Startup Founder Plays Tech Press Like a Fiddle

theodp writes "Steinar Skipsnes came up with a unique way to get more women into tech. Make them up. Posing as 'Sarah Hanson,' a 19-year-old woman who claimed to have auctioned off 10% of her future income in return for $125,000 to fund her Senior Living Map startup, Skipsnes pitched the story via email to generate press coverage. It worked — VentureBeat, HuffPo, Yahoo!, AOL, GeekWire, and others took the bait. But after doubts were aired about the story, Skipsnes fessed up to concocting the too-good-to-be-true hoax about the female teen entrepreneur to appeal to the interests of the tech press. 'I started to think "what if I took the elements of what the press loves and created a story?"' Skipsnes explained. "So I did.'"

Comments

Obvious

[benjfowler]

Media is a soft option for cultural elites, and for people close to the establishment, who aren't bright enough to do anything harder and more socially useful. A disproportionate number of people who find themselves working in 'media' or as journalists tend to be pampered rich kids who can get in, because they can afford to work for free as interns (mummy and daddy paying the bills), and gives them access to the corridors of power.

Worse yet, the Murdoch press and the tabloids attract cuntish personalities. It's just the nature of the business -- it attracts posh scumbags.

My own family's brushes with the media, has shown them to be consistently egotistical, nasty and clueless.

The flipside of this, is that it isn't hard to manipulate the media if you know what you're doing: people who are exceedingly vain and clueless are putty in the hands of clever and ruthless people.

Re:Obvious

[ShieldW0lf]

If it had been a woman, posing as a man, there would be a big discussion about how it was reasonable for her to do that, because it gave her a chance to have her work judged without having to deal with peoples pro-male bias. It used to be pretty common, particularly when you're in a situation where you don't actually meet the people you're doing business with. Writers operating under a pseudonym, for example.

So, he lied, and took advantage of peoples pro-female bias. And, people react with anger, just like people of a previous generation reacted with anger. People genuinely believe that men SHOULD have to work harder to get ahead. That's why they're mad. Because their prejudice is heartfelt.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

...to have her work judged without having to deal with peoples pro-male bias.

and

So, he lied, and took advantage of peoples pro-female bias.

I don't see how these two jibe.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

...to have her work judged without having to deal with peoples pro-male bias.

and

So, he lied, and took advantage of peoples pro-female bias.

I don't see how these two jibe.

Because the pro-male bias doesn't exist any more except in select circles (but the media believes it exists everywhere), just as the pro-female bias doesn't exist, with an exception for select circles (primarily the media).

Re:Obvious

[Wookact]

Some people have a pro male bias, and some people have a pro female bias, and some of us don't really care.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they're mad because he lied to lots of people? Do we have overcomplicate this?

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

So, he lied, and took advantage of peoples pro-female bias.

Exactly.

The only thing Skipsnes really did was use the unfair biases of the tech-press and their readers to his advantage. The fact is that the value of Skipsnes website has *absolutely* nothing to do with whether it was coded by a 19-year-old girl, or a 70-year-old grandmother, or a run-of-the-mill 30-something, white, male programmer. The site shouldn't get more press because we thought it was coded by a cute girl, but it did. So, Skipsnes turned the tables on our own, unjustified prejudices. Maybe this will erode those prejudices a little bit.

To me, this doesn't strike me as all that different from, say, a black person, on a job application, marking themselves as being white. Ideally, it shouldn't matter *what* they put as their race, but the fact it that their odds are improved if the employer thinks the guy is white (in a universe without affirmative-action and wherein employers are allowed to query about race). And, just maybe, it will cause the employer to start disregarding the "race" section on the applications once they realize that it's not reliable info. And maybe *we* will stop giving undue extra attention to startups which seem to be from cute, unmarried, doe-eyed females.

Re:Obvious

[AdamWill]

"So, he lied, and took advantage of peoples pro-female bias...People genuinely believe that men SHOULD have to work harder to get ahead. That's why they're mad. Because their prejudice is heartfelt."

Yeah...no. The tech press wants to jump on a story about a female-led startup *precisely because there are so few female led startups*. That hardly suggests that being female is an advantage in the environment. If he'd actually managed to create a viable company then it may be interesting, but he didn't; just threw up a website and told some lies. No-one actually gave him any money.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

reddit MRA spotted

Innovative?

[zitsky]

I hope the guy doesn't profit from this fraud. Most likely his startup will get acquired, if it really exists, or he will get a job in a more prestigious firm. Hey, there is no true and false anymore, right? What I really hope is that he goes back to the oblivion where he belongs.

Re:Innovative?

[SternisheFan]

From the 1st link:

"Skipsnes went public with his confession Tuesday night, after GeekWire discovered his real identity and left him a voicemail. He has since responded to our emails but refuses to talk on the phone or meet in person to answer our questions directly.

He insists that the startup at the center of the story, Senior Living Map, is his and is real. However, we have yet to find any evidence supporting its existence in state corporations filings or anywhere else, beyond the bare-bones site that was the subject of the fake auction.

The photo of “Sarah Hanson” used for the auction bears a striking resemblance to Skipsnes’ wife at a younger age. We asked Skipsnes if he used a picture of his wife to perpetrate the hoax, and if so, how she feels about that. As of publication of this post, he has yet to respond to that question."

