Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstanley | Hacker News Reader

What makes this a social experiment rather than a simple cash grab? Are you donating all the money to a charity?

Are you shaming HN users for trying to monetize something?

They are shaming them for using the "social experiment" label.

That question is comparable to the type of question which is often used in politics to silence opponents. In that sense it should be against HN rules, as to whether it is I don't know.

As far as I'm concerned he just asked a question which can be answered without the need for 'defenders' to show up and challenge the questioner - and with that stifle the discourse here.

The same logic applies to the question you're replying to. Were it me that was asked the question, I'd simply say "no, I was just curious."

If the money was donated this would just make this an alternative way to donate money to charity, the creator pocketing the money is necessary for this to be a social experiment.

But that just makes it an alternative to giving the creator money directly.

"How is this a plane? Is it made of wool?"

"If it was made of wool it would be a comfy hat, it not being made of wool is necessary for it to be a plane. Notice how I'm not even claiming that it's a plane."

He could give the money to me and the “social experiment” part would be unaffected, I think. He could burn the money. Keeping it is not really out of necessity.

Give the money to the person who spent the most until someone overtakes them and gets the money next.

So basically a dollar auction except the richest person always wins?

Neato. I'll just refer to beggars and scammers as "social experimenters" from now on then.

When famed game designer Peter Molyneux came back out of hiding to launch his mobile games with a company called 22cans he also used the "social experiment" label to justify a pay-to-win clicker game and a "crowdfunded" god game with in-app purchases (that were later removed).

The answer is: "social experiment" apps and games are just cash grabs with a veneer of clever marketing to them. The Million Dollar Homepage was probably the first one this blatant though.

The outcome of the "experiment" is known in advance: people will pay unreasonable amounts of money for objectively worthless things if you can convince enough of them that it's cool. If it were an actual experiment, there would be some analysis published after the fact and the money would either be reimbursed or donated.

Social experiments aren't experiments and they're mostly anti-social if anything. In video content it's code for (staged) "prank" (or harassment). In cases like this it's code for "grifting".

"In cases like this it's code for "grifting""

Are you accusing the pay per letter scheme of being grifting?

How? They aren't misleading anybody.

What makes this different than any other business idea that legally convinces customers to part with their money?

The same as the difference between any other business idea that legally convinces customers to part with their money, and any social experiment.

It's an experiment on how much cash you can grab :)

I think it is possible to do both, at the same time. :D

What makes this not a social experiment?

If you donate the money, that changes the dynamic of the experiment.

How would you differentiate between cash grab and social experiment?

Who says you can't profit from an experiment?

son, i have to explain you a couple of things about capitalism... ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com