5 ms·

So, first off I don't give a fuck about the story, or the counter story, or people who photoshop themselves with celebrities, or people who care about whether p

So, first off I don't give a fuck about the story, or the counter story, or people who photoshop themselves with celebrities, or people who care about whether people really know celebrities, or techcrunch. That said, I wanted to contrast the HN reaction to this story with the HN reaction to the kid who slept at AOL. I figure in both cases we're talking about someone who did something deceptive and wrong in the supposed name of entrepreneurial hustle. The AOL kid actually went as far as breaking the law, while it's not clear this girl did at all. In the AOL kid's article you wrote: "However for a potential investor this is a great demonstration of how committed someone is to their idea, and their passion. I don't doubt for a moment that Eric will be successful at what ever he sets out to do, you can't buy that kind of focus." ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4019755 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4019755 ) Then went on to at least play devil's advocate to the commenter who called it an 'ethical failure'. Honestly not trying to call you hypocritical here.. I'm genuinely curious what gives the AOL kid 'moxie' while the girl that plays up her relationships with folks is less admirable.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
That is a completely fair point. What is the difference? I see it as 'who is being scammed' and what is the harm done. Now in the kid's case he did use AOL resources which, had he not, they would have been used on AOL employees (thinking mostly food here, the energy/light/water usage is probably flat rate like it is in my facilities). He did not do monetary damage to AOL, nor reputational damage (he didn't represent his work as being part of AOL or represent himself as an AOL representative to potential partners or investors). In Shirley's case she allegedly convinced some people she would be able to connect them with potential investors or advisers when in fact she could not. For a startup founder that can make them think there is some additional outreach going on that isn't. If the founder feels like outreach is critical to the startups ability to succeed and they find they have squandered time, their most precious resource, with this person who couldn't deliver then I could see them feel betrayed. If you hire (and pay) a PR firm to get your message out and they say they can get you into the New York Times or Inc or whatever and it turns out they can't and never could, you may be inclined to not pay them (and possibly sue them if you had already paid them). So one is 'freeloading' (the kids case) and one is fraud (Shirley's case). I see it as the difference between saying you have a million dollars in your checking account when you don't, versus writing a check for a million dollars when you don't have it. Shopping yourself into photos feels more like the latter to me, but unless you're actually paying for her services your not financially harmed. I think asking the hypocrisy question is completely valid. Where does this behavior cross the line from 'white lie' into 'fraud'? In my post I really was commenting on people trying suppress conversation that is painful through peer pressure. Conflict avoidance is a huge problem in society, it lets problems grow into bigger problems. I was not particularly passing judgement on Shirley's actions, although in all honestly when I read the TC article I did feel sympathy for the folks who were misled, and I didn't feel nearly as much angst for the AOL folks who didn't realize the guy was living in their office. The kid's motivations were pretty clear, do you happen to have any insights into Shirleys? I'll admit I accepted the implication that she does this just to prop up her own self image, but recognize that conclusion isn't completely supported by what we know. Motive does play a huge part in how the two stories get positioned. (This comes back to my comment in that previous thread : When evaluating a series of events involving grey areas its always useful to try to understand the principles that are in play. Different sets of principles would lead you down two different paths.)
- famousactress 14y ago
  Wildly lucid and I imagine if I'd reflected on the topic for longer this line of thinking may have occurred to me. I really appreciate you spelling out your thought process for both.
  - BrainScraps 14y ago
    This comment branch is proof that all is not lost on HN. Thanks for being 'Good Guy Gregs' in the comments. http://www.quickmeme.com/Good-Guy-Greg-/ http://www.quickmeme.com/Good-Guy-Greg-/
- robomc 14y ago
  Leaving aside the fraud question, my gut says if you hire someone as a consultant because you saw them in a bunch of photos with celebrities, or because you heard they went to xyz corporate parties, you deserve what happens. Don't make lazy shallow hiring decisions, and don't make "meeting the right people" the key to your business plan, and this is never a problem for you.
  - lmm 14y ago
    How naive and self-righteous. Such people "deserve" to be defrauded? Because they acknowledged the reality that funding often depends more on who you know than the merits of your product, and tried to work around it and get on with what they actually wanted to do rather than getting sidetracked on all the little injustices of the world? Because you consider the funded model of starting a business to be fundamentally invalid or immoral, never mind all the evidence of the last three centuries?
    - robomc 14y ago
      I agree it's self righteous, but yeah, basically. Most businesses in the world focus on products, customers and profitability, not trendy lines of funding (and the non-tech "startup" scene has notably better rates of success - no googles, just honest businesses that do useful things for more money than they spend). Regardless though, all businesses should think long and hard about hires, not just hire pointless people because they give the impression they know everyone in town. The world is full of injustices, but I'd rather try my luck with those injustices than have to write consulting cheques to people who's bankable asset is how shamelessly they brag about who they party with.
xo 14y ago
using legality as an ethical corollary doesn't really cut it for me. you're invoking "the worst argument in the world" as seen here on hn. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/) now. there is a difference between those two articles. just ask yourself: who would i invest in? the guy deceiving to work more, or the guy working to deceive more? no contest.
- famousactress 14y ago
  You're absolutely right. Inferring legality==ethical is a fallacy and distraction. I got a bit of a twinge when writing that bit. I think the reason I left it in is because lots of lots of people do make that correlation, and I was asking a question about other people's opinions, not mine. It's frankly surprising (sadly) when folks don't equate law and ethics so I was surprised at the contrast here. It wasn't meant to suggest that I find the two tied together, or that I think you should. As for your question, I have no idea who I would invest in (assuming I was forced to choose one of them, which would be necessary since I'm pretty sure I'd like not to invest in either). I have no idea what interesting things Shirley might be up to. All I have to go on is one techcrunch article for each of them, with obviously diametrically opposed editorial agendas... which is kind of my point.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Are you really a famous actress? If so, I would like you be a cofounder in my startup.
    - famousactress 14y ago
      No. I feel like we both probably dodged a bullet here.
option_greek 14y ago
May be its just too personal when you manipulate people ? As I remember, that kid was using his already expired id card to use the premises not lying outright that he is an employee to everyone.
- famousactress 14y ago
  I don't buy this. None of the specific instances are coming to mind, but I feel like we get stories that come across about folks pulling cheeky (read: manipulative put through a 'cute-hustle' lense) stunts in the name of getting up, and I think HN generally sees those 'outside the box' efforts favorably. That said, maybe I'm full of it. The thread about the AOL kid was actually really awesomely balanced and there were plenty of reactions on both sides of the aisle. I might be attributing a tendency to the HN community that doesn't exist. My memory's not good enough to be trusted, frankly.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