So, this guy's just a high-tech, low life grifter. Only when he got caught did he confess to the scam.

Lock him up, after he's made reparations to anyone he scammed money from.

Re:Innovative?

[NatasRevol]

Sorry, but any idiot that actually invested in this story (to the tune of $125,000) without doing more research than the press did (at least before publishing the first story) is an idiot, and deserves what they got.

Re: Innovative?

[iamhassi]

Tech low life? I think the sites that ignore great startups to run articles about the pretty teenage girl startup are the low lifes

Re:Innovative?

[ShanghaiBill]

Sorry, but any idiot that actually invested in this story (to the tune of $125,000) without doing more research than the press did (at least before publishing the first story) is an idiot, and deserves what they got.

Did anyone invest anything? TFA says that Sarah Hanson (who doesn't exist) claims to have received an investment of $125,000, but the implication is that was a lie too. So it isn't clear that anyone actually invested or was defrauded of anything. But TFA is so poorly written that it isn't clear.

Re:Innovative?

[OakDragon]

Interestingly enough, Senior Living Map seems to be up & doing what it's supposed to.

Re:Innovative?

[NatasRevol]

No idea, I was just addressing the idea of a fraud charge.

Re:Innovative?

[Darinbob]

High tech? The funniest thing about the story I think is that people honestly thought that "senior living map" could have been a real startup, instead of just a summer intern project. Way too much entrepreneur worship going on, I sense a new era of dotcom gullibility cropping up.

Re:Innovative?

[Raenex]

The funniest thing about the story I think is that people honestly thought that "senior living map" could have been a real startup, instead of just a summer intern project.

Can't say I blame them when Instagram sold for a cool billion.

Fraud?

[TheRealMindChild]

Isn't this fraud (... deception intended to result in financial or personal gain)?

Re:Fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He used a fake story to gain press, not solicit money or goods. If he maintained the story of imaginary investors while courting real ones then yes it would be fraud, but the only people he decieved were the media. If lying about your product and company to the news was a crime them every executive in the country would be in jail.

Re:Fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but the so called press shows how much work goes in to writing an article... Should we have any respect at all for online "journalism"? No.

Re:Fraud?

[SternisheFan]

The story states that the high bid for his startup was $125,000.

Re:Fraud?

[redwraith94]

It is if he harms anyone...

Re:Fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it was the scammer dude that made up that "bid", to get attention. No one actually bid anything.

Re:Fraud?

[Feyshtey]

Is it no less fraudulent for a white male to name a minority, or a female (or both) as 51% owner of his business that she has limited experience and no financial investment in, so that he is more able to secure priority status in government contracts? And yet this is not just a standard practice, it is almost a necessity for a white male who is win bids for those contracts.

Re:Fraud?

[Feyshtey]

And in this case, who would be harmed? Would you feel emotionally traumatized because you were tricked into having hope for a white male you would never have given a second thought to otherwise?

Re:Fraud?

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Why limit our lack of respect to online "journalism"? The vast majority of journalism is crap period.

Re:Fraud?

[cayenne8]

Is it no less fraudulent for a white male to name a minority, or a female (or both) as 51% owner of his business that she has limited experience and no financial investment in, so that he is more able to secure priority status in government contracts? And yet this is not just a standard practice, it is almost a necessity for a white male who is win bids for those contracts.

Someone with mod points, please give this post a boost!!

This person knows of what they speak.

It isn't with just large contracts either...you see it on the ones earmarked for "small business" too. The ones that are lucrative, you still see populated with Lockheed Martin and those types.

The key to this is "partnering" with a female, minority owned company...small enough to fit the small category, and they are backed by 1 or more of the usual large contractors.

I'd really be very interested to see how many contracts the feds put out, are won by any primary company that is NOT minority female owned. I'd put serious money down you'd be hard pressed to find a winner that is owned by a white guy.

I'm surprised that most people don't know this 'dirty' little secret.

Re:Fraud?

[redwraith94]

Did you need me to define who, or harm? five point test
I am not really sure how the white male thing applies, unless you are just quasi-racist like so many today are. So I'm just gonna leave that one alone.

Re:Fraud?

[Feyshtey]

With all else being equal, if there are specific laws that ensure that someone who IS NOT a white male is given preference, then the white male is not the one proven to have demonstrated racism.

Template

[Anonymous Coward]

Just more proof that been shown again and again that if a story fits the media's narriative template that they will not fact check a story.

Re:Template

[saveferrousoxide]

if a story fits the media's narriative template that they will not fact check a story

unfortunately, that's not restricted to the media. It's just human nature to be less skeptical of something that fits your worldview. We would like to hold all journalists to a higher standard and would like them to scrutinize every story with the same level of skepticism, but alas, only a select few hold to that ideal and even fewer of those have enough clout to sway the corporation behind the news.

Re:Template

[Quakeulf]

I don't trust journalism for good reasons. I wish I didn't have to but they are making it hard for me not to remain skeptical.

