EEVblog #1099- BattBump - Dumbest Kickstarter Ever!

[EEVblog]

Wilfred, do not bring gender into this, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. I will not let this thread get hijacked in that way.

OK, So it's just a massive unfortunate coincidence that all the dumb/fraudulent tech companies being attacked across the interwebz are headed by women, and the women figureheads are the ones singled out for sustained negative attention in these various different threads?

You conveniently forget all the ones that are "attacked" just the same and they are run by men.
I said drop it, I do not want this thread re-railed into gender politics when it's got absolutely nothing to do with it, I mean it, don't start it.

[EEVblog]

That's the kind of journalism I'd rather see, instead of something that causes a great big inetrnet doxxing pile-on

It doesn't magically work like that.
You have to debunk the idea first in order to start the narrative about how "how the hell did Kickstarter allow this ridiculous campaign". They kinda go hand-in-hand. So the community reaction could very well be exactly the same. And on a tech forum like this one, most people are going to care about the technicalities of the ridiculousness of the idea and whoever is behind it (because that's often interesting), rather than care about how Kickstarter allowed it.
And Kickstarter allowing campaigns like this is a story that's been around since day dot, no one is the least bit surprised by it.

But hey, I get you, that's probably a story worth doing if done right. Why don't you go and do it? Anyone can be a journalist these days and do a good invetsigative story and publish it.

[richfiles]

Instead a bunch of people on the internet have attacked, far beyond the point where the response is proportional or fair. Something they were not expecting.
...
That's the kind of journalism I'd rather see, instead of something that causes a great big inetrnet doxxing pile-on, on someone who may not be the only person involved in the stupid kickstarter (which may or may not have been deliberate fraud)  to the point where her name is going to be mud for the rest of her life.

You... You REALLY do not even GET the point. Dave and others ONLY reported on this fairly, calling out that this was bullshit. It wasn't until Dave's reporting on this absurdity was itself attacked, that any escalation occurred! Dave said NOTHING that wasn't already public knowledge... Nothing that SHE HERSELF had not made public! Whether it was her, her employer, a partner, or some random fool, SOMEONE INVOLVED with this kickstarter abused YouTube's privacy claim system to attack Dave's 100% fair and legitimate video!

And you are saying that the internet responding to an attack on freedom of the press, free speech, and an abuse of YouTube's systems to cover up reporting of the illegitimacy of that kickstarter is somehow "Something they were not expecting." Are you fucking daft?!? You think that trying to maintain the presence and existence of information SHE VOLUNTEERED TO THE INTERNET is somehow "far beyond the point where the response is proportional or fair"!?! She put that info out, voluntarily. She did something wrong. The internet is making sure that people remember that this is a person who is either a scammer trying to cover her tracks, or trying to attack fair reporting on her mistakes. Either way, SHE IS NOT A GOOD PERSON! Even if it was a mistake, it was her or her campaign that went on the offensive and opened their attacks on journalistic coverage of the kickstarter!

On top of everything else, you go on and vilify the JOURNALISM ITSELF, claiming it caused this! NO! This woman caused this by attacking fair and reasonable reporting of her campaign! The JOURNALISM caused nothing! If this woman had just deleted all her stuff, and went quiet, NO ONE WOULD HAVE CARED...

It's because she deleted her stuff, and THEN ATTACKED DAVE'S VIDEO with an unjustified, illegitimate YouTube claim! It's HER ACTIONS that caused the internet's reactions! NOT DAVE, Not his video's content... HER ACTIONS ALONE are responsible for the internet's Streisand effect against her!

This is NOT a person I'd ever want to do business with, and quite frankly... if you put your own name out there and do stupid or shady shit, you are going to earn a reputation! This is the simple consequence of putting yourself out there and begging for a public handout! If you fail to actually follow through with what you promise, you stand to be vilified. You'd better be respectful of the public or they might just bite the hand that takes from them! If you make a promise you can't keep... For goodness sakes! Have common sense... Apologize, refund if possible, even a partial refund is better than walking with it, state you made a misjudgment, and retreat! Don't go on the offensive to defend a mistake, and attack those who call you out! That's what this woman did, and she deserves absolutely jack shit for respect from anyone for her stupidity!

