6 ms·

This is exactly what we are trying to prevent. We believe there should be some semblance of identity in the internet. For the exact opposite of this post, che

This is exactly what we are trying to prevent. We believe there should be some semblance of identity in the internet. For the exact opposite of this post, check out bluecheck.me

arbitrage 12y ago
Surely there's room enough for both? People who want to be anonymous, and those who want to be verifiable? Why does anonymity need to be 'prevented'?
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  How can you target ads if people are anonymous?
  - scintill76 12y ago
    You seem to take targeting ads as an essential operation that everyone will agree is essential.
    - JetSpiegel 12y ago
      Poe's Law strikes again. It's not my point of view, but it sure is for the incumbents.
  - reitanqild 12y ago
    As long as you can tell them apart you can target ads. You don't need to know the names, exact addresses, email etc.
  - DonHopkins 12y ago
    Instead of targeting ads, just develop products that everyone wants. Problem solved!
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Location + search terms are vastly more useful than any comprehensive history. The comprehensive history, by contrast, is really starting to creep people out. Source: G+ discussion with a Google engineer. https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/HFT1emeFpwU https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/HFT1emeF... The claim that Google requires intrusive personal dossiers for revenue generation is a myth. Google doesn't even use detailed personal dossiers in search ads, which we all know generates the vast majority of Google's revenue. It's really hard to do much better in search advertising than current query + location. Yes, we do a bit more than that, and will probably do more personalization going forward, but more personalization rarely yields more revenue. Instead, it usually improves our metrics associated with user satisfaction, although again the effects are probably far smaller than you would think.
gregbarbosa 12y ago
I'm having some trouble understanding what your product does exactly. The blue check isn't an official verification is it? It's just one chosen by bluecheck, correct?
zenciadam 12y ago
Prevent what? Better pedigree data for the NSA, FBI, BKA? Fuck that noise.
scintill76 12y ago
"BLUECHECK" is a registered trademark of 3M: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78959070&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78959070&caseType=SERIAL_N... I don't really know what this means for you. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has some idea.
- icebraining 12y ago
  According to that link, it's a brand for a biometric device. I don't think it'd conflict, but IANATL.
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Ah, I think you are right. Wikipedia says, "The law in most jurisdictions also allows the owner of a registered trademark to prevent unauthorized use of the mark in relation to products or services which are identical ... The test is always whether a consumer of the goods or services will be confused as to the identity of the source or origin." I'd say it's reasonable that people aren't going to be confused by the difference between a social media product (or whatever you'd call this) and a biometric device. Then again, both products have a connection to personal identity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Registration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Registration
JeremyMorgan 12y ago
Here's what I've learned in 10+ years of web marketing, and it's simple. If someone is giving you fake info, it's because they don't want to be contacted. It's a cold lead you'll just spend money chasing that most likely will never convert.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  Sometimes worse than a cold lead, but a toxic lead. When companies step over boundaries I've spent at least some effort to erect, not only will I not convert (if only out of spite, even if I think their product might otherwise have some value to me), I'll spend days, maybe weeks ranting about how shitty they are to everyone who will listen.
- ejr 12y ago
  I wish more people took a sane approach like this. I can't tell you how many times I've had to turn down - politely at first - sales from seemingly reputable companies. I find it hard to believe they would approach anything else in the organisation with that level of clumsiness. I'd rather buy from someone who is actually willing to listen to me.
TelmoMenezes 12y ago
Good job, but I suggest you add more flair. For example, you could certify that a person is appropriate for a work environment, for example checking their political views and browsing history. Also great for health insurance, making the process of risk assessment more transparent, with verifiable drug use history, eating and exercise habits and even DNA testing. This is a grow market.
yuhong 12y ago
Preventing it is not a good idea, but we should still try to make it unnecessary if possible. That is another topic though.
- jarman 12y ago
  Only way to make it unnecessary is either by making people perfectly tolerant, or perfectly uniform. In both cases it won't be people anymore
  - yuhong 12y ago
    I said if possible. Eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766 (notice my comments)
teddyh 12y ago
Preventing anonymity harms a lot of people: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
DonHopkins 12y ago
Is that the Royal We, or do you care to identify who "we" really are? Since you're so concerned about identity and all that.

