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
"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.
Was I the only one thinking of mascara, some red lipstick, a 40's hairdo...
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.
Reading is hard. Let's go shopping!
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
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
Nope. Clicked straight on through to the first article, and then added my comment.
Yes... I'm feeling sufficiently stupid now. Thanks for asking.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Investers: "Oooh! Pretty girl! Shut up and take my money!"
Sheesh. How could people this dumb have so much disposable income?
Proverbs 21:19
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.
So, his name is Steinar Nintendo64?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.... :)
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.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Journalism? WTF are you talking about? This is the tech press. It's a glorified xerox machine for company PR releases.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
If the worst we ever get from Canada are the Hideki comments, well I am not that bent outta shape.
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.
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.
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.
There are people who are skeptical of things, regardless of whether they fit their world view or not. We call them "scientists."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.