[HN Gopher] Clubhouse doesn't value privacy, security or accessi...
___________________________________________________________________
Clubhouse doesn't value privacy, security or accessibility
Author : laurex
Score : 86 points
Date : 2021-05-02 18:35 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cigionline.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cigionline.org)
| mwcampbell wrote:
| As a partial response to the part about accessibility, Clubhouse
| is now quite accessible to blind people, and a growing proportion
| of the online blind community is embracing it. Here's a podcast
| episode about Clubhouse from a blindness perspective:
|
| https://mosen.org/episode-99-all-you-need-to-know-about-club...
|
| Of course, the fact that it excludes deaf people is still a
| concern.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| > Of course, the fact that it excludes deaf people is still a
| concern.
|
| I don't even understand this. What are you suggesting? That
| auto-captioning be mandatory for all voice applications? The
| technology is only barely there, and is crazy expensive to
| consume unless you've developed the tech in-house (ie, Google).
| What about Discord or just normal phones -- are those fine?
|
| If you're just saying "have text-only channels" I don't
| understand the point of using Clubhouse in the first place.
| There are a ton of great text-only messaging platforms.
| mwcampbell wrote:
| > If you're just saying "have text-only channels" I don't
| understand the point of using Clubhouse in the first place.
| There are a ton of great text-only messaging platforms.
|
| And that's why I'm staying away from Clubhouse as long as I
| can. I believe that we should prefer text for important
| discussions, so as not to leave people out. We're still
| learning how to effectively have online discussions in text,
| but I think it's too soon to give up on it and retreat to
| relying on audio.
| jonas21 wrote:
| I promised myself that I'd stop wasting time getting into
| internet arguments. And to be honest, I don't even like
| Clubhouse. But this article is full of so many bad-faith
| arguments that I just can't. Here are a few examples:
|
| > _It is clear that Clubhouse was not designed with privacy in
| mind. The app, which initially launched without a privacy
| policy,_
|
| To support this claim, the author links to a Twitter thread [1]
| where someone first says there is no privacy policy, then someone
| else provides a link to it, then the first person shows a video
| that appears to show a broken Privacy link on the Clubhouse
| website -- a web site that nobody visits because Clubhouse is an
| app. As far as I know, the in-app link to the privacy policy and
| the link on the App Store have always worked -- this is one of
| the things that Apple consistently checks before approving an
| app.
|
| So somehow, having a broken link becomes they "launched without a
| privacy policy". You might say, well, maybe the author didn't
| read the Twitter thread carefully. But who was the person on
| Twitter who pointed out that Clubhouse does, in fact, have a
| Privacy Policy? It was Elizabeth Renieris -- the same Elizabeth
| Renieris who wrote the article! In other words, she's completely
| aware that her claim is untrue, yet she makes it anyway.
|
| > _Instead, Clubhouse is yet another example of technology
| designed by, and largely for, privileged, white, Western and
| able-bodied men._
|
| First, this ignores the fact only one of the two founders of
| Clubhouse is white -- the other is a brown immigrant from a non-
| Western country. I doubt the author is unaware of this, and is
| simply reclassifying asians as "white" because it supports her
| narrative.
|
| Secondly, attempting to paint the founders as ablist because they
| don't yet support captioning is both heartbreaking and absurd.
| One founder has a daughter who was born with a genetic defect
| that causes severe disabilities, and he has put a tremendous
| amount of effort raising awareness and fundraising for this [2].
| He's literally the last person you'd accuse of holding a
| prejudice against the disabled.
|
| Finally, at least in my experience, Clubhouse seems to have
| created a community where minorities and women are welcomed and
| play a prominent role in leading and moderating discussions. The
| claim that Clubhouse is designed largely for white men seems...
| completely unsupported.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/wbm312/status/1360044616217628677
|
| [2] https://www.lydianaccelerator.org/
| HenryBemis wrote:
| > It also demonstrates a growing chasm between attitudes in the
| United States and Europe about data governance
|
| Yes, in Europe we got GDPR. In the USA you got a bunch of jokes
| and jokers trading your data for peanutes.
|
| The disregards towards 'anything' is BAU.. "move fast, break
| things". I feel that in the USA many companies are in a money-
| grab. "We will fix it later", and the later becomes never.
| Because once you created 100 problems, you only 'invest' to fix
| the 'top 5' and only because an auditor/CISO told you so.
| blfr wrote:
| If _public opinion and attitudes about privacy and security have_
| really _evolved significantly since Mark Zuckerberg launched the
| Ivy League-only TheFacebook.com_ , they would be moving to Signal
| in droves. They aren't. Most people don't care.
|
| I convince friends occasionally but the privacy argument does
| next to nothing. The gif search, reactions, and MMS handling are
| all better selling points.
