Hacker News Reader

Comment by tlogan | Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

> 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.

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.

Shitty behavior also does not stop being shitty behavior when you're pressured into doing it.

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).

>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?

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.

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.

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]

It sounds patronizing because it is. It sounds silly because it's that, too.

Doing the right thing is sometimes difficult. That's not an excuse to do the wrong thing. Indiscriminately spamming hundreds of contacts is always the wrong thing.

This isn't the hypothetical where you're stealing a loaf of bread from the market to feed your starving family. I certainly respect that taking the moral high ground isn't always easy and that some people are going to be in situations where it is more difficult for them to do so than for others.

But the standard for acting like an asshole has to be greater than simple expediency. The necessity of breaking the social contract has to be roughly proportional to the community inconvenience; that's why firemen get to use the siren and everyone is supposed to yield when they are headed to, well, fight a fire, but I don't get to use one when I'm headed to the grocery store.

If I bang on a stranger's door at 6am because their house is on fire and I'm trying to warn them, then that's great, because the "don't harass strangers at six in the freaking morning" social norm is less important than the "OMG THE FLAMES THEY BURN!" social norm. In contrast, if I bang on someone's door at 6am trying to sell Amway products, then I'm an asshole. Finally, If I bang on someone's door at 6am, insist that their buddy, whose name I found by going through the trash, has photos to share with them, and only later reveal that there never were any photos, then I'm an unbelievable jackass.

Unfortunately, your analogy is excessively dramatic and misses the reality of the situation. It's easy to create surreal situations in which absolute visions of your own morals apply. Sorry, but you just don't get it.

Apologies for trying to make a point. If anything, my analogy seems pretty much on point, as it barely changes the reality around the events here as described:

banging on door <=> text/phone call, which likely causes an audible alert stranger <=> contact/acquaintance/vendor/client/boss/relative/lover/ex-lover/dentist of a new user 6am <=> 6am their buddy <=> their contact the trash <=> a new user's cell phone contacts has photos to share <=> has photos to share there never were any photos <=> there never were any photos unbelievable jackass <=> unbelievable jackass

Seems close enough.

But my real question for you is which is it? Did a developer/Path act unethically, but you believe those actions are justified because people have families they need to care for? Or do you believe that Path/the developers did nothing wrong and I'm just applying my own morals to the situation? One or the other is a legitimate position to take (though I may disagree with your view), but you can't have both.

Because your hand-waving and appeals to authority are so much more relevant?

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.

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? :(

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...

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.

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.

Then the fines are obviously not high enough.

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.

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.

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.

But why do you want to grow fines instead of imposing appropriate (i.e. high-enough) fines on the first offence?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com