only one suitable comment
you reap what you sow
It was oh so predictable. The founder of new slander-app Peeple has been surprised to discover people slandering her online. Julia Cordray, of Calgary, Canada, landed herself and her company a ton of publicity this week, appearing everywhere from the Washington Post to ABC News, talking about how the app – due to be launched …
To be fair to Julia Cordray, and there's a lot of unpleasant motivations being suggested here, it sound like she's just a bit clueless about the nastier side of human behaviour and the internet.
Yes, it would be nice to think that this website could be used for people to share just how wonderful their friends are, in a caring sharing, loving, flowers and fluffy cloud way. Wouldn't that be a great world to live in? But we all know that there will be just as many trolls, bullies, morons and arseholes who'll use it for exactly the opposite.
Julia Cordray's problem was, perhaps fortunately for her, she hadn't encountered enough of these people to realise what might happen. Well, now she has.
For is it not written in the Proverbs of King Solomon, It is better to meet a mother bear robbed of her cubs than to meet some fool busy with a stupid project.
Someone saw that one coming a few millenia in advance.
There's a certain irony in an anonymous poster on an internet community forum exhorting his fellows to "go live in the real world" to avoid becoming disconnected, don't you think?
Reality is a wonderful place, but I'm glad I don't have to live there full time.
Not irony. Prior to the internet, we still need to sit somewhere alone to read our papers. So it is perfectly reasonable for one in today's world to get news on the internet and still remain very much in the non-cyber world. Furthermore, it is wise to maintain anonymity online. The reason many websites make a lot of money is the ease of harvesting information for selfish gain. So the less information you release, the less nonsense you have to deal with.
"And that is exactly why you should never join such a website"
The beauty of this website is that you don't even have to join it! Your worst enemy can create a profile for you*, add a story about how you lost your job because of allegations of abuse, give a fake phone number so you never find out about it**, give you 3 stars so the review goes live instead of into your inbox for 48 hours***, and thereby make your life a lot more difficult.
It's a bully's wet dream.
* they'd need to create a fake facebook profile (or use their real name) but this is not difficult
** unless facebook has an API which verifies profiles, names and phone numbers, and Peeple use that API (for safety, never give facebook your phone number - or use their apps, because that gives them permission to know your phone number)
*** you'd obviously have to say something nice as well, or people with think you gave an abuser a positive rating
*** you'd obviously have to say something nice as well, or people with think you gave an abuser a positive rating
Positive whilst dropping warning flags in, shouldn't be too hard
Although the abuse allegations against (him|her) would have caused many to retreat into themselves, (him|her) remained happy, helpful and carefree, really going the extra mile to help everyone around them, even after losing (his|her) job at the nursery. (He|She) was so chirpy and devoted to helping everyone else out, we didn't even know the police had lost the evidence until (he|she) told us a week later. It's such an honour to know such a positive, helpful person
Rate nice and highly, because you're "complementing" the person
so the review goes live instead of into your inbox for 48 hours***
Whose inbox? The one on Peeple that I don't know about because the Fine Character who claimed to know me nicely provided the wrong phone number so the notification didn't reach me?
Or a Farcebook inbox that Peeple assume is mine (but demonstrably isn't)?
Your worst enemy can create a profile for you*, add a story about how you lost your job because of allegations of abuse, give a fake phone number so you never find out about it**,
Moreover, the Peeble web site faq says removing yourself from Peeble is considered a future feature!
I suppose you can try to convince Peeble to remove the abusively created profile manually, but it will probably take time to convince them it is malicious, and meanwhile all the world will see the fake profile. So a really evil attacker can spoil your reputation at a critical moment, does not matter if the page is removed a day later.
Presumably it costs money to set this up and presumably she was hoping to make some money out of this once everyone started using it. Any idea how? Were the startup costs sufficiently great that she needed to convince an investor to back her? If so, how the hell did she do it?
since you've collected a lot of personal details about people who aren't willing to join.
That's the bit I don't understand. Surely the DPA requires that they have my permission to retain and process my information, so if I haven't signed up for their service then its big fine time?
I get that they can host it in the USA and hide under protected speech laws, but I'm willing to bet an enterprising lawyer can manufacture a case against anyone submitting data on EU citizens as a violation of safe harbour laws.
Any souless, destined for hell ambulance chasers care to comment? :)
More logically corporate and public relations propaganda to destroy people they dislike and to write wonderful glowing reviews of who ever pays them to do so. The fitting appliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold's_bridle for the truly ugly gossips who launched this get rich quick scheme.
Keep it running long enough and get it big enough that some social media giant buys it out.
All "giants" have significant exposure to legislation which takes a very dim view on this by the nature of being HQ-ed or operating in areas with stronger data protection, libel legislation and/or various online anti-abuse laws. This is a liability of pangalactic proportions even compared to the liability Google took on with YouTube (and managed to shrug off). None of them will touch it even with a 18 feet long electrified cattle prod.
