Kickstarter Expands Allowed Projects, Automates Launches

itwbennett (1594911) writes "On Tuesday, Kickstarter announced 'Launch Now,' a feature that will let creators launch their project as soon as they're ready and not require review by 'community managers'. Instead of human feedback, the tool uses an algorithm incorporating thousands of data points to check whether a project is ready to go live, such as its description, funding goal, and whether it's the creator's first project, Kickstarter said. As part of the changes, Kickstarter also said it simplified its rules for projects, allowing projects to be hosted on its site that previously weren't allowed, including more types of software."

Comments

Back my project:

[i kan reed]

Please back my kickstart project: Get a +5 funny post by ironically mocking the general quality level of "art" projects on kickstarter.
Goal $2,000

For $5: you will get my heatfeltfelt thanks(but I won't actually talk to you)
For $10: I will let you know when I make the post so you can reply
For $20: I will put your name on a website, no one but other backers will ever look at
For $50: A T-Shirt with the post-ID image printed on it.
For $1000: You can talk to me for a day, because the fact that I ran a kickstarter makes me interesting.

Re:Back my project:

[i kan reed]

Oh, looks like we met our goal.

Stretch goals:
$10,000 Post again.
$20,000 Write a book about how I posted
$30,000 Exclusive backer-only behind-the-scenes documentary including interviews with all the people worked on the project, like me, and me. You will get so fucking tired of my smug face.

Lazy.

[TechyImmigrant]

> a feature that will let creators launch their project as soon as they're ready and not require review by 'community managers'.

So they got lazy and wanted to cut out all the manual labour.

Re:Lazy.

[QuasiSteve]

More like:

They're tired of getting flak for projects appearing on their site that people have issues with, raise a stink about on twitter, and then complain when it's still there 1 hour later - or getting flak for removing projects that use questionably language, get buckets of crap dumped on them by thousands of people alleging them of having a political agenda, and that decision being exploited for the benefit of the project getting launched at a different site.

Speaking of which...

They're probably not fond of all the attention that IndieGoGo has been getting as the 'more accessible, lower barrier, and less stuck up Kickstarter.

Regarding one specific other rule change, they probably realized that project creators - when faced with the "you can't set up pledges for multiples of a perk!" rule, simply told people to pledge more than what the tier requires, or - worse yet for Kickstarter - hit their website and use the online storefront (often using PayPal) as a pledge mechanism instead. When that happens, they might as well try winning back that slice of the pie and shrug off any scams that involve multiples (part of the reason why the rule was instated in the first place - under the guise of protecting project creators from themselves in case their project can't scale) the same way that scams involving single items have been shrugged off. The PR defense on that one is pretty strong by now, with more than half the backers toeing the company line that they're only a facilitator (who just happen to take a % of the take, scam project or otherwise) and so do not get involved in disputes ( except where there's enough negative press to warrant a statement ).

Re:Lazy.

[TechyImmigrant]

>So they're basically trying to move more towards what the Slashdot editors have been doing for a while now?

Kickstarter Beta?

Re:Lazy.

[GigsVT]

Any company that bans gun related stuff does have a political agenda.

Re:Lazy.

[TechyImmigrant]

>Any company that bans gun related stuff does have a political agenda.

Or isn't a licensed interstate gun dealer and wan't to avoid the legal consequences of dealing in guns without such a license.

Re:Lazy.

[WillAdams]

Except they also ban weapons and weapons accessories, to include, but not limited to axes, and knives, and archery gear.

Re:Lazy.

[QuasiSteve]

Yeah, this was more about a film that doesn't need any more free press - but in terms of weapons, U.S. law itself is funky (imagine that), so inconsistency happens.

Re:Lazy.

[jythie]

The same type of problem exists to a lesser degree with those types of projects too. Various areas get really twitchy over non-gun weapons and since only guns are 2nd amendment protected are free to have all sorts of laws about their sale and use.

Re:Lazy.

[viperidaenz]

Weapons?
I thought it was about arms

Re:Lazy.

[Vitriol Angst]

>Any company that bans gun related stuff does have a political agenda.

Or isn't a licensed interstate gun dealer and wan't to avoid the legal consequences of dealing in guns without such a license.

Help Help -- I'm being repressed!

As long as Kickstarter doesn't support my Anthrax deployment system -- I'm going to bitch on Slashdot!!!!!!

And let me add some more !!!!!!

I mean, we can't just assume they stay clear of things that require excessive licensing and oversight. Anyone for a Kickstarter fast breeder reactor? Come on, everyone can't be a baby about this.

Re:Lazy.

[Vitriol Angst]

OK. So we can have an Arrow Gun -- no problem. In fact, let's do a kickstarted for a home surgery kit, that is attached to a gun. Then you can remove the gun at home -- but don't tell anyone.

As long as something has a gun attached, I can bring it everywhere. Now I don't have to pretend I'm blind to bring my Bijon Frise into the theater attached to a shot gun. Easier to get a weapons permit and just say; "That animal is my fancy holster." OK, and it poops, but that's constitutionally protected poop.

Re:Lazy.

[Vitriol Angst]

Well it was also about Organized Militias -- not just everyone who wants a lethal weapon.

But really, the 2nd Amendment protects profits for the NRA and the Gun Lobby. No need to look for a RATIONALE reason for why guns have more rights than I do.

Re:Lazy.

[Lord Kano]

"firearms accessories" are included.

Would one be prosecuted for selling scope mounts without a license? Or how about a battery powered bore cleaner?

LK

Re:Lazy.