Re:Template

[GameboyRMH]

I keep thinking about James O'Keefe's fake video that led to the shutdown of ACORN. It's amazing how powerful this simple hoax was, it produced the intended result quickly and precisely. No fact-checking was done by anyone until well after the dust settled. Understanding the workings behind this hoax could allow individuals to wield incredible, world-changing power with nothing but common electronic gadgets and free time.

The important elements I've picked out so far are:

1. It confirmed people's fears or prejudices rather than presenting something shocking

2. It used a simple misdirection to present a false context instead of any camera trickery or hoaxed content. This helped make the video more believable.

3. Its path to the mainstream news was well-streamlined: It was media-friendly and fact-checker-unfriendly. It was sensational and people could watch and share it much faster than anyone could have called bullshit on it. Once it went viral on the web it only took one news channel with low standards to air it, and then the other mainstream news channels were practically forced to air it to stay relevant.

Re:Template

[NatasRevol]

Journalism? WTF are you talking about? This is the tech press. It's a glorified xerox machine for company PR releases.

Re:Template

[njnnja]

a.k.a "Too good to check"

Re:Template

[khallow]

I keep thinking about James O'Keefe's fake video

O'Keefe engaged in highly deceptive behavior in a number of ways, apparently, including presenting the video in a false light. But "fake"? The fundamental accusation of the video, that ACORN low level officials were willing to expedite minor crimes, still appears correct though I doubt it would hold up in a court of law due to O'Keefe's shenanigans.

I think ACORN's quick end in bankruptcy is an indication of how corrupt and unstable the organization was.

Re:Template

[GameboyRMH]

Nothing remotely unethical was caught in the video. The segments that apparently show the responses to the questions O'Keefe and the woman with him posed while dressed as a pimp & ho, were actually a mix of responses they received in formal wear and joking responses they received from an employee who called the police for them immediately after they left.

I know it's a comedy site but here's an overview of the hoax with good citations at #4:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20369_5-major-news-stories-that-forgot-to-tell-you-best-part.html

Re:Template

[Quakeulf]

Well, every niche that has article writers is that, unfortunately. Gaming press is even corrupt to the point they are being told to give good reviews to the games.

Re:Template

[metrometro]

Look at the "press" involved: VentureBeat, HuffPo, Yahoo!, AOL, GeekWire. These aren't reporters. They're press release curators, with a little commentary around the edges.

Re:Template

[Wookact]

I think you only heard one side of the story. You neglect the fact that those answers were spliced together, from different days, and dressed differently. You also neglect that on at least one occasion Acorn called the police after those two left.

You should not have been modded up. You are incorrect.

Re:Template

[meta-monkey]

There are people who are skeptical of things, regardless of whether they fit their world view or not. We call them "scientists."

Re:Template

[Anonymous Coward]

We would like to hold all journalists to a higher standard and would like them to scrutinize every story with the same level of skepticism, but alas, only a select few hold to that ideal and even fewer of those have enough clout to sway the corporation behind the news.

That's the problem right there. Why are people holding journalists to a higher standard? Why? They hold no special powers, they have no legal obligation to hold to a higher standard, they can spit off anything and short of libel suits which they usually pay off quietly, they feel no repercussions for their incompetence.

Get it through your tick head: There's NO difference between today's "journalist" and the 14 year old who mows your lawn. They're both looking for the same thing, some way to make a buck.

Re:Template

[khallow]

Ok. So you allege it's a complete hoax. Then where's the slander lawsuits? From what I've googled, O'Keefe has been sued for illegal videotaping not slander (he lost in California and another case is underway in Maryland). As far as I know, no court has established that his video was materially misleading and he hasn't admitted such.

And that's pretty odd. After all, he destroyed a fairly large non profit and harmed the reputation of a number of people. Several parties have shown they are willing to sue, and frankly, there's a pretty strong case against O'Keefe for slander due to the numerous material misrepresentations that he made both during and after the video was made.

So I think it's telling that they haven't done that. He's being attacked legally with lawsuits that don't require an evaluation of the truthfulness of his video or risk exposure of the internal workings of ACORN.

The relevant government investigations have been by either the heavily democratic Congress prior to the 2010 election or the Obama administration. Both have a vested interest in hiding any illegal actions that ACORN might have done. As I see it, ACORN was a publicly funded partisan group working for Democrat candidates. If that isn't illegal, it should be.

And ACORN's bankruptcy came at a convenient time, namely, before it could become an election year issue. As I see it, it ran into some trouble (whether unfairly or not) and closed shop as fast as an overseas shell corporation. One doesn't have to wholeheartedly embrace Republican ideology to smell the fishiness of that situation.

Re:Template

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. So you allege it's a complete hoax. Then where's the slander lawsuits? ...

And that's pretty odd.

It's not odd. The main reason private people/companies sue other privates is money. When you're after money, you don't worry about the semantics that you're using "slander" law to nail the guy. You pick what ever laws that has the best chance to succeed and/or reap the largest payout (and you don't need to win in court, getting a settlement can do just as well)

When you're after money, you also have to consider if the target actually has any or enough. It's the same reason big corporations rarely sue the little guy: the little guy doesn't have the money to pay the corporation, not even to recoup the lawyer fees.

