norms in an unconventional way and it occasionally gets him into a pickle. It also leads to good things. More good than bad, I'd bet.

wzdd 15y ago

I completely agree with Sam's analysis here. People were not interested in the experiment qua experiment, but were attached to one particular outcome. The most interesting part, for me, was reading people's angry reactions afterwards, phrased in the flowerly language of altriusm and community -- about a card that lets rich people buy overpriced coffee for other rich people! (And let's be completely clear, if you are in the position either to use Jonathan's card or have it used for you, you are almost certainly quite well-off.) Jonathan's Card was only succeeding temporarily because it was novel. People behave differently around novel things. If these things worked long-term, then there would be more of them around. Edit: Downvotes without comments? Pretty uninspiring, HN.

themgt 15y ago
Completely agree. Wasn't JC a Starbucks marketing op in the first place? This guy giving the money to charity was stupid, but so was people feeling altruistic by participating in a commercial coffee chain's latest astroturf viral ad campaign
- danso 15y ago
  No, someone made the accusation that it was a marketing op. No real proof was ever shown.
glenra 15y ago
You're missing the larger picture. Things like this do work in small scale. There are restaurants that let you "pay whatever you want"; there are musicians that make a decent living selling music that one can get for free either from them or from third parties. People obey traffic signals even when nobody is around to enforce them. Churches survive despite the option of stealing from the collection plate as it goes by. So this sort of thing can work and in many places does work. The main question here is whether one can establish a social norm that encourages more cooperation than defection. For that to work, defection has to garner shame and social disapproval. Hence the reaction you see here. > about a card that lets rich people buy overpriced coffee for other rich people! (And let's be completely clear, if you are in the position either to use Jonathan's card or have it used for you, you are almost certainly quite well-off.) The exact thing being shared is irrelevant to the principles involved because if you got it work, it could scale. Something that starts by providing the public good of coffee-sharing might grow to provide other public goods. If the idea isn't strangled in its crib by a wise-ass. Related analogy: the internet might once have best been described as something that "lets overeducated rich people talk to other overeducated rich people! (And let's be completely clear, if you are in the position to make use of the internet or have it used for you, you are almost certainly quite well-off.)" When I used to use "mapquest" to print directions or use "google" to find answers to some question, that was once a novel thing that only strange nerdy people did. But because the people who used it benefited back then, everyone benefits today. Almost every new innovation helps "the rich" or well-connected before it helps the masses. At the time silk stockings were invented, the queen of england was among the few who could afford them. TVs were only for rich people when they were invented; ditto VCRs, radios, microwave ovens, cars... So saying "this only helps well-off people!" as an excuse to dismiss an innovation is something most nerds just intuitively reject. So obviously wrong as to be not worth explaining. Hence (I suspect) your downvotes.

trotsky 15y ago

I'm sure that this outcome was inevitable, even if Sam had never been born. I even think there are a few good lessons here. If everyone managed to calm down a bit we might even come out better off. I'm pretty sure it looked like the card had been running for a good while, maybe a few weeks, before it went viral. It looked like it was working out pretty well. A few hours in, I checked out the twitter feed again and it was a mad house. $30 would show up one minute and be gone the next, donors were getting thanked long after the money was spent, and people were chatting about how you could turn it into a money laundering scheme or if it was all gorilla marketing. I imagined people rushing up to the counter shoving their phone at the barista before it got emptied again. It felt as unsustainable as a politician on a coke binge. Now I'm sure lots of you didn't see it that way, and I'm not saying I'm right. But it was that same feeling that made me feel like throwing a wrench in the gears somehow, and I'm sure I'm not completely alone. Internet wisdom says you're pretty lucky it didn't end up with someone taking the money, loudly and publicly donating it to the KKK then inviting half of 4chan over to rub it all in. One insight might be that wild, unchecked growth can end up really hurting things. I wonder if it was going a fair bit slower would Sam have bothered? Or maybe he'd have just gotten $70 and that would have felt like an easier thing to just shrug off. Maybe Jonathan would have split it into a few cards, so it could all be a little less chaotic and more personal. For me I associate that pretty strongly with the 90's tech boom. My friends worked at netscape and my gf at a yahoo purchase and people were paper loaded. The vibe was sketchy but it all rubbed off and I left a profitable old school startup for what turned out to be a worsening series of disasters culminating with watching $260M get turned into a $20M firesale with nothing much to show for it. And predictably the place with real, lame customers managed to make it through the downturn without laying anyone off. Crazy growth can feel amazing but it can also make you lose sight of things, and the psychology of a crash can be that much worse. Switching gears, society operates within a complex system of morals, laws and customs. Those aren't symbols of the weakness of humanity - I think they show our ability to organize and keep our faults in check, allowing us to achieve more together. Most rules and disincentives exist to help good people stay good. The lock on my neighbors door wouldn't stop a determined burglar, but if it wasn't there people would get nosy from time to time and sneak in guiltily. Jonathan's card looked to expose a bit of whimsical generosity and faith in humanity. But with no checks in place and a growing volume of cash it instead became a test. With one person able to fail the test for everyone it was practically inevitable that it all would end in tears. I think you could see the experiment as a pretty decent success. Pretty much everyone turned out to be good, even the great villain seems more good and misguided than evil to me, I believe his plan really was to help folks who don't have enough. Plus scumbags don't stick around apologizing and asking where the money should go.It'd be easy to turn this story from a tragedy to a triumph. The best way to demonstrate people's continued faith in humanity and generosity would be to come back with just as much positive energy. It was classed as an experiment, and you shook out a bug. Maybe if you could retain the fun and spirit but with a bit of a safety net. Say two cards existed one getting donations and transferring manageable amounts to the public card every few minutes. Maybe encourage a picture or thought from people who got a cup, just to humanize it a bit and make a few connections while discouraging abuse. (PS I hate starbucks)

niklas_a 15y ago

He is very inconsistent. In his original post he states that "yuppies buying yuppies coffee is uninteresting" and he goes on to say that he will instead take all the money to his own card and donate it to charity. Now he is saying that it was all just an experiment and he didn't understand the outcome of his actions. Which one is it gonna be Sam?

akkartik 15y ago

How does getting notified of a certain balance help take money off the card? Does starbucks allow people to transfer money between gift cards?

pentryslampan 15y ago
He just bought giftcards instead of coffee, then transferred it into one with 500 and another one with 125. The hack just read Jonathans open api and started itunes when the balance reached a certain amount. There were better hacks for displaying the account balance. Everyone knew you could buy giftcards but i believe not many people did. I run a café too (not a Starbux...) and we also have a plate with coins where you may take or leave some. Buying giftcards with these isn't ok.

sliverstorm 15y ago

To be clear, my apology is intended to be complete, sincere, and unqualified. I'm sorry Sorry enough to make a new card, and fill it with the money you lifted?

BSeward 15y ago

This would have happened. The odds that it would have gone to a charity and not to an iPad are pretty small. I see a lot of irate comments on Jonathan's blog and the card's Facebook wall from people who likely cannot appreciate the ease with which money could be siphoned from this card. As far as I'm concerned Sam demonstrated an obvious and intrinsic security hole and then owned up to it, but most of the complaining crowd are convinced that his Evil Genius alone is the reason their feel-goodery has to come to an end. The alternate conclusion I see is that unknown agents would take advantage of this card until the experiment because too unpleasant to continue and then no one would feel anything.