[Rasz]

It shouldn't have escaped your notice how often these forum threads have a women at the sharp end of it. Far more often than you would expect given the number of women in engineering or at the top of business. Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, Purdue University's Donna Riley, uBeam's Meredith Perry and now this one.

Wait. Are you defending this scammer by citing other "victims", whom 2 out of 3 are also scammers? 

OK, So it's just a massive unfortunate coincidence that all the dumb/fraudulent tech companies being attacked across the interwebz are headed by women, and the women figureheads are the ones singled out for sustained negative attention in these various different threads?

the F, its just you being target fixated and ignorant. There is ~$300 billion currently sitting in all the cryptocurrency "startups". Even if you are naive enough to believe that is the future, in just this year we had over >$3B in "exits" that turned out to be outright scams, all ran by enthusiastic dudebros with manbuns and goaetees.

You wouldn't believe the number of people that come to me as a technical consultant with awesome new world breaking ideas that are patently just not possible, at least with current tech, and I have to spend my time talking them through why I'm not going to quote on building their new awesome free energy telepathic plant watering IoT grasshopper robot that you charge once a week by putting in your ear during a phonecall....

There is a difference between deluded client hiring someone to build his car running on water, and idiot promising cars running on water while collecting public money.

The difference here is, the MVP was an app

no, the difference is someone attempted to defraud potential clients. For example in finance SEC puts due diligence obligations squarely on the shoulders of person collecting and investing peoples money, and pretty conveniently KS is not a store, but an "investment"

What I really want to know here, is how the HELL did kickstarter let this through the gates? it's so patently stupid that if it was given just the faintest sniff of technical oversight by kickstarter,  it should have not been allowed to launch.

no no, its all cool, KS has Policy and Integrity team! https://www.kickstarter.com/trust, they monitor the system and take action!11

[Halcyon]

Wilfred, do not bring gender into this, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. I will not let this thread get hijacked in that way.

OK, So it's just a massive unfortunate coincidence that all the dumb/fraudulent tech companies being attacked across the interwebz are headed by women, and the women figureheads are the ones singled out for sustained negative attention in these various different threads?

No, it's a made-up statistic. It has nothing at all to do with boobs or penises. You don't have to look far to see that what you claim just isn't the case. Let me start with the Roohparvar's, remember that fiasco?

Gender has nothing to do with whether a business succeeds or fails, or whether an idea is a good one or a terrible one. Absolutely zero correlation at all. I'd employ a trained seal if they were suitable for the job.

[julianhigginson]

the F, its just you being target fixated and ignorant. There is ~$300 billion currently sitting in all the cryptocurrency "startups". Even if you are naive enough to believe that is the future, in just this year we had over >$3B in "exits" that turned out to be outright scams, all ran by enthusiastic dudebros with manbuns and goaetees.

I was curious about cryptocurrency but stayed away.. I wish I'd thrown in $100 back when it started, because I'd be loaded now... (well, no I probably would have lost the key to my wallet and be kicking myself over the money I technically owned but had no access to...) but those days are long gone and will never happen again. Now it's just buzzword compliance and fast money sharks chewing up the carcass of whatever is left of the idea.

I believe most things trying to incorporate it at this point are just trying to be buzzword compliant... And yeah I wouldn't go near an ICO... If we knew for certain that batbump was really going for an ICO, I'd be more sure it was a scam. But we don't.

There is a difference between deluded client hiring someone to build his car running on water, and idiot promising cars running on water while collecting public money.

no, the difference is someone attempted to defraud potential clients. For example in finance SEC puts due diligence obligations squarely on the shoulders of person collecting and investing peoples money, and pretty conveniently KS is not a store, but an "investment"

Seriously, the whole video talks *just like* real people I have spoken to.. (don't see so many manbuns and goatees around lately though, much more clean cut healthy lifestyle look)

I can see any number of people I've spoken to who are like that coming up with this idea. The only reason I saw the ones I saw is because their MVP included hardware.. otherwise if it was something for a later stage, they would have just assumed it would work, and gone with it.