Your way of thinking actually applies for the opposite view: if O'Keefe was really on to something, and there's some really bad corruption going on, why hasn't the (obviously corrupt) government silenced him? I mean, we know the government can do a lot worse at destroying individuals (Manning, Assange, Swartz to name a few)

Re:Template

[Wookact]

All of your answers are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

Ohh and you are still dead flipping wrong. He lied, he edited the video, and no attorney generals found any evidence of any wrong doing on Acorns part.In fact from what I read, at least one of them suggested that he may be liable for damages
A few choice quotes for you:

On March 1, 2010, the District Attorney's office for Brooklyn determined that the videos were "heavily edited" to give a misleading impression,[7] and concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN Brooklyn staff filmed in the videos.[8] A law enforcement source said, "They edited the tape to meet their agenda."[9][107]

The California Attorney General granted immunity to O'Keefe and Giles in exchange for their raw videos shot at three California ACORN offices. Its comparison of the raw videos with the released versions found that the published videos had been heavily edited to misrepresent the workers and the situations so as to suggest criminal intent and activity.[10][11][12][13] The California report was followed by one by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which reported there was no evidence that ACORN workers had misused government funds or participated in the criminal activities represented in the videos.[14][15] But, ACORN was effectively destroyed by then.[16]

Look he even had to settle out of court in at least one instance.

On March 5, 2013, O'Keefe agreed to pay the fired employee, Juan Carlos Vera, $100,000. O'Keefe acknowledged in the settlement that at the time he published his video he was unaware that Vera had, in fact, notified the police about the incident. Further, the settlement contains the following apology: "O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family."[21]

You are wrong sir. Dead wrong.

Re:Template

[Anonymous Coward]

The rightwing media did the cheer-leading. ACORN was really a story of journalistic ethics.

Re:Template

[khallow]

When you're after money, you don't worry about the semantics that you're using "slander" law to nail the guy. You pick what ever laws that has the best chance to succeed and/or reap the largest payout (and you don't need to win in court, getting a settlement can do just as well)

Well, from the casual way O'Keefe took this lawsuit, it appears he had more than $100,000 to his name. Adding slander to that might have picked up a big piece of whatever he actually has.

Your way of thinking actually applies for the opposite view: if O'Keefe was really on to something, and there's some really bad corruption going on, why hasn't the (obviously corrupt) government silenced him?

Why do you argue that? No offense, but allegedly engaging in minor crime by a minor organization just doesn't qualify as "really bad corruption" that someone would bother disappearing people for.

Further, it's worth noting that government and private supporters of ACORN were the very first to rush to judgment. For ACORN to lose its funding so quickly indicates to me that its political liabilities exceeded whatever value it had and they just cut it off.

And it probably would have been difficult, but ACORN could have cut back on its activities and scope until its finances were stable once again. So why declare bankruptcy only six months in? There's more wrong here than a supposedly fake video.

Re:Template

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, from the casual way O'Keefe took this lawsuit, it appears he had more than $100,000 to his name. Adding slander to that might have picked up a big piece of whatever he actually has.

$100,000 is great if you're an individual (the employee who won that lawsuit). It's not much if you're the whole organization of ACORN that lost all their support (wiki says they had a budget of $25 million)

Why do you argue that?

I'm not arguing that. I'm pointing out how YOUR argument is just as silly.

No offense, but allegedly engaging in minor crime by a minor organization just doesn't qualify as "really bad corruption" that someone would bother disappearing people for.

Ok, so no disappearing, but what about a lesser degree of shaming/discrediting/suing him like you said?

Further, it's worth noting that government and private supporters of ACORN were the very first to rush to judgment. For ACORN to lose its funding so quickly indicates to me that its political liabilities exceeded whatever value it had and they just cut it off.

How is that worth noting? So the government and private supporters that follow along like to jump to conclusions and overreact without investigating the facts first, same way they freak out over guns or drugs or terrorism. What else is new?

And it probably would have been difficult, but ACORN could have cut back on its activities and scope until its finances were stable once again. So why declare bankruptcy only six months in?

Um... because you just said government and private supporters pulled out? ACORN wasn't nor was it supposed to be some for profit company. No funding, no money. No money, no talk.

There's more wrong here than a supposedly fake video.

Sure, the more wrong being government being incompetent making poor judgments and jumping to conclusions, and the private supporters who are pretty much no better than the rest of the rabble that follows along.

Re:Template

[khallow]

It's not much if you're the whole organization of ACORN that lost all their support (wiki says they had a budget of $25 million)

So what? It's positive return on investment.

Ok, so no disappearing, but what about a lesser degree of shaming/discrediting/suing him like you said?

A slander lawsuit is a great way to do that. I imagine that didn't happen because either they didn't want to make a martyr or there was actual dirt hidden in ACORN records and that might have come out in a court case.

Um... because you just said government and private supporters pulled out? ACORN wasn't nor was it supposed to be some for profit company. No funding, no money. No money, no talk.

As I noted, ACORN could have scaled back on its spending and activities until a greater level of funding was restored.

Sure, the more wrong being government being incompetent making poor judgments and jumping to conclusions, and the private supporters who are pretty much no better than the rest of the rabble that follows along.