| x0x0 wrote:
| The article is just shockingly poor. to wit
|
| > _or provide any way for users to exercise their data
| protection rights_
|
| the privacy policy, in fact, does. Per it's update date of 5
| April -- before the publication of this article on 28 April --
| the privacy policy says
|
| > _Please log in to your account or contact us (at
| support@alphaexplorationco.com) if you need to change or
| correct your Personal Data, or if you wish to delete your
| account._
|
| Not to mention the persistent use of single companies and their
| actions used to malign every startup. See, eg, the article
| about clearview. (If the author weren't lazy, they probably
| would have realized clearview is not actually a silicon valley
| company: it's in ny, and the primary investors are Kirenaga
| partners, an east coast vc firm. So really only tenuous
| connections to sillicon valley)
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| I have used that app for 3 minutes and lost interest. What is
| your impression, is the app growing, useage-wise & feature-wise?
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| i would actually love a video app where people can discuss and
| debate on a livestream with a reddit like categorization.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Why? Audio and video are so low bandwidth in terms of
| information, especially for a debate. With text and forums, I
| can go through links, numerous counter arguments, skip past
| trolls within seconds.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| is not a captioning hard for machine to make correct still? i am
| not too aware of how developing are in this space.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| The various online video conferencing apps do a pretty good job
| at it
| jfk13 wrote:
| I suppose it depends on the speaker, but I wouldn't generally
| describe the examples I've seen as "a pretty good job". Seems
| to me there's a _long_ way to go...
| x0x0 wrote:
| Yes.
|
| it's... something how this article links to folks that just
| assume it's easy to do, and do well. Let alone in real time.
| transitivebs wrote:
| Here's a visualization of 2.7M Clubhouse users data and their
| connections: https://clubhousesocialgraph.com
|
| Note: this is much larger than the data leak mentioned in this
| and other recent articles.
| superasn wrote:
| The only lesson learned by most founders is it's better to ask
| for forgiveness than permission.
|
| Be it airbnb or reddit almost all companies have employed one
| shady tactic or another to grow and maybe once the site is pretty
| popular they maybe take some steps to fix these issues on surface
| and hopefully people will forget about such things soon (1)
|
| (1) https://davegooden.com/2011/05/how-airbnb-became-a-
| billion-d...
| xbar wrote:
| The model is working as intended.
| areoform wrote:
| I have tried to provide an alternative take on ClubHouse, but it
| seems that people are hyper-polarized when it comes to the
| application. Which is strange as it has provided me with the most
| authentic experiences I've ever had on the internet.
|
| This is a bit shameless, but here's an excerpt from my exegesis -
| https://areoform.wordpress.com/2021/04/18/on-clubhouse/,
|
| > Which brings me to the role of ClubHouse as a generator of
| profound experiences. Some nights ago, an ex-TLA (Three Letter
| Agency) officer walked into the room, sparking a conversation
| about strategic elicitation (brought up by me) and empathy for
| difficult people (brought up by him). Our conversation was
| interrupted by an admittedly troubled person angry about the
| "plandemic," spoiling for a fight. In text, we would have ignored
| him - he had been banned from most social media platforms. Or,
| given in and argued with him, but it was clear that he was deeply
| upset. And so we talked.
|
| > He was a struggling musician. Who had lost his living when the
| pandemic hit and the symphonies shut down. The world was a harsh
| place for him. He was also one of the few people in the world who
| had mastered a very particular instrument brought into prominence
| by Beethoven. And so we begged him to play. To share his gift
| with us. He obliged by playing a beautifully complex piece of
| music that demonstrated his mastery over the instrument. We
| thanked him. Said our goodbyes, and went to sleep.
|
| > A charged situation was transmuted into the magical.
|
| Yes, it's flawed, but I'm glad that it exists.
|
| There's a unique energy in the air, when it comes to ClubHouse.
| There's something magical about it. I'm worried that it too will
| get lost to entropy and the casual cruelty of crowds. (it's
| harder to be cruel when people know each other)
| loceng wrote:
| It may not even have been that you would have ignored him if
| via text, but that they may not have been as engaged or been
| able to read your genuine concern or attention - reading your
| response in whatever projected tone he believed
| someone/everyone would treat him.
|
| These tools can be used or wielded either as weapons or for
| healing-learning. I think we're just beginning to organize to
| understand after the clusterfuck of the experience of Facebook
| and the current mainstream status quo "social media." Likewise
| decoupling someone's reach by providing video services -
| whether live or recorded - and not being dependant on
| mainstream media to determine who's messages get out, and how
| long they can be, along with rehumanizing it, faces and voice
| being more engaging than simply test, is what we needed; where
| an individual like Joe Rogan acts a curator to expose
| interesting guests to share their story for 2-4 hours -
| essentially creating/expanding nodes of leadership - whether
| entertaining, educational, or role modelling.