> Presumably it costs money to set this up and presumably she was hoping to make some money out of this once everyone started using it. Any idea how?
Welcome to the world of start-up financing, my dear chap.
It doesn't matter if your business idea involves serving turds on a stick, if you convince the VCs that you're going to reach X million people, you get the money. Just don't ask.
"Peeple currently has a valuation of $7.6 million (£5 million) based on the amount invested, which is around $250,000 (£165,000)." http://uk.businessinsider.com/peeple-yelp-for-people-app-2015-10
I guess my £500 car has a valuation of £15k based on the amount invested.
So I am now looking for some wealthy investors prepared to share in the benefits of this once in a lifetime investment opportunity. Of course the more that is invested, the more the car is worth.
"It doesn't matter if your business idea involves serving turds on a stick, if you convince the VCs that you're going to reach X million people, you get the money."
Which merely defers the question: where do the (idiotic) VCs get *their* money from?
I'm genuinely puzzled because I appear to live in a world where large numbers of unspeakably idiotic twats have access to large sums of money, and I'm feeling left out. I'm as big a twat as the next guy, but no-one has ever offered me cash it.
Edit: It would appear that Craigness has found the source of money. Apparently we paid for it.
The business model is blackmail. They have to allow users to add others arbitrarily. Without this option, there is no one to rate. Once these accounts are created, person being rated has to join the site to claim the account and make sure that they can contest negative reviews. All these people are then shown all sorts of ads.
> The business model is blackmail.
Might also be targeted advertising:
you have 100 1 star ratings, which leads us to deduce you're a cunt. So, you get Vagisil adverts
> I guess my £500 car has a valuation of £15k based on the amount invested.
Wouldn't recommend giving your insurance company that option though ;)
I'm not opposed to GMO foods necessarily but IVF and GMO foods are not all that comparable. One involves modifying the structure and design of a life form, the other just involves replacing organic fertilization with a controlled medical/mechanical method.
Perhaps you should have suggested parents who have their foetus/child treated with gene therapy for a genetic disease.
it's sad to see people who were trying to build something get hurt
but in this case i feel i have to make an exception
i do hope all the exploitative, money grubbing, race to the bottom, scum sucking, shit for brains, twats who thought creating and funding this invitation to abuse was a good idea, lose every penny
then i'd like them to slip in the street and land in a large steaming turd, not be injured, but as they lay reeking, get pissed on by people passing by who mistake the steam for smoke and are therefore being positive in their output
You don't approve of them then? It's subtle; but -being sensitive as fuck- I can pick out the nuances of your feelings from your post...and I'm getting...onions!...No, wait!....surname beginning with "C"...no...disapproval. Yes! Disapproval! That's it!
I assume just like Yelp is accused of (and denies). You have your sales "associates" subtly hint that folks who buy some sort of premium account can avail themselves of more careful (read: existing, and generally favorable) moderation.
Not that you can put that sort of thing in your (published) business plan. Not that lack of a plausible business plan has stopped a lot of Web Companies.
This post has been deleted by its author
This is what comes of reading too many positive affirmation books...
I don't even suppose being carpet bombed by almost the entire internet will put them off for long either.
They'll tweak the business plan (if any) and other objectives desperately trying to overturn the objections as they perceive them and launch anyway.
If they do, perhaps the oil-tanker sized boatload of slander and liable suits they'll be party to will bury this asinine idea for good.
If you had to sign up to be reviewed that might be one thing. That some arse with my phone number can sign me up to this pain without my permission is unconscionable.
From their FAQs
"What do I need to sign up for Peeple?"
"You will need to have a Facebook profile that is at least active for more than 6 months and a cell phone number."
What if you are not on Facebook? Would you have to create an account and wait six months before you could then create a Peeple account and begin to contest posts/ratings?
"Can I delete comments made about me?"
"No. You can get them removed by Peeple if it violates our terms and conditions once you report it."
"Can I take myself off of Peeple?"
"No. Not at this time. We may consider this feature in the future."
@ Lush At The Bar
Spot on. That's the true bullshit right there. Anyone with my (or any) phone number, or one just randomly picked, can post shit and there's fuck all that can be done about it. Can she really not see the possibility for abuse here? The lawyers must be creaming themselves right now. The company and its peeple [geddit?] will hide behind the "we're just the medium" and "we have no control" lines.
The company and its peeple [geddit?] will hide behind the "we're just the medium" and "we have no control" lines."
Certain aspects of US business/govt/people really don't like the idea of "common carrier". Could this be a Trojan horse attack on that status?
Yes, the one with the tinfoil lining ----------->
"If you had to sign up to be reviewed that might be one thing. That some arse with my phone number can sign me up to this pain without my permission is unconscionable."
Or just some arse with the same name, age and rough geographical location as you would be enough to affect you.
