Startup Founder Plays Tech Press Like a Fiddle 135
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.'"
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
...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: (Score:1)
...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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Boot's on the other foot. (Score:1)
Big Difference (Score:1)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
"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 t
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
No idea, I was just addressing the idea of a fraud charge.
Re: Innovative? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, Senior Living Map [seniorlivingmap.org] seems to be up & doing what it's supposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Fraud? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone with mod points, please give this post a boost!!
This person knows of what they speak.
It isn't with just large contracts eithe
Template (Score:1)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Journalism? WTF are you talking about? This is the tech press. It's a glorified xerox machine for company PR releases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are people who are skeptical of things, regardless of whether they fit their world view or not. We call them "scientists."
Re:Template (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 [cracked.com]
Re: (Score:1)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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'Keef
Re:Template (Score:5, Informative)
You should not have been modded up. You are incorrect.
Re: (Score:1)
a.k.a "Too good to check"
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Not true, this worked for the guy, Adria Richard, from the dongle-gate
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, this worked for the guy, Adria Richard, from the dongle-gate
Nice!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Wow.... (Score:1)
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 h
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 su
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem, as I remarked in this [slashdot.org] 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 le
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect reply, I wish I had modpoints!
Make them up? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking about that now! Hubba!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Well, I guess he used good bait (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there's no relationship between intelligence and wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Sheesh. How could people this dumb have so much disposable income?
Because investors never invest their own money, just other peoples's money.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:from the blog post: (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
My last startup up was destroyed by Craigslist.
What, the guy was charging for want ads?
Re: (Score:2)
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 admitti
Re: (Score:2)
Steinar Skipsnes? (Score:5, Funny)
So, his name is Steinar Nintendo64?
Re: (Score:3)
Lying to media isn't the same as lying to investors.
debunked (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And that if he had made his lies a little better/more thorough, he would have gotten even more press.
There are no more Journalists in this country (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:1)
That was back when newspapers made money...oh wait, you mean we get what we pay for?
Re: (Score:2)
John Gruber, Daring Fireball: [daringfireball.net]
Taylor Soper, GeekWire:
> But soon after publishing, we became suspicious.
Pretty sure that's the wrong order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It would be a real coup if... (Score:2)
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.
If he will lie about that... (Score:2)
Binders Full of Women (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm finding this whole story freaky given I share a name minus one letter.
Government contracting (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:3)