That's a great myth, but I don't actually see that in practice. I doubt any donors' or politicians' minds were changed by the O'Keefe video. They might have been changed by the somewhat inept response from ACORN leadership. But I think the real decision was to kill ACORN to keep it from becoming a 2010 election issue.

Re:Template

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? It's positive return on investment.

Do tell, what evidence do you have to back your claim?

In my defense, I'm basing my conjecture on Occam's razor. If somebody isn't suing, the simpler explanation is that it's because it's not a positive return, not that it would be but they choose not to due to some ulterior motive you have imagined.

A slander lawsuit is a great way to do that.

No, slander lawsuit is a poor way to do it. Slander is mostly a civil offense, not criminal. It'll bruise his reputation, but not ruin it. To ruin his rep, you need nail him with something really criminal, like sex offender, traitor, terrorist, etc. Again, you can see that this is true in (recent) history where governments could and did ruin individuals.

I imagine that didn't happen because either they didn't want to make a martyr or there was actual dirt hidden in ACORN records and that might have come out in a court case.

You're imaging things. I mean, you're free to do it, but please realize that's all you're doing. That, again, was the point of me presenting an alternative view using the same facts (or lack thereof)

As I noted, ACORN could have scaled back on its spending and activities until a greater level of funding was restored.

This is the same as your earlier claim that a lawsuit would be a positive return: do you have evidence?

That's a great myth, but I don't actually see that in practice. I doubt any donors' or politicians' minds were changed by the O'Keefe video. They might have been changed by the somewhat inept response from ACORN leadership. But I think the real decision was to kill ACORN to keep it from becoming a 2010 election issue

Which is to say ACORN was killed because of the personal agendas of politicians. In other words, the government... made bad decisions... based on poor judgment. Why, my claim was not a myth after all. Thanks for validating it for me!

Why didn't I think of that?

[Velex]

Zomg! Why didn't I think of that. I was taking estrogen when I was 19...

er...

shoot. Apparently you have to be a womyn-born-womyn.

Re:Why didn't I think of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you have to be a womyn-born-womyn.

Not if your startup is TransgenderMingle.com.

Go for it, dude, ... uhm, -ette?

Re:Why didn't I think of that?

[nazsco]

Not true, this worked for the guy, Adria Richard, from the dongle-gate

Re:Why didn't I think of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

someone please mod the trans-beast/kill yourself comment. Do not call anyone TG a "trans-beast", ever.

Re:Why didn't I think of that?

[ShieldW0lf]

Not true, this worked for the guy, Adria Richard, from the dongle-gate

Nice!

Re:Why didn't I think of that?

[Velex]

Nicely played, sir. I got a giggle out of that this morning, especially considering that the Ada Initiative would have given you a creeper card for daring to utter a "rape trigger." Too bad nobody modded you up. I'd mod you up, but you'd need to create a time paradox where I never posted so I could use my mod points.

And yes, I posted before I had my tea. I should have replied to the guy who pointed out that this (among lots and lots of other things) pretty much debunks the myth that grrls and womyn-born-womyn somehow have a difficult time of things in IT with a "hear, hear!"

Wow....

[mark-t]

10% of her after-tax income for 10 years?

So if her startup takes most of the first ten years to get off the ground, or even longer, something that's actually entirely feasible, given the average success rate of new businesses, then the investor has just lost a whole crapload of money..

Basically, the investor has taken a gamble that her startup is going to take off within the first 3 or 4 years. It's possible, certainly, but by no means something should be speculated as particularly likely.

Kudos to her for finding someone that believed in her idea enough that they were willing to take that kind of risk.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the summary?

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is your reading comprehension really that poor?

Re:Wow....

[a_big_favor]

Could you not be bothered to read the story?

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you can give Kudos to an imaginary person. I think you need to read the second half of the summary.

Re:Wow....

[oodaloop]

Reading is hard. Let's go shopping!

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you not be bothered to read the story?

The whole point is that it doesn't matter what "Sarah Hanson" originally wrote... it was just a pack of lies from some bald guy's ass.

So, no.

Re:Wow....

[mark-t]

Nope. Clicked straight on through to the first article, and then added my comment.

Yes... I'm feeling sufficiently stupid now. Thanks for asking.

Re:Wow....

[ArcadeMan]

Perfect reply, I wish I had modpoints!

Re:Wow....

[SternisheFan]

I've done that, was given the 'internetz of the day' award for it. I'm still waiting for the statue to arrive in the mail. Any day now.... :)

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no statue; you won an Internet. And here it is, right in front of you.

Re:Wow....

[Voltara]

Nope. Clicked straight on through to the first article, and then added my comment.

Allow me to explain how things work here at Slashdot.

First, you read the headline. Advanced users might also make mental note of the Slashdot editor who posted the story (this helps to frame your reactions to the story.)

Now, there are two differing schools of thought as to what to do from here. One camp jumps straight from here into commenting on the story, having already taken in sufficient information at this point to begin forming and expressing opinions. The other camp will read some or all of the summary before commenting. They claim the latter method helps them in identifying and avoiding commenting on duplicate stories.

However, at no point should you ever actually read the articles (this was where you made your critical mistake.)

It's just not done.

Re:Wow....