Seems more like some silly school kid who needs to learn to grow up and understand that even though all her "fwends" are "wuverly" and all "wuv" shopping and boys and jammy parites and putting on make up and ( Stop before we're all sick! - Ed ) the rest of the world is populated by real people who love and hate in equal amounts.
This app is a reflection of how my teenage daughter was when she was 11 years old, "You're my fwend!" and "You're not my fwend!". My daughter who's still only 13 grew up and now she doesn't give a shit, she has her mates and just gets along with other people, just like grown up adults do.
Life imitating art disturbingly closely - one of the great Community episodes where the college implodes into a caste based society based on Beenz through a beta tested app.
Fives have lives.
Fours have chores.
Threes have fleas.
Twos have blues and Ones don't get a rhyme, because they're garbage.
It's a semi-fake app, and a completely fake business, put together for a documentary/publicity stunt/reality tv show.
Before you know it they'll be on documentaries talking about their experiences being "women in tech", then it will be celeb BB followed inevitably by the playboy shoot after all their earnings go up their noses.
This is not what reality looks like. Nobody is that stupid as to think this is a good idea.
Remember how Ashley Madison turned out to be all hookers - basically the replacement after Craigslist stopped allowing hookers to list? No of course men can't have an affair with an attractive married woman by joining a website. You know that really. Of course it was going to be fake.
So is this.
Heck, maybe they'll sell the domain to link-farmers and make a profit in the end, like that glitter-by-mail business, but that's about it.
"Before you know it they'll be on documentaries talking about their experiences being "women in tech""
Exactly what I'd been thinking - I'm completely staggered they haven't thought to play the sexism / institutionalised-misogyny / patriarchy card to counter all the abuse they've been copping. Even if it's overplayed these days, it would still start a Gamergate-like shitstorm that would drown out the original issue in a welter of feminist / antifeminist screaming. This would then leave them free to release their app with the full backing of the media and the powers-that-be that inevitably pander to the feminists in these sorts of cases.
I'm not sure they'd get far with the sexism card for a couple of reasons, primarily because this is already too big and criticism has come from all sides and all genders. But it's interesting that people on twitter who highlight the groups they think will get targeted by users of the app will only cite protected groups - women, minorities, LGBT etc - and never men. When Lulu was launched (an app for women to rate their dates) there was an outcry because women worried "what if guys had an app like this" rather than "what if guys get bullied and abused by users of this app". It's like we live in a society where misandry is just background radiation and men are disposable!
Never mind that men are the group most likely to receive abuse online, and most people who target women are women! The UN recently launched a program to prevent the online victimisation of women by men (the least prevalent form of abuse, but the most important because it fits with their sexist ideology) which demands governments force websites to be responsible for the content they carry, even if it is created by users. Peeple cannot use the sexism and abuse cards because the latest idea to protect the poor little vulnerable women would out them out of business!
" It's like we live in a society where misandry is just background radiation and men are disposable!"
I wish I could upvote you a thousand times just for that line. I've personally encountered that "background radiation" on multiple occasions while out and about, despite supposedly having this putative "privilege" which apparently renders me, as a white male, both immune and blind to all forms of discrimination - which is exactly why I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about feminism and political correctness!
Further to your comment, I'd agree that it is now probably too late for them to play the sexism card. If they were going to do that, they should have done it right off the bat the moment the shitstorm started. But yes, too late now.
What surprises me though is that pop-culture feminists like Anita Sarkeesian didn't immediately jump on the opportunity in their behalf. Someone like Sarkeesian could easily have blown this up like a H-bomb and gained a pile of publicity for her Feminist Frequency as well as for the Peeple app makers!
"I'm completely staggered they haven't thought to play the sexism / institutionalised-misogyny / patriarchy card to counter all the abuse they've been copping. "
I don't think they'll get far with that. The social justice crowd are making a lot of noise about what an awful, abuse enabling idea it is too. I know hypocrisy is their bread and butter, but this might be one of those rare moments of universal "the fuck is this shit?!", up there with Gawker outing gay (or not actually gay) people, as far as the Internet's collective conscious is concerned.
Is if the site/app launches and makes a profit just because of all the bad press. Since when did any of the information have to be true? If it generates ad revenue then does it matter that it's a steaming pile of an idea with a lifespan of a meme?
Still it's a horrible idea. I can't tell if they're really that stupid or if they're just trolling everyone with feigned naivety.
Knowing someone's name and phone number isn't proof that I have met that person or had any contact with that person either. Mobile phone numbers are often posted online by their owners as a point of contact: I have mine online for employment purposes.
It's difficult for a third party to prove that someone has actually met another face-to-face or had contact with that person. So some of the information will need to be taken at face value. I feel for those who have name sakes with a bad reputation. (And I hope my conduct online isn't giving my name sake any issues.)