That is a completely fair point. What is the difference? I see it as 'who is being scammed' and what is the harm done. Now in the kid's case he did use AOL resources which, had he not, they would have been used on AOL employees (thinking mostly food here, the energy/light/water usage is probably flat rate like it is in my facilities). He did not do monetary damage to AOL, nor reputational damage (he didn't represent his work as being part of AOL or represent himself as an AOL representative to potential partners or investors). In Shirley's case she allegedly convinced some people she would be able to connect them with potential investors or advisers when in fact she could not. For a startup founder that can make them think there is some additional outreach going on that isn't. If the founder feels like outreach is critical to the startups ability to succeed and they find they have squandered time, their most precious resource, with this person who couldn't deliver then I could see them feel betrayed. If you hire (and pay) a PR firm to get your message out and they say they can get you into the New York Times or Inc or whatever and it turns out they can't and never could, you may be inclined to not pay them (and possibly sue them if you had already paid them). So one is 'freeloading' (the kids case) and one is fraud (Shirley's case). I see it as the difference between saying you have a million dollars in your checking account when you don't, versus writing a check for a million dollars when you don't have it. Shopping yourself into photos feels more like the latter to me, but unless you're actually paying for her services your not financially harmed. I think asking the hypocrisy question is completely valid. Where does this behavior cross the line from 'white lie' into 'fraud'? In my post I really was commenting on people trying suppress conversation that is painful through peer pressure. Conflict avoidance is a huge problem in society, it lets problems grow into bigger problems. I was not particularly passing judgement on Shirley's actions, although in all honestly when I read the TC article I did feel sympathy for the folks who were misled, and I didn't feel nearly as much angst for the AOL folks who didn't realize the guy was living in their office. The kid's motivations were pretty clear, do you happen to have any insights into Shirleys? I'll admit I accepted the implication that she does this just to prop up her own self image, but recognize that conclusion isn't completely supported by what we know. Motive does play a huge part in how the two stories get positioned. (This comes back to my comment in that previous thread : When evaluating a series of events involving grey areas its always useful to try to understand the principles that are in play. Different sets of principles would lead you down two different paths.)