[mark-t]

The problem, as I remarked in this followup post to someone who asked if I had even read the summary was that I *did* read the article (or at least one of the ones linked to), unfortunately, I did so, and immediately commented upon it before I had even fully read and comprehended the points that the summary was actually making.

I could chalk it up to having just woken up at the time, but then I wouldn't be admitting responsibility for doing so. It was my bad, and I realize I probably deserve gratuitous levels of mocking from slashdot posters and AC's everywhere for it.

Make them up?

[atouk]

Was I the only one thinking of mascara, some red lipstick, a 40's hairdo...

Re:Make them up?

[OakDragon]

I'm thinking about that now! Hubba!

Re:Make them up?

[Opportunist]

I'm pretty sure you were.

Dude, realize: This is a a geek and nerd page. And you're thinking of grooming.

FEMALE grooming.

No, I'm absolutely sure you were the only one.

What a jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody should ever take Steinar Skipsnes seriously again.

Otherwise you'll be the investor, or employee he'll be telling, "Yeah I did say those things but y'know I was just curious in seeing how people would react." After you've blown several months or years of your life or a chunk of your net worth.

Creepy bald dude

[Anonymous Coward]

Creepy bald dude has a hot wife. I'd like to see those tits.

Re:Creepy bald dude

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose tits?

Well, I guess he used good bait

[wcrowe]

Investers: "Oooh! Pretty girl! Shut up and take my money!"

Sheesh. How could people this dumb have so much disposable income?

Re:Well, I guess he used good bait

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd be surprised how difficult it is for women to actual raise funding. Contrary to what you apparently believe, they're not tripping over themselves trying to give money to a pretty girl.

Re:Well, I guess he used good bait

[GameboyRMH]

Because there's no relationship between intelligence and wealth.

Re:Well, I guess he used good bait

[grumpyman]

Ditto. It's not regarding pretty girl and what-not but I think unless you've done the startup thing and knocking on every single investors door, people assumes getting early financing is just a matter of 'doing it'.

Re:Well, I guess he used good bait

[Anonymous Coward]

You just made that up.

Re:Well, I guess he used good bait

[Frosty Piss]

Startup Founder Plays Tech Press Like a Fiddle

Doesn't everybody? It's not that hard...

How could people this dumb have so much disposable income?

They lifted it off other dumb people.

Re:Well, I guess he used good bait

[atouk]

Sheesh. How could people this dumb have so much disposable income?

Because investors never invest their own money, just other peoples's money.

Re:Well, I guess he used good bait

[Anonymous Coward]

according to the article, they are.

from the blog post:

[nimbius]

Why did I do this? I want to grow and build a business more than anyone can understand. When you want something bad enough, youâ(TM)re forced to create a path or quit. Am I proud of this path? In hindsight, I would have preferred promoting the site differently, but it is what it is at this point. My last startup up was destroyed by Craigslist.

forced to create a path or quit? perhaps, but what you did was intentionally lie to investors about your personal identity. Its something the SEC and to an equal extent the FBI tend to frown upon (try doing it at a bank sometime.) The attorneys you'll likely deal with with wont care about how much you wanted to grow a business or create a path, or what your fucking hindsight was. They will have cause to insist on a legal fact-finding period, during which every "business" youve ever been a part of will be torn open and shaken out onto the floor. the wording of every email and correspondance they can find will be used to build a case against you in an effort to reclaim far greater amounts of money than the original investment which was made in your company. Legal inquiries into your personal finances, criminal history, travel, residency, and credit standing will be made, against which you will have very little standing to protest. Once your willful intent to defraud investors is proven, you'll not find the resources to start up so much as a tupperware party.

Re:from the blog post:

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, this man didn't lie to investors. He made a fake story about people investing in a young woman's (actually his) startup through astounding means. He lied to journalists in order to generate awareness of his startup, not to generate money. The journalists didn't investigate his lies, ended up publishing his fake story as fact, and are now upset they were tricked. Lying to journalists is not a crime. Hell, politicians do it all the time.

Re:from the blog post:

[mjr167]

And yet if he liked to cross dress in his free time and instead was claiming to be transgendered or something, everyone would be clapping and cooing about how wonderful he is for pretending to be a woman...

I'm actually having trouble differentiating this from 'marketing'? Companies create spokespeople and fictional stories about themselves all the time. Unless he is not planning on actually paying his investors, should it matter if you are going into business with a real 19 year old girl or a middle aged man using the face of a 19 year old girl? The non-existent girl could not have signed any contracts or anything, so I find it hard to believe that real investors didn't know who they were dealing with.

Re:from the blog post:

[interval1066]

My last startup up was destroyed by Craigslist.

What, the guy was charging for want ads?

Re:from the blog post:

[Feyshtey]

If you're trying to bring ethics into this, allow me to ask this; Is it ethical to grant greater potential for business success to someone based on their sex? How about their physical appearence? How about their skintone? Age? Religion? Are these criteria not specifically outlined in law as protected against discrimination?

Legally it should not matter at all that this person was a white male, or a young woman, or a purple plaid martian. If you're offended at the deception then you are essentially admitting that you are at the very least biased against men, potentially biased against middle-aged white men, and are perfectly comfortable discriminating against them in favor of 19 year-old girls. You acknowledge that it is your right to define your level of support for the business opurtunity based on age and sex moreso than the potential of the business itself.

