Comment by ransom1538 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ransom1538 | Hacker News Reader

2008 - Facebook had a meeting with us Crowdstar describing how our current business model (quizzes) was getting their own section in their TOS, and would cease to exist.

2010 - After switching to a game model and doing quite well - neck and neck with Zynga. We were walked into a Facebook meeting room and told a bizarre story how Mark was upset about friend feed forms. They explained that we could only share (by means of post feed forms) our games with people that already had our games. Pleading did nothing, they ended that model. Zynaga is still flailing around.

2012 - I changed companies and focused on mobile advertising. Another decent path with 12 employees or so. We got a phone call . [EDIT REMOVED REST OF STORY]

2015 - I received another phone call from a large company (They deal in search) . I wont go into this one.

* Phone calls from large companies are extremely bad. That means they don't want things in writing.

So sure, have fun with working with large companies. Just remember one thing: they hate you.

Large companies don't hate you, they are simply (like "nature" or the universe) indifferent towards your well-being or continued existence... which is perfectly understandable, really. And, yes, this fact should really give pause to people who are thinking about basing an entire company around an API, portal or other service that is 100% controlled by a large company. Any such dependency should be seen as the huge risk factor that it is.

And while innocent bystanders do get whacked from time-to-time, I find that more often than not when big companies change their TOS in ways that impact other companies, there's actually a pretty decent reason behind the changes.

Facebook feeds got extremely spammy around the Zynga days, they are much better now (tolerable, at least, though still far from perfect). Not sure what your google story is, but I've heard lots of startup folks complain about changes google has made to their algorithms or TOS policies that hurt them only to visit their sites or look at their apps and see that they were actually pretty spammy and really deserved the deranking.

What I don't understand is how come this dude repeated the same mistake four times in a row?

Maybe switch fields - that's a good way to break out of a destructive pattern.

I upvoted you because it is a legitimate question (at least the first sentence)

I meant the second sentence too - I mean, if your startups are failing for the same reason one after another, you need to break the pattern somehow. He could get a job at Google for instance, regroup 2-3 years and then decide what to do next.

On the contrary, I think this just goes to show how challenging it is to build a business that is 100% defensible, and doesn't rely on another platform/company.

Building an app? OK, better hope it doesn't violate Apple's TOS. Building a consumer website? OK, better hope Google's next update doesn't affect you negatively. Building a Buffer competitor? OK, better hope Twitter doesn't ban you from their API

Or plan for it and make hay while the sun shines and try to diversify who you depend on? I mean Zynaga may still be flailing around but it's also still valued at over $2bn.

Corps don't hate you, they use and plunder, their plans executed with a blind determination of a hivemind, no emotions involved(usually). They are borg, controlled by their drive for expansion. If you can be a valuable ally against competing borg or help them consolidate a fragmented market, your business will flourish until you are no longer needed. These are the rules of the game.

Isn't this true for any human organization? Whether it's a corporation, LLC, startup, non-profit, government, etc.

There are some similarities, but there are even more differences. LLCs and startups are usually much smaller and their behaviour as a collectively entitity is much more dependent on the personal quirks of the founders/top management.

Nonprofits and governments are not driven by profit as a main motive and are in their own category.

Indeed they hate you and just may treat you like a dog too.

Here you have worked and toiled away for years trying to get your big break. Finally it comes and you get a phone call or invited out to the valley to demo/talk about selling your blood, sweat and tears. You then realize your just getting stomped on and they may have just stolen all your hard work. You think ...huh this is how it goes for the little guy innovator against this huge tech company you held in such high regard.

The tech world is not a extremely friendly place to even a ton of Caucasian guys(it's all about who you know/who is behind you), yet alone to any person who isn't!

>Phone calls from large companies are extremely bad. That means they don't want things in writing.

It is 2015. You can download a bunch of apps from the play store that automatically record your phone calls.

Phone calls are as much "in writing" as emails, perhaps more so as they are much more difficult to fake.

You cannot record your phone calls without permission from the other person in a two party consent state (such as California).

An eeeeeexcellent reason to have non-primitive phone line systems. Do the "this call may be recorded for quality and assurance purposes yada yada" at the beginning before being hooked to a person on your side. You can make it sound unremarkable enough that they might not even notice it if you do it well enough.

