5 ms·

This is proven (and risky) way to grow. I really cannot blame them: they have to pay their rent and VCs are nervous. This approach might burn them completely b

by tlogan 14y ago

This is proven (and risky) way to grow. I really cannot blame them: they have to pay their rent and VCs are nervous. This approach might burn them completely but also can get them to some significant number of users (after which they will issue an apology and pay all fines if needed).

eropple 14y ago
> I really cannot blame them Shitty behavior does not stop being shitty behavior because you have bills to pay. And it's not even in the "understandable under duress" area of shitty; Path isn't a person with a starving child and that dude's contact list isn't a loaf of bread. If your company can't exist without being shitty, your company shouldn't exist.
- tlogan 14y ago
  I completely agree with you on "If your company can't exist without being shitty, your company shouldn't exist.". However, here in VC-stanm the behavior like this is considered "hacking the growth" and something which is not considered a bad thing. So unfortunately, you cannot play the game here (ok, you can play but no big money will bet on you) if you not ready to do things like this.
  - randrews 14y ago
    Shitty behavior also does not stop being shitty behavior when you're pressured into doing it.
    - obviouslygreen 14y ago
      I'm all for the moral high ground, but it becomes a lot less simple when "pressured" means something like a combination of "sole breadwinner" and "ethical choice." Reality doesn't bend to our idealism, and businesses are grounded solely in reality (often to our detriment).
      - pessimizer 14y ago
        >when "pressured" means something like a combination of "sole breadwinner" and "ethical choice." I can't figure out what you mean by this. Are you saying that this behavior is only alright when you need the money?
        obviouslygreen 14y ago
        Definitely not. I'm saying it's never "right" in a moral/ethical sense, but when you're put in certain (fairly common) positions, the moral high ground is not a feasible option for most people. It comes down to whether you consider stability for those who depend on you more or less important than doing or refusing to do something based on whether you consider it right or wrong... that's something that's easy to judge until you're in such a position.
        gsk 14y ago
        This sounds patronizing. As adults, you make your choice and face the consequences. That you may have dependents does not reduce your moral responsibility one bit.
        obviouslygreen 14y ago
        Clearly you don't know how it feels to actually have "dependents" or what that responsibility entails. This will sound patronizing, but it's absolutely valid: Come back and comment on this in 10 to 20 years. At that point you might have the perspective you clearly lack now. [edit]To be clear: I do not have dependents, but I also don't have an employer (who isn't me), and I do have people that depend on me. What I also have is a lot of experience in a lot of situations that are very much "gray" in terms of what less-experienced people seem to consider moral/ethical absolutes, which simply do not exist. That last part is what you don't understand but are likely to figure out as life teaches you the things your parents and teachers would like to but simply can't.[/edit]
        14y ago
    - danielweber 14y ago
      It doesn't, but it might mean we need to look into how the pressure is being applied. We can bitch at Path all day, but there exists strong incentive to do this, and people who don't do this will have unilaterally disarmed and be at a disadvantage. We need to encourage the first group to not do this, and encourage the second group to keep it up and not feel like suckers for respecting their users.
  - eropple 14y ago
    I'm OK with that game not being played. That spam-calling random people at 6AM is not an immediate "get the fuck out of my office" is probably a pretty good indication that something is deeply rotten in, as you put it, "VC-stan." But you can get on TechCrunch, so it's gotta be okay, right? :(
    - tlogan 14y ago
      And we also need to understand that all these social networks are in business of spamming people ("growing the network"). Hey I remember back in 2006 (maybe 2005?) Facebook invited all my all my Gmail contacts to Facebook (including people who interviewed me ...). That is the key of their existence, so I'm not sure how anybody in right mind can expect anything else. Maybe I'm too old and see these things as they are...
  - eurleif 14y ago
    If this sort of behavior is really being pushed by investors, it kind of makes one wonder about the corporate veil shielding investors from liability.
claudius 14y ago
Then the fines are obviously not high enough.
- ivanca 14y ago
  I think a better solution is to make fines exponential (for repeated reasons), for e.g. 1st time $10, 2nd time $100, third time $1000 dollars and so on.
  - claudius 14y ago
    Fines are meant to discourage behaviour found unacceptable by society[0]. That obviously fails to work if the net outcome of a ‘discouraged’ action is still positive even after taking into account the fine (and compensation for damage, if any). So, really, the (first) fine was not high enough. For a very similar reason, non-trivial fines[1] are usually given as a percentage of turnover or daily fines. [0] Note that jail time also serves to rehabilitate the offender in case of serious crimes. That obviously doesn’t really work with companies, and unfortunately, carelessness with other people’s data is not considered a serious crime in many places. [1] Basically anything above a parking ticket.
    - ivanca 14y ago
      Yeah, that's why I think exponential grow in fines for repeated offenses by a company is a good idea, it will eventually be net negative for the company so they will stop doing it.
      - claudius 14y ago
        But why do you want to grow fines instead of imposing appropriate (i.e. high-enough) fines on the first offence?
        ivanca 14y ago
        Because you can't know the net positive in advance; is way too dependent of the context and that includes the size of the company. It also discourages the searching of flaws in the system because even if you get away with it once (net-positive) you know the next time the fine will make unviable. BTW this is similar to how already the civil justice system works in many countries, where after repeated minor offenses you go to jail.
saraid216 14y ago
Would it also be okay to murder people in order to pay your rent and your backers are nervous? What about just hitting them over the head? What about just threatening to hit them? Ethical justification isn't easy, but it's also not this hard. The entire point of being ethical is that you might lose out as a result of being ethical. If you opt to discard ethics in order to get ahead, you are being unethical. That is what it means to be unethical. This. Is. Unethical.