Re:from the blog post:

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ignoring a very important layer of indirection (as well as willfully ignoring the existence of institutional sexism).

Specifically, the lie was told to get media coverage. The fact that it worked indicates that either (1) the media outlets believe that a woman involved with a startup is more interesting than a man in the same position or (2) the media outlets believe that their readers believe that. Neither requires the person claiming the lie was unethical to believe that.

Also, legally protected classes are very different from the set of classes that are never discriminated again. I assure you that people are still discriminated against for their skintone, age, religion, and sex in modern day America (as well as groups being in worse conditions due to historical racism having cross-generational effects) and you don't exactly have to look hard to find it.

Re:from the blog post:

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet if he liked to cross dress in his free time and instead was claiming to be transgendered or something, everyone would be clapping and cooing about how wonderful he is for pretending to be a woman...

Uh, yes, if the founder were a woman, then I could be okay with the founder claiming to be a woman. (Also, cross dressing is very much so not the same thing as being trans*. That makes approximately as much sense as lumping together people who wear jeans with Christians. Actually, on second thought, it makes even less sense.)

I'm actually having trouble differentiating this from 'marketing'?

The marketing practice of hiring people to play fictional characters that use the company's products is pretty obnoxious, but this isn't the same thing: advertisements are expected to show fictional situations, news articles aren't unless they're from The Onion. Hiring someone to be a PR person or spokesperson is one thing; claiming that person is the CEO/founder is straight out lying. Perhaps not illegal if it's not clear how people are being defrauded of actual cash, but certainly unethical.

Re:from the blog post:

[Feyshtey]

I am a middle-aged white male, and I am discriminated against because of my skintone, and sex. It is an undeniable fact that I am less likely to obtain a job in several categories when competing with those of color or women precisely because I'm white and have a penis. Hiring practices are designed to give preference to women or people of color. Business loans and home loans are designed much the same way. All else being equal, from education, to training, to personal hygiene, to ability to communicate, to congeniality, I will lose more often than not.

If it is wrong for a person to be denied a job or a loan because they have dark skin or lack a penis, it is equally wrong for them to obtain a job or loan for exactly those same reasons. Legitimizing discrimination against me as revenge for some wrong I never had a part of is an injustice in the eyes of any rational person. Punish those who are guilty, not those that fit the same physical description as those who are guilty.

I refuse to feel guilty about being born to the wrong parents and with a penis. This guy just pointed out the volume of people that would prefer I (and he) would. Its unfortunate how many of them (and you) are unable to recongnize that simple truth about themselves.

Re:from the blog post:

[Anonymous Coward]

"And yet if he liked to cross dress in his free time and instead was claiming to be transgendered or something, everyone would be clapping and cooing about how wonderful he is for pretending to be a woman..."

Wow, lotta hateful persons with mod points on Slashdot today.

Re:from the blog post:

[mjr167]

I'm confused as to how you find that hateful. The media recently has been in love with people who do not fit into traditional roles and are thus oppressed or misunderstood by society.

Do you take exception with the word "pretending"? If you dangle and have a Y chromosome, you can put on a dress and take hormones and have surgery so you don't dangle, but at the end of the day you still have that Y chromosome and lack a uterus and thus will always only be pretending. That is a fact and cannot be changed by current technology.

Steinar Skipsnes?

[ArcadeMan]

So, his name is Steinar Nintendo64?

Re:Steinar Skipsnes?

[Jiro]

Lying to media isn't the same as lying to investors.

Re:Steinar Skipsnes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they are tied in terms of braincell count.

Re:Steinar Skipsnes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steinar ship-promontory, I think.

Search and replace clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

"I started to think 'what if I took the elements of what an investor loves and created a story?'" "So I did."

debunked

[nazsco]

This pretty much debunked the myth that being a woman in tech is difficult and that is kjust because women opt to do other things that we don't see them around. And that the whole issue is around only for a few individuals special interests.

What i really want to see is someone pull that coverage by being a 50-60 yr old male white developer. The only group that really is absent in tech despite trying.

There are no more Journalists in this country

[Slashdot Parent]

This country has no journalists left. All we have now are highly-paid stenographers.

I'm having a very "get off my lawn!" moment right now, but I remember a time when journalism had standards and articles were researched.

Sigh.

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[samkass]

Stenographers make more than journalists, on average. You get what you pay for. Now go read some more free internet news with adblocker enabled...

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[CanHasDIY]

I prefer to call those particular events "Pepperidge Farms" moments.

Remember a time when newscasters actually told you shit that matters, after they verified the information and made sure their facts were straight? Pepperidge Farms remembers...

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalism still has standards. It's just that the standards are different. They don't standardize on proven stories, but on profitable ones.

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[interval1066]

No, you're right. The mainstream is just copying press releases from other outlets. Its rediculous. And CBS is wondering why CBS News is not getting those ratings of old... its not the CBS News of old. Just the other day I read the New York Post back peddling on some tech article. Whatever.

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[Slashdot Parent]

I'm on the Japanese porn star diet: I only eat paper. But I can eat all the paper I want.

Japanese porn stars eat paper? I'd google, but I'm at the office right now.