The whole lean startup thing people follow these days is *all about* rushing the idea out to market where it can be tested without wasting time on understanding if it's even possible. because who cares if it's even possible when you don't even know if people even want it?  The whole lean startup premise is that any initial market approach is just a kind of "product discovery" process for the thing that might one day end up existing. And if it fails, it's all good, because it cost next to nothing to launch, and they will move on to the next one.

no no, its all cool, KS has Policy and Integrity team! https://www.kickstarter.com/trust, they monitor the system and take action!11

And again, this is where the real news story should be... This particular kickstarter campaign going live was a massive and fundamental failure of any proactive screening system they apparently have. Anyone who knew the basic capabilities of a modern phone could stomp this whole project with about 20 seconds of viewing the video.

So why didn't they?
How exactly did this get through?

Who is responsible for it not happening again? And what will they do different to make sure it can't happen again?

My greatest confusion here is why isn't anyone here talking about kickstarter's absolute failure to do what it claims to do for its cut of your cash?  And why isn't anyone talking about the implications for kickstarter's future that this failure has?

Why is it that instead of all this stuff we should talk about, it's just some random "creative" who is suddenly the face of all evil and must be wiped off the earth by flinging her name up all over the internet repeatedly so that for as long as anyone might ever want to google her name, this thread full of people claiming she's a completely unethical criminal mastermind who was totally out to rip off anyone who ever wanted a new way to charge their phone will be all they see?

[EEVblog]

My greatest confusion here is why isn't anyone here talking about kickstarter's absolute failure to do what it claims to do for its cut of your cash?  And why isn't anyone talking about the implications for kickstarter's future that this failure has?

Maybe it doesn't interest them?

Why is it that instead of all this stuff we should talk about, it's just some random "creative" who is suddenly the face of all evil and must be wiped off the earth by flinging her name up all over the internet repeatedly so that for as long as anyone might ever want to google her name, this thread full of people claiming she's a completely unethical criminal mastermind who was totally out to rip off anyone who ever wanted a new way to charge their phone will be all they see?

Melodramatic much?

YOU have the ability to change the discourse. Don't like the direction an internet discussion goes, post your own stuff and get people talking about that. Just don't complain about the aspects other people want to talk about, that's up them, just like it's up to you to talk about what you want to talk about. That's how the internet works.

[Fungus]

Anyone who knew the basic capabilities of a modern phone could stomp this whole project with about 20 seconds of viewing the video.

And ... what percentage of the population knows that?

Who is responsible for it not happening again?

LOL!

My greatest confusion here is why isn't anyone here talking about kickstarter's absolute failure to do what it claims to do for its cut of your cash?

Whatever you do in the next few minutes, don't go and look at the patent office. You'll never recover.

[julianhigginson]

Maybe it doesn't interest them?

Which it itself is interesting, because it seems that it'd be far more newsworthy to talk about a major internet business whose *one job* is to host campaigns for what are mostly new tech innovations, claims to be providing oversight on new projects to protect users, but fails in such a complete way to flag something that's obviously impossible to anyone who knows the basics of phone components.

Melodramatic much?

I know an internet pile-on when I see it.

YOU have the ability to change the discourse. Don't like the direction an internet discussion goes, post your own stuff and get people talking about that. Just don't complain about the aspects other people want to talk about, that's up them, just like it's up to you to talk about what you want to talk about. That's how the internet works.

But I am here, discussing my take on this situation as it stands right now.  Just like everyone else in the thread (though most others aren't being asked to stop talking here and go talk in other threads instead)

And I haven't told anyone what they can and can't talk about.  Or directed anyone to not talk about any aspect of anything to do with this.

[julianhigginson]

Anyone who knew the basic capabilities of a modern phone could stomp this whole project with about 20 seconds of viewing the video.

And ... what percentage of the population knows that?

Who is responsible for it not happening again?

LOL!

I'd say 1% of the population would know that you can't use a smartphone to wirelessly charge another smartphone (And maybe 1% of those could explain why, and have general tech knowledge at the level to at least be able to quickly research feasibility of most campaigns) But they only need one person at that level to check that for many many many campaigns.