The worse bit though is not requiring the other person to be registered. This is probably the application's biggest failing from a conceptual point of view. If you had that person register from their phone, then you've got some proof that the account and phone number are linked, even if the details they enter whilst registering are completely bogus.
The fact that someone can enter a non-member's phone number in, and register on that person's behalf, is what is particularly alarming about this application and probably the most exploitable vector for abuse.
"If you had that person register from their phone, then you've got some proof that the account and phone number are linked, even if the details they enter whilst registering are completely bogus."
Ever heard of caller ID spoofing? Scammers and disreputable telemarketers do it all the time.
From the FAQ:
Can I start someone else's profile?
Yes. You will need their cell phone number to start their profile and they will receive a text that you were the person to start their profile and that they should check out what you said about them on our app.
So someone else can start your profile, and you can't opt out. So much fun to be had with random phone numbers.
If this woman ever sets foot in the EU she can likely be arrested for data protection violations.
Oh wait, better check the Post anonymously box.
If I really had it in for someone, I could buy a throwaway prepaid phone at let's say $20 for prepaid minutes that will last a year from activation, and use that as the phone number of my intended victim.
Let the victim prove that it's not their phone number!
The FAQs are a disaster.
1. Someone else can start your profile for you.
2. you can't remove your profile.
Anyone who's had even a mildly rich and varied existence would be likely to see the serious problems with this. And those who have not, those who have lived a sheltered life or who are too young to know better, are going to be open to quite a bad time. I think we can see that those creating the company may be in the latter category.
Doesn't matter if they make money on it or not, this seems terribly ill-conceived.
The oddest thing about the idea is the assertion that unless you actually register yourself, only POSITIVE comments will show up.
How does that square with the stated goal of allowing people to choose who to date or babysit for them or to hire?
Indeed, how does the warm-and-fuzzy "positivity app for positive people" that promises "love and abundance for all" match up with the goal of allowing people to choose who to "become [their] neighbors"* or "teach [their] children".
If Cordray is to be believed then the only way you would see a negative comment about someone is if they signed up. So the service is therefore useless for one of its stated purposes - making informed decisions about people. You'll either see nothing or a one-sided review. How does that help?
Imagining lots of participation by people leaving comments, what happens if you have someone putting forward services to mind your children? You go onto Peeple and see a post about how nice David was to lend his ladder to a friend or how well he played in the club game last weekend or expressing thanks for helping out at the local school's working bee. The comment from a former neighbour who caught him peeking through her blinds is not visible, tucked away and unable to be seen unless our would-be child-minder chooses to sign up to the service.
On the other hand, you could have another person offering the service who has been doing it for several years to great praise, but the parents she is sitting for don't use much technology and so don't post reviews on social media sites like this.
Perhaps the idea is that the service will be so popular that people will insist a potential contact has a profile with reviews before doing business with them - in the same way some eBay sellers won't allow bidders with 0 feedback.
The problem is that this isn't eBay and there is no connected service or marketplace to feed into it and so it relies on enough people registering themselves that others have a choice of dealing with someone who has a profile over those who don't.
If all the schools in the local area prohibit teachers from creating profiles (which would seem like a prudent policy) then how will a parent be able to choose where to send their children?
If none of the tradespeople in the area have profiles then how can someone use the service to help them choose who to paint their living room? Or fix their plumbing or build their deck or landscape their garden?
Putting aside any talk of harassment or bullying, the concept - as presented - is just so flawed anyway.
* - Which is an odd thing to assert one has much choice over. Like neighbours and stay; hate neighbours and stay, hate neighbours leave. Perhaps they are proposing a fourth option: hate neighbours and write mean posts about them until they leave. Sure.
The whole story is rather funny but I have a Q for all the legal folks;
Isnt refusing to remove profiles (so data then) illegal ( and by illegal i mean 'the evidence before the court in incontrovertible, there's no need for the jury to retire' open & shut case illegal ) in pretty much every civilized country in the world? in the UK that would surely be up against the DPA & similar in the US/Canada etc. Pretty sure it would be illegal in most individual EU nations & the EU as a whole which has already decided FB refusing to delete profiles/user data is illegal would feel likewise about this fly by night operation
> Isnt refusing to remove profiles (so data then) illegal
This is one thing that the so-called "right to be forgotten" deals with. If the information cannot be removed from the system, it would appear to contravene, as you rightly say, European and most other places' data protection laws. There is also the small issue of privacy rights, which at least here in Europe we're still more or less keen on.
But I think it's great they're doing this. It'll teach those scummy VCs to be more careful who they give money to.
Try and, I'm not making this up, start up a company that saves people's lives, and they won't even speak to you, let alone open their wallet. Go for shit like this and they're all over you. Fuck them.
When did anyone in the USA ever give a rats arse about much outside?