famousactress 14y ago
Wildly lucid and I imagine if I'd reflected on the topic for longer this line of thinking may have occurred to me. I really appreciate you spelling out your thought process for both.
- BrainScraps 14y ago
  This comment branch is proof that all is not lost on HN. Thanks for being 'Good Guy Gregs' in the comments. http://www.quickmeme.com/Good-Guy-Greg-/ http://www.quickmeme.com/Good-Guy-Greg-/
robomc 14y ago
Leaving aside the fraud question, my gut says if you hire someone as a consultant because you saw them in a bunch of photos with celebrities, or because you heard they went to xyz corporate parties, you deserve what happens. Don't make lazy shallow hiring decisions, and don't make "meeting the right people" the key to your business plan, and this is never a problem for you.
- lmm 14y ago
  How naive and self-righteous. Such people "deserve" to be defrauded? Because they acknowledged the reality that funding often depends more on who you know than the merits of your product, and tried to work around it and get on with what they actually wanted to do rather than getting sidetracked on all the little injustices of the world? Because you consider the funded model of starting a business to be fundamentally invalid or immoral, never mind all the evidence of the last three centuries?
  - robomc 14y ago
    I agree it's self righteous, but yeah, basically. Most businesses in the world focus on products, customers and profitability, not trendy lines of funding (and the non-tech "startup" scene has notably better rates of success - no googles, just honest businesses that do useful things for more money than they spend). Regardless though, all businesses should think long and hard about hires, not just hire pointless people because they give the impression they know everyone in town. The world is full of injustices, but I'd rather try my luck with those injustices than have to write consulting cheques to people who's bankable asset is how shamelessly they brag about who they party with.

xo 14y ago

using legality as an ethical corollary doesn't really cut it for me. you're invoking "the worst argument in the world" as seen here on hn. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/) now. there is a difference between those two articles. just ask yourself: who would i invest in? the guy deceiving to work more, or the guy working to deceive more? no contest.

famousactress 14y ago
You're absolutely right. Inferring legality==ethical is a fallacy and distraction. I got a bit of a twinge when writing that bit. I think the reason I left it in is because lots of lots of people do make that correlation, and I was asking a question about other people's opinions, not mine. It's frankly surprising (sadly) when folks don't equate law and ethics so I was surprised at the contrast here. It wasn't meant to suggest that I find the two tied together, or that I think you should. As for your question, I have no idea who I would invest in (assuming I was forced to choose one of them, which would be necessary since I'm pretty sure I'd like not to invest in either). I have no idea what interesting things Shirley might be up to. All I have to go on is one techcrunch article for each of them, with obviously diametrically opposed editorial agendas... which is kind of my point.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Are you really a famous actress? If so, I would like you be a cofounder in my startup.
  - famousactress 14y ago
    No. I feel like we both probably dodged a bullet here.

option_greek 14y ago

May be its just too personal when you manipulate people ? As I remember, that kid was using his already expired id card to use the premises not lying outright that he is an employee to everyone.

famousactress 14y ago
I don't buy this. None of the specific instances are coming to mind, but I feel like we get stories that come across about folks pulling cheeky (read: manipulative put through a 'cute-hustle' lense) stunts in the name of getting up, and I think HN generally sees those 'outside the box' efforts favorably. That said, maybe I'm full of it. The thread about the AOL kid was actually really awesomely balanced and there were plenty of reactions on both sides of the aisle. I might be attributing a tendency to the HN community that doesn't exist. My memory's not good enough to be trusted, frankly.