Remember, Facebook et al. is the furthest thing from your friend, whether you're a facebook user or another thing in its ecosystem. Put your game face on when approaching or being approached by these companies. Document everything, because they will most likely end up f'ing you over.

edit: recording phone calls isn't just really good to protect yourself Facebook, it's also good for a whole array of other reasons. It captures synchronous information to keep note-taking easy, gives you a chance to look into everything a client requested/complained about and when when they brought it up, etc. tl;dr: get a proper phone system with recording abilities installed asap

Don't accept business calls from someone unwilling to allow you to record it?

This is just not realistic - in business if you tell everyone you're taping them when they call you, nobody is going to talk to you. You go out of business if nobody talks to you.

In any case, this discussion about phone calls is a side-show. If Twitter is going to cut you off from their API, you can't avoid that by not picking up their calls.

There is no expectation of privacy on voice communication.

Further, recording is fundamental to how digital devices work. It is unavoidable.

Your cell phone is not an analog device. The only question is: how long does your device keep a recording of the signal before deleting it?

I'm confused. Are you saying that recording a voice call without explicit consent in California is NOT illegal? Because I'm sure there are a lot of prosecutors and judges out there in CA who would disagree with you.

Can you provide a statue citation?

Modern devices already make a recording of the 'call' (it is fundamental to the working of the device).

Consent is explicit in choosing to use a device that is well-known to make recordings.

There is no expectation of privacy due to the explicit consent mentioned above and wide-spread allegations and revelations of US intelligence agencies and their affiliates and subsidiaries copying and storing Internet communications, as well as being able to 'listen in' on communications as they occur.

Downmods instead of citations of claimed facts?

You're confusing legal constraints and technical constraints.

Nobody's claiming that a phone doesn't create, transmit, and receive "recordings" in order to act like a phone. The pertinent question is whether/when you are allowed to make a recording of a phone call, for yourself, for whatever reason. You're being downvoted because you're missing the point.

15 seconds of googling led me to section 632(a) of the California Penal Code. You could have done the same research yourself instead of promoting an incorrect understanding of the law and then asking that others do your homework for you.

Really? 632(a)? This 632(a)?:

>632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

The one that explicitly exempts radio devices? The type of devices that modern cellular phones are?

And people are arguing about 'expectations of privacy' and 'explicit consent', when the actual statute uses 'confidential communication'? My phone calls are not confidential and they occur over radio devices.

HN's behavior here is rather shameful.

Maybe you ought to keep reading through 632.6 and 632.7. Once you've read those, keep reading the entire thing plus the body of case law which explores these concepts and their practical applications. You're really doing yourself no favors arguing from ignorance and expecting others to do the research you're apparently too entitled to do yourself.

Maybe you ought not cite irrelevant statute?

Google "two party consent states" and you'll learn why you are getting confused responses.

You are talking about "explicit consent" and "expectation of privacy" and so on that sound legalistic but have no meaning in this context, while ignoring the fact that there are laws, rulings, and precedent already on this issue.

>while ignoring the fact that there are laws, rulings, and precedent already on this issue.

Of which, none you can cite?

Try harder: https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=two+party+consent+cal...

The first link in your source states:

>California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

Emphasis mine.

It then follows with:

>If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.

Again, emphasis mine.

Your first link appears to confirm my claims and specifically contradicts what you claimed in your previous post.

Next.

There is none so blind as one who will refuse to see what is right in front of them.

Ah, trite adages. The best fallback when you can't compete on substance.

It's not a technical question, it's a legal question.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that recording phone calls without the other party's consent is outlawed explicitly by California law. So criteria like expectation of privacy don't come into play here.

Honest question, because I'm neiher american nor familiar with their common law:

    Let's call the company that called us [redacted]

Does that really hold water, legally speaking? Because we all know what are you implying...

Thanks removed.

FYI you haven't edited the dupe post (if you can), I assume it's the same as the original here.

Since it was a duplicate anyway, we'll delete it.

If you think this is inappropriate you shouldn't be quoting it

You are completely right, I didn't think that the parent would delete it (it was a honest question, really). But I can't edit it now. Perhaps someone from HN can?

Ok, we redacted that bit.

Thank you!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com