Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Isn't this fraud (... deception intended to result in financial or personal gain)?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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.
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Because there's no relationship between intelligence and wealth.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Some people have a pro male bias, and some people have a pro female bias, and some of us don't really care.
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.
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.