Like the app idea though, really great for ruining people's lives and careers. Great revenue idea too: "yes, we will remove the inaccurate, slanderous and derogatory information. The fee for that will be $100/month"
Maybe blondes are not as dumb as legend would have you believe.
Basic Eu data protection legilsation obliges _ANY_ organization subject to Eu laws holding data on you to disclose you all the data (it is allowed to charge a reasonable processing fee) and is obliged to correct any incorrect or erroneous data free of charge.
A service like this cannot even get anywhere near Eu any time soon (and thanks god for that).
There's almost an infinite number of places on the web where once can make statements about others (true, false or otherwise), so even if the concept didn't suck, I can't see this being very sustainable much past the initial curiosity. I think given the less than warm reception, along with the rather strong reaction to the sanctimonious, self-righteous statements made by their CEO, I'm thinking the investors, if there are any left, will probably looking for less controversial investments.
I will take your comment as you providing an example of how one can use an online service to be outright mean to others.
That said, the problem is not that they are 'dumb', it's that they are arrogant and self-righteous and either haven't thought their idea through properly or simply don't care that it is certain to cause people distress. On a more practical level, Ms. Cordray, (who appears to be the spokesperson) seems to lack the basic skills in the core area they are working in - social media and managing comments.
Hopefully, this episode will help them realise the problem with their proposed service and they will admit that they underestimated just how much personal upset sure a system could cause. I suspect that if they do shelve the system, however, the response is more likely to be a petulant swipe at all the 'haters' and negative people who have hounded them and they will refuse to see the irony in that.
That said, the problem is not that they are 'dumb', it's that they are arrogant and self-righteous and either haven't thought their idea through properly or simply don't care that it is certain to cause people distress
I'm starting to get the feeling that they are dumb in another way than generally expressed here: thinking that they can out-troll the Internet by whipping up a shitstorm based on a vapourware app that so far shows little if any signs of actually being in development.
Sorry, ladies, the concept was not too bad, the execution, however, is rather lacking. I'd rate it 0.17 4Chans. Which means it's bad enough that it'll still take a lot of effort going forward into decent trollery, while at the same time you just ripped whatever professional reputation you might have had to shreds
How did they think one John Smith is going to be different from another John Smith since Facebook allows duplicate names? Were they going to publish phone numbers so you know who you really are looking at? Or stealing photos from Facebook and publishing them without consent?
Lawyers, on your marks, get set, go go go.....
I look forward to dragging Glenn Alexander (http://glennalexander.com/) 's reputation through the dirt on a long alcoholic, womanising, drug-fueled binge.
Not to mention the 24 Glenn Alexanders more prominent than me on LinkedIn.
How many on FaceBook? I'm not a member so can't tell. But I bet there are a lot.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Oh, it makes sense already. (Not necessarily good sense, mind you . . .)
In this world obsessed with 'startups' and so many people trying to launch the next billion-dollar web service and equally-many investors looking to make money from them, a pair of people engrossed in all things 'web' and 'social' had an idea one day and assumed it was a good one.
Perhaps, while raving about the kelp smoothies (served in a jar, of course) at the local cafe via Urbanspoon or warning people off a hairdresser on Yelp or liking a Bikram yoga studio on Facebook or giving an Uber driver 2 stars for being late or praising a hotel on TripAdvisor or recommending an AirBnb property to followers on Twitter or uploading a sepia-filtered photo of a coffee on pinterest, they wondered why there was no platform for letting the world know how you feel about people.
Putting the words 'crowd-sourcing', 'web', 'social', 'app' and 'community' together, they realised that here was an equation that couldn't lose and conceived of 'Peeple', a concept so innovative that it would change the world and, obviously, make them and any investors millions after it got enough subscribers to get bought-out by one of the existing services providing the exact same service with a slightly different focus.
That was really good. Thank you.
I wonder if there is some sort of Heisenbergish Uncertainty Principle coming in terms of how much time one spends on either measuring their lives or being measured by others, where the time invested dealing with said measurement overwhelms an individuals behaviors and they simply don't have time to live and do cool shit. Someone should study that and measure it for us.
I have it on pretty good authority that the guy who has my work cellphone sitting on his desk holds the guy who has my personal cellphone sitting on his desk in fairly high regard - sufficiently so that one would quite happily spend his leisure hours posting positive comments about the other ...... well, at least spend a few of them on a script to do so.
"We are bold innovators and sending big waves into motion and we will not apologize for that because we love you enough to give you this gift. "
Kinda reminds me of how those sociopaths at Google want to "serve you the perfect ad" - another "gift" that no one needs.
Yes, but let's be honest. Hardly anyone wears hats in this day and age. Not sure why.
So it's not surprising that people have trouble identifying them, and I've seen some glaring errors. I once was complimented on my "mexican" hat. Big difference between a vietnamese coolie hat and a sombrero!
Bota and others are not alone here.
"(As of Monday, the company’s shares put its value at $7.6 million.)"
