4 ms·

It sets such a terrible precedent that a company like this can raise so much money. And that the VC's involved can't admit that there is, at the very least, a "

It sets such a terrible precedent that a company like this can raise so much money. And that the VC's involved can't admit that there is, at the very least, a "dark pattern" involved in luring unsuspecting people to pay what they do to justfab.com. On the other hand, the Series B is closed, and no one involved really gives a damn what we think about these dark patterns and scammy activities. However, we CAN publicize it, and expose the investors involved for the unscrupulous and amoral people they apparently are.

nugget 13y ago
This is where real tech journalists should do their jobs and hold these VC partners personally accountable for this investment.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  There are real journalists out there? They must speak something other than English because I have yet to see any that didn't mysteriously die by running his car into a tree at high speed for no apparent reason or committing suicide by shooting himself in the head, twice. All joking aside, I agree 100%. Where is the tech journalist crowd when like this happen? Are they afraid that they'll get a bad rep with other VC and then not get future stories?
  - untog 13y ago
    Exactly that. I mean, PandoDaily is funded by the same kind of investors so they have a huge incentive to not rock the boat. TechCrunch does little other than copy and paste press releases. Take the TC article[1] - it's one and only mention is this: "This model has seen some controversy around how transparent charging is, but JustFab has stuck to its guns in this area." OK, no need to investigate then! Bravo journalism. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/26/justfab-has-raised-another-40m-led-by-hong-kongs-shining-capital-to-take-its-fashion-subscription-commerce-model-to-asia/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/26/justfab-has-raised-another-...
    - victorf 13y ago
      I always thought PandoDaily is a good name, because they are pandering to the stakeholders daily. Online "journalism"! Even CNN is more concerned with celebrities than actual wars.
- yesplorer 13y ago
  I just hope you are not referring to the tech journalism which are VC-funded
selmnoo 13y ago
> It sets such a terrible precedent that a company like this can raise so much money. But so many precedents already exist. It's this wicked modus operandi for fast growth that a hefty amount of startups go by. You trick users in early in the game (browse around http://darkpatterns.org http://darkpatterns.org for examples), when you have attained a large group of users, you distance yourself from your past activities. Common excuses range from "we were young then!" to "we didn't think we were actually misleading users because of this $xyz technically". And of course there's the plain refusal of accepting that any misdeed was ever done. A lot of the established companies right now grew and expanded precisely because of the dark models. I mean, hey, they just work. My favorite example: http://darkpatterns.org/library/privacy_zuckering/ http://darkpatterns.org/library/privacy_zuckering/. What's really great is FB can make a great fuss that they're better about the interface now... and the thing is, it doesn't matter. It's a large company, it's established, now it'll continue to sustain itself in a network effects fashion with misleading interface or not. The lesson learned is, just do it, say sorry later. It's like when banks knowingly involved in predatory practices do the calculus about how much the fine for some wrong-doing might be, and usually going for it because the reward attained will be many times bigger than the fine they'll have to pay. Except in this case there is no fine, maybe just some pesky comments rebuking you in some forum.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  This even serves as a part of the moat around a successful company. AirBnB spamming craigslist comes to mind as an example of this.
nolok 13y ago
YC funded and PG defended a company whose entire business model is "let's spread crapware using opt-out checkboxes in installers that most people will not pay enough attention to". This is nothing new, I don't know why people seem to expect VC to be of better virtue than others means of founding a company.
- danielweber 13y ago
  Installing crapware, while a public blight, is not as categorically bad as this company (allegedly) is.
  - nolok 13y ago
    While it is not an exact match, both cases are deceiving the user into getting something they don't want while pretending it's for their benefit.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  That would be this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 PG's response is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 It's not as strong as I would have liked but it is definitely a lot better than the one by the Matrix partner wrt justfab.com, for instance, PG actually leaned on the company to improve their practices somewhat.
  - brador 13y ago
    It's interesting how that one borderline investment seems to have tainted PGs brand of percieved ethical investment. It's risk profile is no longer bounded by the company door, but affects the Ycombinator brand as a whole for future startups.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. He could have simply let it go but instead chose to stand up for his investment. This in turn led to a careful parsing of his words and as far as I can see short of divesting or distancing themselves from the investment (which would be unprecedented) still sent a strong message. In for a penny, in for a pound. I am assuming that future YC companies will be looked at a lot better from an ethics perspective and PG's personal and YC's investment involvement with Watsi more than makes up for whatever ethics dent he might have received here. On a set as large as YC's it should not be surprising there is at least one bad apple either. It's no excuse but it is also not nearly as damning as it could have been, witness that other justfab.com thread for a nice example.
pavs 13y ago
I don't use Godaddy any more, but I remember Godaddy had something very similar on their checkout process, and you had to individually check off each item to make sure you are not being charged on all these add-on you didn't ask for in the first place.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
calinet6 13y ago
Punish them. Punish them hard. Let the market do its work. People don't like being scammed, and if this gets out to the larger media, they'll go down or change their practices. Karma's a bitch, make it hurt.