This is exactly what we are trying to prevent. We believe there should be some semblance of identity in the internet. For the exact opposite of this post, check out bluecheck.me

arbitrage 12y ago

Surely there's room enough for both? People who want to be anonymous, and those who want to be verifiable? Why does anonymity need to be 'prevented'?

JetSpiegel 12y ago
How can you target ads if people are anonymous?
- scintill76 12y ago
  You seem to take targeting ads as an essential operation that everyone will agree is essential.
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    Poe's Law strikes again. It's not my point of view, but it sure is for the incumbents.
- reitanqild 12y ago
  As long as you can tell them apart you can target ads. You don't need to know the names, exact addresses, email etc.
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  Instead of targeting ads, just develop products that everyone wants. Problem solved!
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Location + search terms are vastly more useful than any comprehensive history. The comprehensive history, by contrast, is really starting to creep people out. Source: G+ discussion with a Google engineer. https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/HFT1emeFpwU https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/HFT1emeF... The claim that Google requires intrusive personal dossiers for revenue generation is a myth. Google doesn't even use detailed personal dossiers in search ads, which we all know generates the vast majority of Google's revenue. It's really hard to do much better in search advertising than current query + location. Yes, we do a bit more than that, and will probably do more personalization going forward, but more personalization rarely yields more revenue. Instead, it usually improves our metrics associated with user satisfaction, although again the effects are probably far smaller than you would think.

gregbarbosa 12y ago

I'm having some trouble understanding what your product does exactly. The blue check isn't an official verification is it? It's just one chosen by bluecheck, correct?

zenciadam 12y ago

Prevent what? Better pedigree data for the NSA, FBI, BKA? Fuck that noise.

scintill76 12y ago

"BLUECHECK" is a registered trademark of 3M: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78959070&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78959070&caseType=SERIAL_N... I don't really know what this means for you. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has some idea.

icebraining 12y ago
According to that link, it's a brand for a biometric device. I don't think it'd conflict, but IANATL.
- scintill76 12y ago
  Ah, I think you are right. Wikipedia says, "The law in most jurisdictions also allows the owner of a registered trademark to prevent unauthorized use of the mark in relation to products or services which are identical ... The test is always whether a consumer of the goods or services will be confused as to the identity of the source or origin." I'd say it's reasonable that people aren't going to be confused by the difference between a social media product (or whatever you'd call this) and a biometric device. Then again, both products have a connection to personal identity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Registration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Registration

JeremyMorgan 12y ago

Here's what I've learned in 10+ years of web marketing, and it's simple. If someone is giving you fake info, it's because they don't want to be contacted. It's a cold lead you'll just spend money chasing that most likely will never convert.

georgemcbay 12y ago
Sometimes worse than a cold lead, but a toxic lead. When companies step over boundaries I've spent at least some effort to erect, not only will I not convert (if only out of spite, even if I think their product might otherwise have some value to me), I'll spend days, maybe weeks ranting about how shitty they are to everyone who will listen.
ejr 12y ago
I wish more people took a sane approach like this. I can't tell you how many times I've had to turn down - politely at first - sales from seemingly reputable companies. I find it hard to believe they would approach anything else in the organisation with that level of clumsiness. I'd rather buy from someone who is actually willing to listen to me.

TelmoMenezes 12y ago

Good job, but I suggest you add more flair. For example, you could certify that a person is appropriate for a work environment, for example checking their political views and browsing history. Also great for health insurance, making the process of risk assessment more transparent, with verifiable drug use history, eating and exercise habits and even DNA testing. This is a grow market.

yuhong 12y ago

Preventing it is not a good idea, but we should still try to make it unnecessary if possible. That is another topic though.

jarman 12y ago
Only way to make it unnecessary is either by making people perfectly tolerant, or perfectly uniform. In both cases it won't be people anymore
- yuhong 12y ago
  I said if possible. Eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766 (notice my comments)

teddyh 12y ago

Preventing anonymity harms a lot of people: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

DonHopkins 12y ago

Is that the Royal We, or do you care to identify who "we" really are? Since you're so concerned about identity and all that.