|
| I think whatever experience people have on Clubhouse will fully
| depend on the context, the curators, and so ultimately how
| Clubhouse or such platforms are governed; along with how access
| to the information is managed, if all the most popular people
| start putting their content behind walled gardens then that's
| arguably a problem - or then we allow privacy if anyone is
| trying to extract too much, whatever is considered
| unreasonable.
| comodore_ wrote:
| this piece starts very low by quoting Kevin Rose the chief
| censorist anti free speech activist from the nyt and continues in
| that vein, very underwhelming.
| throw7 wrote:
| Are you in da club? Alpha Exploration is born and it's where ya
| wanna be. It ain't where you go for delusion, it's reality. Gonna
| get reason, you'll find me in da club, bottle full of cause, it's
| got what you need, if you ain't into makin' love. So come give it
| a chance, if you into verity.
| carlosdp wrote:
| A lot of these criticisms are trying to attribute mal-intent to
| what in reality is almost certainly that the founders aren't
| super-humans who got everything technically right out of the
| gate...
|
| Also
|
| > The app has since been banned in China after hosting
| conversations about alleged Uighur internment camps and other
| politically controversial subjects, which could clearly have put
| activists and dissidents at risk.
|
| I see this argument sometimes for apps, and I feel like it should
| be made more clear that it's the _Chinese government_ putting
| these people at risk of harm, not the apps.
|
| Asking for security from a super-power state actor as a baseline
| for creating a social media app means only Facebook, Google, and
| Twitter get to ever make social media apps.
|
| > The data referred to is all public profile information from our
| app, which anyone can access via the app or our API." Davidson
| was essentially defending "scraping" -- the practice of
| extracting publicly available, non-copyrighted data from the Web.
| Whether technically a breach or not, the incident has breached
| the trust of many of its users, who did not reasonably expect
| their information to be used in this way.
|
| You can do the same thing with every Instagram account or
| Facebook or <insert basically every social media platform>. The
| platform is designed for people to be visible and share. You know
| that whatever you put in your bio can be seen by anyone on
| Clubhouse in a room you are in, or in search.
|
| I don't see how this can be made private without defeating the
| whole purpose of the product. And I also don't see how this
| violates privacy when no such privacy was offered.
|
| > Scraping is the same technique that controversial start-up
| Clearview AI, popular with law enforcement, has used to amass its
| facial recognition database.
|
| It's also the same method used by Google to give you search
| results, like what the hell are we talking about here? Also
| _Clubhouse_ didn 't do any scraping. That's being lost here in
| this weird comparison.
|
| > The audio app, only available to iPhone users, was designed and
| deployed with virtually no accommodations for individuals who are
| deaf, hard of hearing, visually impaired or who have certain
| other disabilities. Competitors such as Twitter Spaces, while not
| perfect, at least allow users to turn on captions and share
| transcripts, among other features, demonstrating that
| accessibility in audio apps is possible
|
| Yea, because Twitter is a multi-billion dollar public company
| with an established and experienced engineering organization with
| top experts in AI. Clubhouse was started a year ago and only just
| started reaching hyper growth in January.
|
| The contention here is you need to get this all correct out of
| the gate, which realistically only one of the big tech companies
| could actually pull off.
|
| > And while it is one thing to ask people to go without their
| Facebook or Google products and services, now that these
| platforms have become so embedded in their daily life, it is
| another to ask them to abstain from Clubhouse. In this moment,
| before users have a compelling need to be on these platforms
| (because everyone else is there), and before Clubhouse becomes
| too big to fail, we still have a choice.
|
| I'm confused, so we don't like that Facebook and Google own all
| of our digital interactions, but you also need to have Facebook
| and Google-level resources before it's ok for you to try
| launching a social media product?
|
| Clubhouse reportedly turned down a $4b buyout from Twitter
| potentially, doing _exactly_ what people have been saying they
| wish happened with Instagram or WhatsApp, but still they 're
| doing it wrong.
|
| Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I suppose.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Privacy is the thing that everybody talks about but nobody has
| it.
|
| Move on.
|
| Btw Clubhouse being worth $4bn?! New Studio 54?
| azinman2 wrote:
| Clearly this author has never tried to create a social network.
| It's crazy hard, the network effect chicken and egg is really
| really really hard to crack. Unless you use basic tactics to
| reduce friction as much as possible, how else are you going to
| grow from nothing?
|
| It's also very strange to talk about SV and backers as if they're
| some homogenous group. A diversity of skill sets, ethos, and
| methods exist. Many founders are going at it for the first time.
| And financial backers aren't usually technically literate to warn
| about incrementing ids in SQL. They want to know how fast you're
| growing and the business prospects.
|
| If we start creating laws around these things, then it'll only be
| even tougher for up-comers to challenge the existing big players.