So these two women are now worth a little less than $4 MEELLION DOLLARS each ... and I'm sure they haven't lost many opportunities to exploit the "fact". Anything from buying shit to buying people ...
Well, they appear to have worked out how to not let anything negative on their Facebook page, but their riposte about negativity is still laughable, and they are still showing an apalling lack of concern for those that do get hurt by their app. Simply claiming that no-one will get hurt by it (which is essentailly what they are claiming) isn't good enough.
I'd also add this - any current friend sufficiently antisocial to rate me on peeple loses me as a friend, the instant I find out about it, no matter what they have said. It's an invidious idea that only the ethically-challenged could think acceptable, IMHO.
not really, online means nothing, unless you have the national insurance/social security numbers linked to their names
criminal records mean nothing if they arn`t your fingerprints and DNA, if you live on a council estate you have to give a police man a slap, so they know who you are, or there will be 100 people living where you live
if everyone bothered todo a basic DBS check on themselves they would find out, instead of working it out after 10 years of being unemployed
criminal records are rubbish most of the time, if you want your own criminal record, you have to make it yourself, or bring back the id card thing
"more abundance, joy, and real authentic connections. You deserve to make better decisions with more information to protect your children and your biggest assets. "
She's even managed to get "will no-one think of the children?" into this.
A very, very cunning PR agency has designed the response to tick as many Daily Mail type boxes as possible, along with warm, fuzzy words to try and confuse online bullying with somehow making your life better. If it is Ms. Cordray herself, then by now surely a whole load of right wing newspapers will be falling over one another to sign her. She might even be the next Rebekah Brooks.
That Angie is a slag right, I saw her sucking BIll off and she was like all Bill, BIll I love you and he was like meh. Coz he knows she's a slag right, but he's just spilling his load anywhere these days and she's just a slag right. Oh and her phone number is 0117 155.... but don't ring her coz she's all stroppy and emotional right coz she read this and is talking about killing herself, what a slag, anything for attention, anyway she's all mouth, ask Bill, he'll tell yer. What a slag.
...which included 15 million plaintext names and phone numbers... I wonder how easy it would be to write a bot that submitted each and every one to this site and then texted the victim with a 'pay me bitcoins or get trashed' blackmail? I'm sure the bot could even supply the reviews courtesy of semi-randomised words and phrases, and perhaps links to one out of 200 local news articles of the 'A man was caught sniffing bicycle seats' variety.
I hasten to point out I'm not advocating this, but I can see it's inevitability if this P.O.S ever gained traction. It's madness.
This what one can do to one you do not like (taken from the FAQ of http://forthepeeple.com/
Can I start someone else's profile?
Yes. You will need their cell phone number to start their profile and they will receive a text that you were the person to start their profile and that they should check out what you said about them on our app.
I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know, but I'm not sure whether our EU/UK laws will be of much help while the company doesn't have a base of operations outside of America. Not really any different to France demanding the right to be forgotten rulings must apply globally and not just to Google searches on the French domain. As far as I can tell - unless it is a matter of copyright or illegal activity - we don't appear to have the power to do anything to a company that operates outside our geographical area.
The perfect indictment of what humanity has become with the advent of the internet. A lot of nasty, back stabbing ignorant keyboard warriors hell bent on spewing shite and yet contributing nothing to the world as a whole.
Makes me a ashamed to share oxygen with people who manage to bring ideas like this to fruition. What sad, pretty and shitty little species we are sometimes....
I'd seen this story headlined elsewhere but hadn't bothered to read it. So glad that I read it on here. If ever there was a story tailor made for The Reg's cynical style this is it! It made me laugh! And confirms what I have long suspected, the longer the app generation spend on their iPhones, the dumber they get! I blame Steve Jobs!
It appears that the founders live in Canada. That means they are subject to libel laws that are somewhere between the 'extremes' of the U.S. and U.K. They are also subject to privacy laws that are somewhere between the 'extremes' of the U.S. and U.K. What this means is that if they go ahead, even if the company operates from the U.S., they are personally open to legal actions in Canada under Canadian law. Ann Cavoukian will coming for them!
"People who say they have nothing to hide, nothing to fear about providing their personal information, have no idea how information can be misapplied out of context,"
It could be worse, the app could also have included other information.
You thought Tinder was bad, posting very intimate details you would only obtain from being in a relationship with someone complete with measurements and suchlike.. that would just be unkind.
That said, knowing in advance that someone has a specific problem BEFORE wasting in some cases hundreds of pounds on a first, second AND third date (because this really happens, honest!) would be quite useful from a social point of view and might actually encourage more openness.
Sort of like exchanging PGP private keys...
and now these two - way to finally draw attention to yourself, Canada; you must be so proud.
