7 ms·

Looks like victim blaming. While this might be justified, the article doesnt give enough substance to do so. Also I disagree that Holmes is a scapegoat here (ex

Looks like victim blaming. While this might be justified, the article doesnt give enough substance to do so. Also I disagree that Holmes is a scapegoat here (expect if you could make a case that she is not liable for her actions).

sschueller 5y ago
The VCs are definitely not victims here. Their own greed and incompetency to listen to experts put them in that position. The real victims are the people that received the results from such fraudulent tests and maybe even received improper treatments because of it.
- andi999 5y ago
  "Their own greed and incompetency to listen to experts put them in that position" Maybe, but the article does not provide good evidence for that. In hindsight everything is obvious. One argument that it would have problems with regulations might also not be valid, since if you really manage to build something everybody wants to buy often regulation follows suite to allow for that.
  - sschueller 5y ago
    There were a lot of warning signs and even if the VC had invested already the could have killed it before it all collapsed in a giant media scandal. Same goes for SpaceX's point to point travel. It will never happen and there are many warning signs pointing to this fact. For example in their presentation they list a large list of cities, many of those are completely out of the question. So in essence a blatant lie. Sure SpaceX probably wont go under because they have some real projects but it is quite questionable for a company to make such claims knowing it will never meet them.
    - andi999 5y ago
      Yes. But let's say the investor thinks: sure the point to point is silly, but the real market is to compute with the Ariane programm, and space x will win; it is still justified to invest. Of course if the space x launches so far were in reality all cgi rendered, then that is fraud, but one shdnt say that this could have been obvious since there were warning signs. Maybe I am wrong but such announcements which clearly will never happen are just PR, like Ryanair announcing every couple of years that they either charge for toilets or remove the seats, both which will probably not happen in any near future but it gives them free press coverage. So what were the warning signs before investors invested?
      - sschueller 5y ago
        To me that is way beyond some PR. Saying the rocket will be red and then it's blue, that might be PR, it doesn't affect the overall business and in the larger of things is irrelevant. Clamming you will be providing p2p travel to many destinations in the world is a whole other segment. These announcements go beyond PR, they are borderline fraud.
- JackFr 5y ago
  They are literally the victims. Elizabeth Holmes made representations which she knew to be false to secure investments. That is explicitly fraud. That investors may have been foolish and greedy does not take away from the fact that Holmes acted to deceive them. If I leave the keys in the ignition of my sports car and it’s stolen, I’m a very foolish person, but certainly no less the victim of a car theft.
  - bserge 5y ago
    Any records of what she actually said to investors? Imo, it was likely just the usual pitch with vague promises and a lot of "believe/estimate/think/consider/approximately/likely/close to/in development". Just like any other startup before they strike it big or lose millions. Looks more like she "messed with the wrong mf'ers" as they say. Tbf, $1 billion is a lot of money.
  - dannyr 5y ago
    "If I leave the keys in the ignition of my sports car and it’s stolen, I’m a very foolish person, but certainly no less the victim of a car theft." Except that the investors gave the keys of their cars to Holmes. Holmes didn't grab their money without their permission.
    - sschueller 5y ago
      If you talk to your insurance, you are not the victim. They won't pay out a claim if you left your key in the car.
      - relaunched 5y ago
        They'd say you didn't take reasonable care.
        projektfu 5y ago
        And then, in the US, if you have comprehensive coverage, they'd pay the claim.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >Their own greed and incompetency to listen to experts put them in that position. You could say the same thing about any fraud victims, especially love scams[1]. [1]"Police statistics show more than 75 per cent of people caught up in online romance scams refuse to believe they're being ripped off." https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/online-love-fraud-victims-ignoring-police-warnings/5180608 https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/online-love-fraud-v...
  - em-bee 5y ago
    that's not the same thing. VCs are professional experienced investors and they failed doing their job. someone falling for a romance scam is simply inexperienced in that matter, and should not be expected to know better
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >someone falling for a romance scam is simply inexperienced in that matter, and should not be expected to know better People that fall for romance scams tend to be older and significantly more experienced (in terms of life and love) than people who don't. They also continue with the relationship even when friends, family and eventually law enforcement sit down with them and show them that it's a scam. I think many of these scams really highlight our innate desire to fool ourselves, especially when we are desperate and hopeful.
      - em-bee 5y ago
        older and significantly more experienced (in terms of life and love) i doubt that older people are more experienced. being married for a decade or two does nothing to prepare you for an online relationship. older people likely never had an online relationship before and also weren't switching partners as often when they were young as people nowadays tend to. if they were they should have less trouble finding a new partner. they are falling for online relationships precisely because they don't know how to find a partner otherwise. but that isn't even the issue. i don't know if i could tell the difference between a genuine relationship and a well executed pretender. not meeting in person makes it really hard to verify the claims being made. what is puzzling is why someone would give up their life savings for someone they haven't even meet yet in person. some expensive gifts for a few thousand dollars, sure, but all i have? that's something i'd bring into a marriage and only use if it is really needed. but then, i am a skeptic by nature.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- diogenes123 5y ago
  The men who got 'ripped off' are 'Epstein Island' crowd. I have heard stories about women ESCAPING their clutches - they are that voracious.