And why exactly is it so funny that a business who makes money running crowdfunding campaigns, takes money from funders to do so, and claims to have some kind of oversight in place to look after the people who pay it to exist, should actually do what it claims to protect its customers?

[EEVblog]

Which it itself is interesting, because it seems that it'd be far more newsworthy to talk about a major internet business whose *one job* is to host campaigns for what are mostly new tech innovations, claims to be providing oversight on new projects to protect users

Show me where they claim to do that.
https://www.kickstarter.com/rules
https://www.kickstarter.com/help/handbook?ref=global-footer


https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-project-review-process

They claim:

What is the project review process and why do you review projects at all?

We review projects before they launch just to make sure that they’re suitable for the Kickstarter community. We check to make sure that each project falls into one of these 15 creative categories and meets our rules. These rules and review process are in place to ensure that Kickstarter remains a community that’s all about supporting creative ideas. All-in-all, we accept about 80% of the projects that come our way.

Also:
https://help.kickstarter.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005138273-Does-Kickstarter-review-projects-before-launch-

Does Kickstarter review projects before launch?
Yes we do. Our Launch Now feature uses an algorithm incorporating thousands of data points to check whether a project is ready to launch — things like the project’s description, rewards, funding goal, and whether the creator has previously launched a project.

If the project qualifies for Launch Now, the creator can go live whenever they’re ready.

If a project doesn’t qualify for Launch Now, the creator will need to share the project with us for review before it can launch. We will make sure the project is in line with our rules, and verify that it’s a project with a specific, finite goal — we do not investigate a creator’s ability to complete their project. We may also offer the creator helpful feedback on ways to structure or present their project. This process usually takes up to three business days.

But I am here, discussing my take on this situation as it stands right now.  Just like everyone else in the thread (though most others aren't being asked to stop talking here and go talk in other threads instead)

And I haven't told anyone what they can and can't talk about.  Or directed anyone to not talk about any aspect of anything to do with this.

But you did try to hijack the thread into gender politics where none existed to begin with, which is why you were told to stop.

[julianhigginson]

Hi Dave, right at the top of the page you linked, in the big wall of big text....

https://www.kickstarter.com/trust



As for the gender politics stuff, which was a point about women *in general* in tech failure/scam companies and the reaction of mento them - I had dropped that thread immediately, when you asked. And I did not push it a peep further.  I have been all about this particular situation that this particular thread is about since you asked me to.

On consideration I'm at least as uninterested in having a gender politics discussion here as you are in having to host the discussion.

And the thing is, as it was pointed out by others, gender of the pile-on target is really irrelevant to what I came here to say, and I'd be of the same fundamental position on this discussion if it was a man we were talking about.

But we are talking about a woman, so I did continue to use she/her when referring to the specific person in question.  if we re-word my last post using he/him (or even they/their) instead, and I think the melodramatic paragraph still makes sense. (well, as much as it did originally.. It could do with a lot more rewriting than just a gender shift)



Also looks like I missed another reply....
I'd be happy to have a go at writing a piece on kickstarter's problem here, but I'm not the best writer out there (see my melodramatic paragraph in previous post) so it'll take real time away from my work to get right. And I don't think I have a platform where people could find it. And I expect if people did find it, then KickStarter can afford some pretty bitey lawyers, so a pre-publication check would be pretty long and probably expensive.... (And what if I wanted to run kickstarter campaigns of my own one day?)

[Halcyon]

To be fair "pro-actively screening" means just as much as "Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients".

Their interpretation of "screening" can mean as little as an automated profanity filter or as much as "a human dip-samples a bunch of entries". Also, according to Kickstarter, they only screen for potential problems. It suggests that they mostly rely on people to report individual projects for manual review.

It would be like asking ebay to screen all its listings. It's not going to happen. Scammers and dishonest people will fall through the cracks.

[julianhigginson]

yeah, I'm no lawyer... possibly it would mean that little, but it's a consumer facing website, and that's the big text.

I don't think running a text scanner for naughty words (and maybe free energy key phrases, I bet they get their share of those and none of those have launched to my knowledge) over a campaign really cuts it when you're declaring your job - your one job that you claim as provider of the service to users -  is to screen for problems.

