Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexzeig456 | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'?

How can you target ads if people are anonymous?

You seem to take targeting ads as an essential operation that everyone will agree is essential.

Poe's Law strikes again. It's not my point of view, but it sure is for the incumbents.

As long as you can tell them apart you can target ads. You don't need to know the names, exact addresses, email etc.

Instead of targeting ads, just develop products that everyone wants. Problem solved!

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/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.

Preventing anonymity harms a lot of people:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

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?

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.

"BLUECHECK" is a registered trademark of 3M: 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.

According to that link, it's a brand for a biometric device. I don't think it'd conflict, but IANATL.

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

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

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

I said if possible. Eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766 (notice my comments)

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com