nugget 13y ago

This is where real tech journalists should do their jobs and hold these VC partners personally accountable for this investment.

ianstallings 13y ago
There are real journalists out there? They must speak something other than English because I have yet to see any that didn't mysteriously die by running his car into a tree at high speed for no apparent reason or committing suicide by shooting himself in the head, twice. All joking aside, I agree 100%. Where is the tech journalist crowd when like this happen? Are they afraid that they'll get a bad rep with other VC and then not get future stories?
- untog 13y ago
  Exactly that. I mean, PandoDaily is funded by the same kind of investors so they have a huge incentive to not rock the boat. TechCrunch does little other than copy and paste press releases. Take the TC article[1] - it's one and only mention is this: "This model has seen some controversy around how transparent charging is, but JustFab has stuck to its guns in this area." OK, no need to investigate then! Bravo journalism. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/26/justfab-has-raised-another-40m-led-by-hong-kongs-shining-capital-to-take-its-fashion-subscription-commerce-model-to-asia/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/26/justfab-has-raised-another-...
  - victorf 13y ago
    I always thought PandoDaily is a good name, because they are pandering to the stakeholders daily. Online "journalism"! Even CNN is more concerned with celebrities than actual wars.
yesplorer 13y ago
I just hope you are not referring to the tech journalism which are VC-funded

selmnoo 13y ago

> It sets such a terrible precedent that a company like this can raise so much money. But so many precedents already exist. It's this wicked modus operandi for fast growth that a hefty amount of startups go by. You trick users in early in the game (browse around http://darkpatterns.org http://darkpatterns.org for examples), when you have attained a large group of users, you distance yourself from your past activities. Common excuses range from "we were young then!" to "we didn't think we were actually misleading users because of this $xyz technically". And of course there's the plain refusal of accepting that any misdeed was ever done. A lot of the established companies right now grew and expanded precisely because of the dark models. I mean, hey, they just work. My favorite example: http://darkpatterns.org/library/privacy_zuckering/ http://darkpatterns.org/library/privacy_zuckering/. What's really great is FB can make a great fuss that they're better about the interface now... and the thing is, it doesn't matter. It's a large company, it's established, now it'll continue to sustain itself in a network effects fashion with misleading interface or not. The lesson learned is, just do it, say sorry later. It's like when banks knowingly involved in predatory practices do the calculus about how much the fine for some wrong-doing might be, and usually going for it because the reward attained will be many times bigger than the fine they'll have to pay. Except in this case there is no fine, maybe just some pesky comments rebuking you in some forum.

jacquesm 13y ago
This even serves as a part of the moat around a successful company. AirBnB spamming craigslist comes to mind as an example of this.

nolok 13y ago

YC funded and PG defended a company whose entire business model is "let's spread crapware using opt-out checkboxes in installers that most people will not pay enough attention to". This is nothing new, I don't know why people seem to expect VC to be of better virtue than others means of founding a company.

danielweber 13y ago
Installing crapware, while a public blight, is not as categorically bad as this company (allegedly) is.
- nolok 13y ago
  While it is not an exact match, both cases are deceiving the user into getting something they don't want while pretending it's for their benefit.
jacquesm 13y ago
That would be this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 PG's response is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 It's not as strong as I would have liked but it is definitely a lot better than the one by the Matrix partner wrt justfab.com, for instance, PG actually leaned on the company to improve their practices somewhat.
- brador 13y ago
  It's interesting how that one borderline investment seems to have tainted PGs brand of percieved ethical investment. It's risk profile is no longer bounded by the company door, but affects the Ycombinator brand as a whole for future startups.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. He could have simply let it go but instead chose to stand up for his investment. This in turn led to a careful parsing of his words and as far as I can see short of divesting or distancing themselves from the investment (which would be unprecedented) still sent a strong message. In for a penny, in for a pound. I am assuming that future YC companies will be looked at a lot better from an ethics perspective and PG's personal and YC's investment involvement with Watsi more than makes up for whatever ethics dent he might have received here. On a set as large as YC's it should not be surprising there is at least one bad apple either. It's no excuse but it is also not nearly as damning as it could have been, witness that other justfab.com thread for a nice example.

pavs 13y ago

I don't use Godaddy any more, but I remember Godaddy had something very similar on their checkout process, and you had to individually check off each item to make sure you are not being charged on all these add-on you didn't ask for in the first place.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

calinet6 13y ago

Punish them. Punish them hard. Let the market do its work. People don't like being scammed, and if this gets out to the larger media, they'll go down or change their practices. Karma's a bitch, make it hurt.