I think the whole crowdfunding scene is a giant mess. I've done OK with it as a supporter, having been very careful with what I back, but the whole thing just seems so hokey and borderline legal.

Seems to me that crowd funding systems need to be a hell of a lot better.

ooooh. is that an MVP I have rattling around in the back of my brain now? 

I wonder if I could launch a kickstarter project for a properly checked competitor to kickstarter?

[EEVblog]

Hi Dave, right at the top of the page you linked, in the big wall of big text....

https://www.kickstarter.com/trust

Which means they follow the rules I linked, that's all. They make no claim what so ever about technically evaluating campaign claims. If you know of such a claim, please post it.
Which is probably why no one cares much, because it's been a long standing and well known problem.

I'd be happy to have a go at writing a piece on kickstarter's problem here, but I'm not the best writer out there (see my melodramatic paragraph in previous post) so it'll take real time away from my work to get right. And I don't think I have a platform where people could find it. And I expect if people did find it, then KickStarter can afford some pretty bitey lawyers, so a pre-publication check would be pretty long and probably expensive.... (And what if I wanted to run kickstarter campaigns of my own one day?)

As if Kickstarter are going to sue you for writing an opinion piece about them.  Or as if they are going to somehow ban you for such a piece.
Not going to happen, to be the least bit concerned about that is 
There is no expense in writing an article, just time.

[EEVblog]

I don't think running a text scanner for naughty words (and maybe free energy key phrases, I bet they get their share of those and none of those have launched to my knowledge)

http://kickfailure.com/2014/06/26/free-energy-scam/
http://kickfailure.com/tag/free-energy/

[EEVblog]

You guessed it, the saga just won't end.
Someone bought paid Dislikes on both of my BattBump videos.
Pathetic.
And obviously they don't realise that those dislikes count positively toward the engagement algorithm metric, thus making my video even more popular 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

You can buy dislikes? LOL, something's very wrong with this world.

[gnif]

When the Borg gain access to BattBump!

[Fungus]

You guessed it, the saga just won't end.
Someone bought paid Dislikes on both of my BattBump videos.
Pathetic.

Any presumption that she was just an innocent child who didn't know what she was doing ends right there.

Anybody who knows how to pay for dislikes goes straight in the same bin as the Batteroo Brothers. It's now open season on Bumpgirl.

[Fungus]

Is it possible to remove stuff from the Internet Archive?

If you go to her website there, it's empty:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.catclark.co/

Nothing at all before the 27th of June (yeah, right...) and only a blank page after that.

Aaaaand, the exact same thing for battbump.com, there's nothing before the 27th of June. What are the chances of that? 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

battbump.com wasn't archived at archive.org last time I checked. There was a button saying "click here to add/archive a snapshot of battbump.org" or something ~ like that.

[erkko]

thats how i would do it. customer arrives with domain name that i have no snapshot of, yet domain exists. or i would present customer a button... main point being, it probably wasnt removed from archive org, it just didnt exist before that date.

google already doesnt show that specific url among its searchresults, at least for me it doesnt.

[Fungus]

battbump.com wasn't archived at archive.org last time I tried. There was a button saying "click here to add/archive a snapshot of battbump.org" or something ~ like that.

Maybe they only just deleted it a few minutes before you visited.

As a test I just looked up a couple of obscure domains that I've registered in the past and there's snapshots on there right back to the first day I registered them, complete with the dummy page I put up. I can garantee that nobody went to wayback machine to look up those web sites back then.

(and an 'archive' that isn't based on DNS tables doesn't make any logical sense anyway)

[Halcyon]

You guessed it, the saga just won't end.
Someone bought paid Dislikes on both of my BattBump videos.
Pathetic.
And obviously they don't realise that those dislikes count positively toward the engagement algorithm metric, thus making my video even more popular 

Brilliant! Does that mean Cat someone is now a supporter of yours?

Those dislikes mean absolutely nothing and most people don't even look at those figures. Dislikes could also represent a dislike of the product being described in the video (in this case a dislike of BattBump) not a dislike to you or the video itself.

I love it.