[jythie]

In practice it is been interpreted as applying to firearms exclusively. Even at the time it was understood to cover 'guns', but not knives or canons.

Yawn

[Lord Kano]

As long as kickstarter bans "weapon accessories", I can't take my idea there.

Fuck kickstarter.

LK

Re:Yawn

[GigsVT]

Agreed. It's incredibly stupid and shortsighted for kickstarter to ban "weapons and weapons accessories".

Re:Yawn

[jythie]

Not really. Kickstarter is big enough that they have to worry about legal issues, and weapons gets into a legally difficult area to operate in, just like all the other things on their prohibited list. It is annoying and I wish it was not so, but it is neither stupid nor shortsighted.

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

What would be the legal ramifications for kickstarter if I raised funds for finishing development of my quick release scope mount?

LK

Re:Yawn

[i kan reed]

"Oh woe is me, this website doesn't assume a US monoculture, and many places make the thing I want to sell illegal for quite reasonable reasons"

Let me ask you a question: Do you even know the US's laws regarding exporting weaponry?

Re:Yawn

[Anrego]

The time and resources spent deciding what is legally dubious and what isn't plus the risk of getting it wrong probably exceeds the cost of just saying "if it's vaguely related to guns, it's not allowed".

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

By all means it's within their rights to make such a decision.

But that justification is nonsense.

There is no legal liability issue in play.

LK

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

Who said that I was talking about exporting or even building a weapon?

I'm specifically talking about weapon accessories.

It looks like you kan't read.

LK

Re:Yawn

[Anrego]

There is no legal liability issue in play.

Someone still needs to look at every potentially vaguely weapon related thing and make that determination, and that someone is probably going to need to have a law degree. "Some guy on a forum said it was cool" isn't enough for a large business with resources to lose in a lawsuit. Untangling the laws surrounding complex, heavily related areas like weapons and medicine (also prohibited, I imagine for the same reason) is expensive.

And then you get into the stuff that's borderline, and you inevitably have people angry because you allowed one thing and didn't allow another.

It all just turns into a big mess, and for the profit they might get out of it, they've obviously decided it's not worth it.

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

You're grasping at straws.

There are potentials for legal liability for everything.

What if Oculus Rift caused eye damage to someone?

What if The Dash caused someone to go deaf?

Liability concern does explain why they don't want weapons, it doesn't explain why they won't allow weapon accessories.

LK

Re:Yawn

[Anrego]

So your belief would be:

- kickstarter and their team of lawyers don't understand the law as well as you do?
- kickstarter is pushing some kind of agenda, not just against guns, but against medicine, GMOs, alcohol, tobacco, porn, etc. And this is more important to them than money?

or something else entirely?

Re:Yawn

[i kan reed]

"Hey jerk, why don't you acknowledge this minor technicality with regard to the subject of why its a bad idea"

I'm not sure that has much bearing at all on the potential legal quagmire they'd be stepping into for the sake of supporting a notion of freedom that's unique to just one country.

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

I'm sure that any staff or retained layers working for kickstarter understand the law better than I do.

I'm saying that this decision is obviously political.

And yes, pushing their political agenda is clearly more important to them than money.

LK

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

If you would be kind enough to limit your responses to me and exclude the voices in your head, that would be great.

LK

Re:Yawn

[i kan reed]

I'm sorry I parodied your absurd complaint.

In simpler terms, you're making an arbitrary and irrelevant distinction.

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

Where does the kickstarter page say the decision is for legal concerns?

You are grasping at straws.

LK

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

No, you mis-paraphrased me and invented arguments that I never put forth.

LK

Re:Yawn

[i kan reed]

Nope. I re-read the argument and can't acknowledge that.

Re:Yawn

[jythie]

They would have to check all the states and jurisdictions involved, which is pretty much everywhere unless they implement some kind of geo-ip blocking. Weapon accessories, including scopes, sometimes have local restrictions.

Re:Yawn

[jythie]

Having worked in an industry that has to deal with the maze of local regulations, you would be surprised how much of a headache that can be, and yes, if you are big enough, those localities WILL come after you if someone in their jurisdiction buys something that is illegal there. We ended up having to do things like forbid sales to Canada, New Jersey, Utah, etc, because of all the little (but enforced) laws that come into play. All of the things they list are product types that frequently have restrictions regarding who can sell them, who they can be sold to, or variations of the items that need to be validated by local authorities before sale. It really is that much of a mess.

Re:Yawn

[i kan reed]

Yeah, you communicated your own idiocy quite competently.

Re:Yawn

[Lord Kano]

If kickstarter was actually the entity shipping the rewards, this might be a bit more relevant.

It's not. The people who would make and send such items are not kickstarter, hence they need kickstarter to raise funds.

LK

Re: Wow...

[Ralph Wiggam]

You misunderstood. If a petition gets enough "signatures" the President promised that the White House would *respond* to it, not do it.

The response to that one was actually fantastic-

Responding to a petition on the White House Web site, science and technology adviser Paul Shawcross tells disappointed "Star Wars" fans, "This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For."

Shawcross explained that at $850 quadrillion, the cost was simply too high in a time of tight budgets. Moreover "the administration does not support blowing up planets." And anyway, "Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/12/white-house-rejects-death-star-petittion/

Quality schmality

[Hognoxious]

Ooooh, you cynic, you.

I thought it was more like "We need more traffic. Can we afford to be fussy?"

Re:Quality schmality

[TechyImmigrant]

>Ooooh, you cynic, you.

Thank you. Yes, I'm a cynic.