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?
That's the kind of journalism I'd rather see, instead of something that causes a great big inetrnet doxxing pile-on
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.
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.
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 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....
The difference here is, the MVP was an app
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.
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?
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.
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"
no no, its all cool, KS has Policy and Integrity team! https://www.kickstarter.com/trust, they monitor the system and take action!11
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?
Anyone who knew the basic capabilities of a modern phone could stomp this whole project with about 20 seconds of viewing the video.
Who is responsible for it not happening 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?
Maybe it doesn't interest them?
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
Hi Dave, right at the top of the page you linked, in the big wall of big text....
https://www.kickstarter.com/trust
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?)
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)
You guessed it, the saga just won't end.
Someone bought paid Dislikes on both of my BattBump videos.
Pathetic.
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.
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.
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