by tlogan 14y ago

eropple 14y ago

> I really cannot blame them Shitty behavior does not stop being shitty behavior because you have bills to pay. And it's not even in the "understandable under duress" area of shitty; Path isn't a person with a starving child and that dude's contact list isn't a loaf of bread. If your company can't exist without being shitty, your company shouldn't exist.

tlogan 14y ago
I completely agree with you on "If your company can't exist without being shitty, your company shouldn't exist.". However, here in VC-stanm the behavior like this is considered "hacking the growth" and something which is not considered a bad thing. So unfortunately, you cannot play the game here (ok, you can play but no big money will bet on you) if you not ready to do things like this.
- randrews 14y ago
  Shitty behavior also does not stop being shitty behavior when you're pressured into doing it.
  - obviouslygreen 14y ago
    I'm all for the moral high ground, but it becomes a lot less simple when "pressured" means something like a combination of "sole breadwinner" and "ethical choice." Reality doesn't bend to our idealism, and businesses are grounded solely in reality (often to our detriment).
    - pessimizer 14y ago
      >when "pressured" means something like a combination of "sole breadwinner" and "ethical choice." I can't figure out what you mean by this. Are you saying that this behavior is only alright when you need the money?
      - obviouslygreen 14y ago
        Definitely not. I'm saying it's never "right" in a moral/ethical sense, but when you're put in certain (fairly common) positions, the moral high ground is not a feasible option for most people. It comes down to whether you consider stability for those who depend on you more or less important than doing or refusing to do something based on whether you consider it right or wrong... that's something that's easy to judge until you're in such a position.
        gsk 14y ago
        This sounds patronizing. As adults, you make your choice and face the consequences. That you may have dependents does not reduce your moral responsibility one bit.
        obviouslygreen 14y ago
        Clearly you don't know how it feels to actually have "dependents" or what that responsibility entails. This will sound patronizing, but it's absolutely valid: Come back and comment on this in 10 to 20 years. At that point you might have the perspective you clearly lack now. [edit]To be clear: I do not have dependents, but I also don't have an employer (who isn't me), and I do have people that depend on me. What I also have is a lot of experience in a lot of situations that are very much "gray" in terms of what less-experienced people seem to consider moral/ethical absolutes, which simply do not exist. That last part is what you don't understand but are likely to figure out as life teaches you the things your parents and teachers would like to but simply can't.[/edit]
        14y ago
  - danielweber 14y ago
    It doesn't, but it might mean we need to look into how the pressure is being applied. We can bitch at Path all day, but there exists strong incentive to do this, and people who don't do this will have unilaterally disarmed and be at a disadvantage. We need to encourage the first group to not do this, and encourage the second group to keep it up and not feel like suckers for respecting their users.
- eropple 14y ago
  I'm OK with that game not being played. That spam-calling random people at 6AM is not an immediate "get the fuck out of my office" is probably a pretty good indication that something is deeply rotten in, as you put it, "VC-stan." But you can get on TechCrunch, so it's gotta be okay, right? :(
  - tlogan 14y ago
    And we also need to understand that all these social networks are in business of spamming people ("growing the network"). Hey I remember back in 2006 (maybe 2005?) Facebook invited all my all my Gmail contacts to Facebook (including people who interviewed me ...). That is the key of their existence, so I'm not sure how anybody in right mind can expect anything else. Maybe I'm too old and see these things as they are...
- eurleif 14y ago
  If this sort of behavior is really being pushed by investors, it kind of makes one wonder about the corporate veil shielding investors from liability.

claudius 14y ago

Then the fines are obviously not high enough.

ivanca 14y ago
I think a better solution is to make fines exponential (for repeated reasons), for e.g. 1st time $10, 2nd time $100, third time $1000 dollars and so on.
- claudius 14y ago
  Fines are meant to discourage behaviour found unacceptable by society[0]. That obviously fails to work if the net outcome of a ‘discouraged’ action is still positive even after taking into account the fine (and compensation for damage, if any). So, really, the (first) fine was not high enough. For a very similar reason, non-trivial fines[1] are usually given as a percentage of turnover or daily fines. [0] Note that jail time also serves to rehabilitate the offender in case of serious crimes. That obviously doesn’t really work with companies, and unfortunately, carelessness with other people’s data is not considered a serious crime in many places. [1] Basically anything above a parking ticket.
  - ivanca 14y ago
    Yeah, that's why I think exponential grow in fines for repeated offenses by a company is a good idea, it will eventually be net negative for the company so they will stop doing it.
    - claudius 14y ago
      But why do you want to grow fines instead of imposing appropriate (i.e. high-enough) fines on the first offence?
      - ivanca 14y ago
        Because you can't know the net positive in advance; is way too dependent of the context and that includes the size of the company. It also discourages the searching of flaws in the system because even if you get away with it once (net-positive) you know the next time the fine will make unviable. BTW this is similar to how already the civil justice system works in many countries, where after repeated minor offenses you go to jail.

saraid216 14y ago

Would it also be okay to murder people in order to pay your rent and your backers are nervous? What about just hitting them over the head? What about just threatening to hit them? Ethical justification isn't easy, but it's also not this hard. The entire point of being ethical is that you might lose out as a result of being ethical. If you opt to discard ethics in order to get ahead, you are being unethical. That is what it means to be unethical. This. Is. Unethical.