sschueller 5y ago

The VCs are definitely not victims here. Their own greed and incompetency to listen to experts put them in that position. The real victims are the people that received the results from such fraudulent tests and maybe even received improper treatments because of it.

andi999 5y ago
"Their own greed and incompetency to listen to experts put them in that position" Maybe, but the article does not provide good evidence for that. In hindsight everything is obvious. One argument that it would have problems with regulations might also not be valid, since if you really manage to build something everybody wants to buy often regulation follows suite to allow for that.
- sschueller 5y ago
  There were a lot of warning signs and even if the VC had invested already the could have killed it before it all collapsed in a giant media scandal. Same goes for SpaceX's point to point travel. It will never happen and there are many warning signs pointing to this fact. For example in their presentation they list a large list of cities, many of those are completely out of the question. So in essence a blatant lie. Sure SpaceX probably wont go under because they have some real projects but it is quite questionable for a company to make such claims knowing it will never meet them.
  - andi999 5y ago
    Yes. But let's say the investor thinks: sure the point to point is silly, but the real market is to compute with the Ariane programm, and space x will win; it is still justified to invest. Of course if the space x launches so far were in reality all cgi rendered, then that is fraud, but one shdnt say that this could have been obvious since there were warning signs. Maybe I am wrong but such announcements which clearly will never happen are just PR, like Ryanair announcing every couple of years that they either charge for toilets or remove the seats, both which will probably not happen in any near future but it gives them free press coverage. So what were the warning signs before investors invested?
    - sschueller 5y ago
      To me that is way beyond some PR. Saying the rocket will be red and then it's blue, that might be PR, it doesn't affect the overall business and in the larger of things is irrelevant. Clamming you will be providing p2p travel to many destinations in the world is a whole other segment. These announcements go beyond PR, they are borderline fraud.
JackFr 5y ago
They are literally the victims. Elizabeth Holmes made representations which she knew to be false to secure investments. That is explicitly fraud. That investors may have been foolish and greedy does not take away from the fact that Holmes acted to deceive them. If I leave the keys in the ignition of my sports car and it’s stolen, I’m a very foolish person, but certainly no less the victim of a car theft.
- bserge 5y ago
  Any records of what she actually said to investors? Imo, it was likely just the usual pitch with vague promises and a lot of "believe/estimate/think/consider/approximately/likely/close to/in development". Just like any other startup before they strike it big or lose millions. Looks more like she "messed with the wrong mf'ers" as they say. Tbf, $1 billion is a lot of money.
- dannyr 5y ago
  "If I leave the keys in the ignition of my sports car and it’s stolen, I’m a very foolish person, but certainly no less the victim of a car theft." Except that the investors gave the keys of their cars to Holmes. Holmes didn't grab their money without their permission.
  - sschueller 5y ago
    If you talk to your insurance, you are not the victim. They won't pay out a claim if you left your key in the car.
    - relaunched 5y ago
      They'd say you didn't take reasonable care.
      - projektfu 5y ago
        And then, in the US, if you have comprehensive coverage, they'd pay the claim.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>Their own greed and incompetency to listen to experts put them in that position. You could say the same thing about any fraud victims, especially love scams[1]. [1]"Police statistics show more than 75 per cent of people caught up in online romance scams refuse to believe they're being ripped off." https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/online-love-fraud-victims-ignoring-police-warnings/5180608 https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/online-love-fraud-v...
- em-bee 5y ago
  that's not the same thing. VCs are professional experienced investors and they failed doing their job. someone falling for a romance scam is simply inexperienced in that matter, and should not be expected to know better
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >someone falling for a romance scam is simply inexperienced in that matter, and should not be expected to know better People that fall for romance scams tend to be older and significantly more experienced (in terms of life and love) than people who don't. They also continue with the relationship even when friends, family and eventually law enforcement sit down with them and show them that it's a scam. I think many of these scams really highlight our innate desire to fool ourselves, especially when we are desperate and hopeful.
    - em-bee 5y ago
      older and significantly more experienced (in terms of life and love) i doubt that older people are more experienced. being married for a decade or two does nothing to prepare you for an online relationship. older people likely never had an online relationship before and also weren't switching partners as often when they were young as people nowadays tend to. if they were they should have less trouble finding a new partner. they are falling for online relationships precisely because they don't know how to find a partner otherwise. but that isn't even the issue. i don't know if i could tell the difference between a genuine relationship and a well executed pretender. not meeting in person makes it really hard to verify the claims being made. what is puzzling is why someone would give up their life savings for someone they haven't even meet yet in person. some expensive gifts for a few thousand dollars, sure, but all i have? that's something i'd bring into a marriage and only use if it is really needed. but then, i am a skeptic by nature.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
diogenes123 5y ago
The men who got 'ripped off' are 'Epstein Island' crowd. I have heard stories about women ESCAPING their clutches - they are that voracious.