I wouldn't wish a 'gamergate' on anyone but should I, in the future, notice their names mentioned in conjunction with words such as 'doxxed' , 'angry mob' and 'protective custody' I shall neither be surprised nor shed a tear - in fact, for the first time in my life, were I to discover that mycareerfox.com had been DDoSed into oblivion as a result, I might not feel quite so upset to learn my computer had been hacked and added to a botnet.
On the other hand, entirely inadvertently, these two appear to have achieved the single most truly positive thing that any human being has ever attempted.
For the first time in its history, Mankind has - irrespective of race, gender, sexuality, age, religious creed, political persuasion or any of the other myriad ways in which it attempts to excuse its bad behaviour - spoken with one voice.
We have put aside our differences and, as a species, as one person almost, said loudly and clearly "Oi! You!! NO!!!"
Where all before them have failed, they have united Humanity behind them - they'd just better hope it never catches up with them: the two most hated people in the history of the World.
It’s fascinating how when we know a portion of a story or situation we can’t help ourselves from making up stories to fill in the blanks. The unfortunate part is it seems the parts we make up to fill in the gaps are almost universally negative.
I live in Vancouver and happened to catch a local radio interview with Julia Cordray, who is from our neighbouring province. As an earlier poster suggested, she could easily be accused of naiveté, but her description of how their app works makes the vast majority of the negative backlash seem like needless hysteria. In short she stated in the interview:
+ In social media you can say anything about anyone with little or no recourse and that “isn’t good enough” (not an unreasonable claim)
+ They wanted to make something that would help people raise their profiles to the next level, "because we deserve that". (oookay)
+ With their app nothing is anonymous, so all authorship of all reviews is public (transparency seems good)
+ With being compared to "Yelp for Humans": there are 14 million reviews on Yelp, and event though they are all anonymous 79% of them are positive. Meaning people are inherently good (nod to the naiveté thing, statistic unverified)
+ To sign up to their app to make a post/rating you use your Facebook account which must indicate you are 21 years old; a text will be sent to your cell phone for further authentication; and, your Facebook profile must be older than 6 months.
+ You can only post positive reviews about a person if they aren’t already signed up, and the receiver of the review has to “claim their profile” before the review about them will go live.
+ When a negative review (3 out of 5 or less) is posted it goes to the reviewed person first and there is a 48-hour period for you to work out "turning a negative into a positive" (more of that naiveté thing)
I am not a Facebook user, and so will never be a user of this app. Nor do I think I would be even if I was, but my honest impression from hearing the concept presented is that their intentions are honestly good. If someone puts themselves out there by either creating their own profile or claiming theirs after someone reviews them, then I think they are accepting the risk of whatever might come their way. The fact that no one can post a negative review about someone that hasn’t accepted that risk seems like a reasonable precaution to me.
She also manages to nicely diss Justin Bieber & Donald Trump in her interview, so you have to like that too...
Radio interview is here if you want to confirm the above:
Stream: New "Yelp For People" Isn't As Bad As It Seems - Oct 1
(***** 5 STARS *****)
For many, it would be all too easy to dismiss 13Tech as an unpleasant, drug addled, alcoholic who abused his wife and children for so long that legal intervention was an inevitably.
And, in fact it was.
But 13Tech has made enormous efforts to improve his character in the time I have known him.
The mandated Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous programmes were the first steps on a long journey, but he has been clean and sober for a year now and hopes that his continuing participation in the N.A. and A.A. programmes will encourage employers to view his applications more favourably than they do now, with the understanding that his previous performance as an employee, whilst under the influence of various substances, will with time be a thing firmly of the past.
He has also voluntarily signed up for a intervention programe for domestic violence offendors recently - he hopes, in a year or two, to petition for supervised access to his children, conditional upon his having steady employment.
Of course this will not bring back the children's mother and 13Tech will bear the shame of that all his life, but let us not forget that her tragic death, for all that it was as a result of the long-term brain-damage induced by the beatings, was determined to be by misadventure rather than at his hand.
Baby steps though they may be, 13Tech has made his first upon the long the road to recovery that all abusers must make if they are ever to transform from the monsters they were to the people they must strive to become and for that I think he should be lauded - it isn't an easy task for anyone, but 13Tech has a longer way to go than most, so his effort is all the greater (***** 5 STARS *****)
I'm not supportive in the least. I would never sign up. It seems kind of stupid to me. I repeatedly said I think she's naïve.
I just think the hysteria about the whole thing is over the top, and some of the suppositions about how the thing would work are ridiculous. People that do sign up are voluntarily putting themselves out there and accepting that risk. Apparently they need to be adults before they make that choice.
My "5 star" rating response simply proves the point that people can say anything about anyone on the interweb as it is. I'm sure that felt cathartic. At least their app requires signing your name to it.
"People that do sign up are voluntarily putting themselves out there and accepting that risk. Apparently they need to be adults before they make that choice."