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[Bigby]

That was back when newspapers made money...oh wait, you mean we get what we pay for?

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got news for you, this has been happening since long before free news was available on the inter-webs. What's lacking is not money, but the desire to be a good journalist. Basically you have two choices:

1. Be a good, ethical journalist who strives to report news as it is without bias. If you do this you'll find out some pretty nasty things about people/parties/ideologies that you like, and be forced to print some complimentary things about those you don't like.

2. Use your position as a bully-pulpit, and manufacture/skew the news to fit you personal beliefs.

Number 2 sounds really good to someone without ethics, they can propangada-ize the news under the guise of "journalism".

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[sootman]

John Gruber, Daring Fireball:

Taylor Soper, GeekWire:

> But soon after publishing, we became suspicious.

Pretty sure that's the wrong order.

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, becoming suspicious and then publishing isn't any better.

Re:There are no more Journalists in this country

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna say the unthinkable. It is the tragedy of the commons. News stories need to be given some sort of copyright protection. A week's protection for dig-jobs would be sufficient.

It would be a real coup if...

[mypalmike]

It would be a real coup if he managed to get his stupid site linked to on the front page of slashdot.

Ah, yes, there it is.

What? Nothing was debunked.

[Anonymous Coward]

The auction was fake, no one bid any real money on it. The whole "story" was made up by 1 guy. The only thing that was proved is that that 1 guy is a complete dumbass.

Re:What? Nothing was debunked.

[NatasRevol]

And that if he had made his lies a little better/more thorough, he would have gotten even more press.

Re:Points at Steinar Skipsnes

[Anonymous Coward]

Just one question.

Why now? Chobits ended over 10 years ago. So why the sudden surge in these Chii-like comments?

Re:Points at Steinar Skipsnes

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix Canada added it a few weeks ago I think.

And those one-line comments are still better than the guy with the rant about hosts files.

Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge difference between operating under a pseudonym to avoid gender bias and manufacturing blatant lies specifically intended to defraud.

Dontcha think? Dontcha?

Re:Big Difference

[ShieldW0lf]

There's a huge difference between operating under a pseudonym to avoid gender bias and manufacturing blatant lies specifically intended to defraud.

Dontcha think? Dontcha?

No, not really. The goal to mislead is the same. The lengths gone to are a matter of degree, and the degree required comes from society, not the individual. If he could have achieved the same goal with less effort, he would have.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Misleading using the most attractive gender and false stories in order to generate revenue is profitable, therefore it is legal and mandatory to do so.
Failure to optimize revenue will be dealt with harshly, either by the markets, or by swarms of lawyers.

If he will lie about that...

[StuartHankins]

If he will lie about something as silly as that, who in their right mind will trust him in business? He sold his integrity for a ridiculously low price and doesn't even understand why that matters.

Re:If he will lie about that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that just like a woman... maybe he really is female after all!

Another one unmasked ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... by "Tits or GTFO".

Re:Points at Steinar Skipsnes

[Wookact]

If the worst we ever get from Canada are the Hideki comments, well I am not that bent outta shape.

Binders Full of Women

[Baby Duck]

Making up a single fake woman is still small potatoes compared to Mitt Romney. Or Wilt Chamberlain.

Re:Binders Full of Women

[TheNastyInThePasty]

I wish this was higher up in the comments. The "binders full of women" reference is A+

Re:Binders Full of Women

[Macgrrl]

I'm finding this whole story freaky given I share a name minus one letter.

Re:Points at Steinar Skipsnes

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking weaboo all around.

Government contracting

[slew]

Sadly, this isn't any different than a scam that some government contractors play.

In many government contracts, there are set-asides for women and/or minority owned businesses. Sometimes less than scrupulous goverment contractors set up shell companies that name a women and/or a minority as a principal owner (more often than not a wife of the owners of the original contractors) and bid on those contracts with set-asides to avoid competition and make more profit. Inevitably, some of the work come the way of the shell company, and these shell companies simply subcontract the actual work to the original shady governnment contractors at a non-competitive price and kick-back a finders fee of sorts to the principals of the shell company.

Government (and eventually the taxpayers) lose every day to these types of scams and you don't hear about them. The wake of the Sarah Hanson / Manti teo / Dora Ratjen style of scams is generally much smaller (although potentially more media tickling)

Insightful?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge difference between operating under a pseudonym to avoid gender bias and manufacturing blatant lies specifically intended to defraud.

Dontcha think? Dontcha?

No, not really. The goal to mislead is the same. The lengths gone to are a matter of degree, and the degree required comes from society, not the individual. If he could have achieved the same goal with less effort, he would have.

Whut?

Fox experiment - chop video in 3, watch 2,3 then 1

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just described the secret sauce that is Fox News.

Fox eventually includes the facts so that their audience feels well informed but by then their mind is already set.

The first time my eyes were opened to this was when I viewed the second part of a 3 part story Fox did. When I finally saw the spin they applied in the first part I was blown away at the art form it really is. They're scary good at it.

Boot's on the other foot.

[BrokenHalo]

What amused me about this story is that it's a truism that you can't believe anything you read in the newspapers. Seems to me there's some justice in the story being fabricated before the journalists got their hands on it.