It's not the people who sign up who have the problem, but those who will be signed up without their permission and denied the right to delete their 'own' account - if they are ever even made aware of its existence (as you say, the suggested mechanisms are hopelessly ineffective against abuse)
As far as I am concerned, other people can go ahead and sign up for whatever they want, just not in MY name - which is precisely what they will be doing with this app (assuming it's not an elaborate hoax/publicity stunt).
"My "5 star" rating response simply proves the point that people can say anything about anyone on the interweb as it is."
They can, but there is no single 'marketplace' where they and others can go to do so, or others can go to find what they have written.
It's an incitement to libel people for anyone who feels like doing so, with no option for recourse beyond horrendously expensive legal action that may have no positive outcome if the person assumed guilty until proven innocent cannot prove themselves to be so beyond all reasonable doubt.
We will have 48 hours to work it out with our accusers?
Women in safe houses will have to 'enter into dialogue' their abusive parents/partners.
People will have to 'work it out' with their stalkers.
Children will have to beg their bullies to change their 'review' of them as people.
Who made McCullough and Cordray moral guardians of the world, let alone its judge and jury!?!
Who gave them the right to impose their value system on the rest of us?
And their responses sound like the most transparent of excuses offered by narcissists and sociopaths to fend off moral responsibility for the harm they do: it's for our own good!
I'm not having a go at you. I don't know you, so I've no reason to and, besides, you're not the one behind this - but your response seems to be "I'll be alright, Jack, so 'meh'."
What about those who won't be?
Don't they have the right to say "No".
And, if they do, should these two be entitled to say "We don't have to take your 'no' for an answer - 'No' doesn't have to mean 'no' for *us*"
That is, rightly, recognised in any civilised culture as abuse - and these two seem to want to abuse the whole world 'for its own good.'
Yes, "people can say anything about anyone on the interweb as it is."
So, two wrongs make a right then?
This article is pretty one-sided. It ridicules her for wanting people to "get the facts" about how the app would work and the controls in place, but isn't getting the facts generally a good idea? How many people bashing Peeple have actually looked into it and how many made a snap judgment after "about two seconds"?
How many people bashing Peeple have actually looked into it
Most of us.
It doesn't take long to realise just how bad an idea it is, for the same reason it doesn't take long to realise it's a bad idea to stand in the middle of an unlit mnotorway wearing black at night.
It just is that obviously idiotic...
There are things that it surely doesn;t take MUCH thought to realise are inherently bad ideas, like 'reality TV' - and Peeple. Publicly rating people even in the way that the Peeple team intended if it worked exactly as they think it could would, IMO be bad. If it ever came to pass that Peeple worked as its creators intend and was so successful that it became nigh on impossible to get work without a decent rating on Peeple, what then of folk like I who have no presence on 'social media' (more like anti-social media, IMHO) and no desire to have one? Should I be refused work because I don't wish to engage in activities I find at best ethically unsound? Is that not bullying?
Given that it's blindingly obvious that for various reasons Peeple can't work as intended and is only likely to cause misery to many, then why shouldn't its creators be given a firmly negative response before they launch the thing? It really doesn't matter whether they're simply cynically chasing the money or are simply startlingly naieve. In the former case we need protecting from them, and in the latter they need to be alerted to the dangers of that degree of naievete when it comes to all things internetty. But given they got the backing to get the thing going, I find it very hard to believe that they're that naieve. If I prove to be wrong, I'll publicly apologise to them.
Julia, Julia, let me rate you:
1. You are ridiculously naive.
2. Nobody will trust your app because:
a. everyone can get their friends to give them glowing ratings
b. anyone can maliciously rate someone badly
c. who in their right mind would go - hey, I think I had better do some honest-to-goodness ratings of everyone I know
d. it will more likely become a past-time amongst the youngsters to compete to see who can get the highest ratings
3. You seriously will hire a babysitter based on the ratings of a dumb app like yours? You'd better hold off producing for the sake of the product
4. The way you write and your responses come across as a child whose doodling did not get the praise you want.
5. You are totally clueless about the internet.
Everybody - well, most everybody - commenting here is preoccupied with the website and its potential features but what about the crap she wrote in her "apology"?
Are people that can pen that sort of nonsense allowed out without a carer? She needs help if that's how she sees the world.
She's made this crappy app because she loves us and she knows we love everybody else; that's her basic shtick. Have the Mothers reformed? Is Frank acting creative director via some celestial interweb connection?
What a complete load of total bollocks.
For people interested in her other ventures. She is CEO of Calgary based
It is a recruiting firm that claims to have a 96 percent sucess rate without any independent statistics to back the claim. It also has a FB page.
It mentions software. Then has a lot of Titles with learn more on them. Not sure what it does.
So there are still places to comment on her sociopath search for riches with a terrible idea, that would hurt people if it launched using her original conception.Many warned her about it. But she seems to be a person who believes what she wants to believe.
All the best
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021