| It would be great if the mobile platforms could proxy contacts to
| at least solve that privacy problem while also being reasonable
| in their usage, but all new companies have to find some way into
| people's hearts and minds that easily will forget about a new app
| within 10m of existing their first usage.
| 3np wrote:
| > If we start creating laws around these things, then it'll
| only be even tougher for up-comers to challenge the existing
| big players.
|
| For interoperability etc I disagree. Leverage on existing
| protocols where possible and you get most of it for free. E.g.
| use xmpp/matrix if you need IM-like functionality.
| tpxl wrote:
| > If we start creating laws around these things, then it'll
| only be even tougher for up-comers to challenge the existing
| big players
|
| This is such an unimaginative take. Laws could easily demand
| easy export of _all your_ data and interoperability of chat
| systems.
| leesalminen wrote:
| How do you foresee that working? Would the government publish
| a standard API for all chat systems? Would chat system makers
| have to build a bridge for every single messenger ever made,
| even if it only has 1k users? I just don't see how the law
| can make apps interoperable without huge barriers of entry
| that would benefit the incumbents.
| 3np wrote:
| Laws shouldn't name names but properties, such as: Fully
| documented and available APIs where first-party clients or
| front-ends can not rely on undisclosed endpoints.
|
| For a chat app, that would just mean using en existing
| solution like XMPP or Matrix and provide API documentation
| for any added deltas.
|
| The less you touch user data, the less you have to think
| about this.
| creata wrote:
| Why not just set an arbitrary threshold on how big you need
| to be before interoperability law applies to you? After
| all, people are only forced to interoperate with you when
| you're sufficiently big.
|
| > I just don't see how the law can make apps interoperable
| without huge barriers of entry that would benefit the
| incumbents.
|
| I don't see how making such a huge dent in network effects
| will be anything but a detriment to the incumbents.
| kodah wrote:
| Unimaginative is the wrong word, imo. GP is calling out that
| over-regulation introduces market hurdles for smaller
| businesses. This is a known and non-controversial fact.
| Typically it gets addressed by instituting different
| requirements for various key metrics like company or user
| base size.
|
| Article 30 of the GDPR states that companies with fewer than
| 250 employees do not need to keep processing records unless
| "the processing it carries out is likely to result in a risk
| to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, the processing
| is not occasional, or the processing includes special
| categories of data...or personal data relating to criminal
| convictions and offences."
|
| Your point about an authoritarian government siphoning user
| data from companies which siphoned that data is also possible
| and valid.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > If we start creating laws around these things, then it'll
| only be even tougher for up-comers to challenge the existing
| big players.
|
| That's very "entrepreneurial" view. From big networks we've
| learnt what issues are there, but we should exclude small
| players from the rules, because it makes it hard to create a
| product?
|
| I do get a sentiment, but some products are just super hard to
| build and require huge capital and time investments. Does that
| give advantage to big established players? Yes. But why should
| we allow small players to act knowingly in a way that's bad?
| gkoberger wrote:
| This article makes me wonder if we'll ever see another social
| network ever again. Our opinions on privacy and security have
| shifted dramatically (for the better, in my opinion), however
| imagine an author writing about Facebook a year in under a 2021
| lens.
|
| Facebook (and others) grew because a lack of privacy and security
| was the goal. Images were public and tagged, conversations were
| viewable by anyone, the minifeed made it easy to see every change
| people made, etc. It was exclusive (college only) but also very
| public. The high amount of content and low amount of friction
| made it spread virally. Now it's much more locked down, but
| that's okay... it already hit a critical mass.
|
| The current consensus about privacy and security seem to be at
| odds with what's necessary to make a social network work. The
| ability to connect with anyone at any time with no friction is
| what makes social networks thrive, but also what enables
| harassment and abuse.
|
| I think it's likely we've already seen the last great social
| network.
| [deleted]
| Barrin92 wrote:
| It's no surprise that Clubhouse values none of the things
| presented in the title because it's completely orthogonal to what
| makes Clubhouse 'valuable'. It's like saying "Elsevier is a
| billion dollar business despite being unfriendly to readers,
| researchers, and limiting access to human knowledge". No that's
| the reason, why in the logic of our economic system _they have
| any price attached to them_.
|
| Clubhouse's entire value proposition is artificial scarcity. It's
| the NFT of social networks. Take something that is abundant and
| cheap in the world of software (communication, space, room size)
| etc, and artificially bog it down to create a zero-sum game of
| status.
|
| It's basically 'un-innovation' for a lack of a better term.
| Technically there's nothing in Clubhouse that if it doesn't
| already exist anywhere else cannot be copied in five minutes. All
| the things clubhouse places limits on already are abundant, which
| is why their market value is, ironically enough, 0.
| areoform wrote:
| Except that's not true, having experienced it, I would say that
| ClubHouse produces intimacy as a service. I've had magical
| conversations on the application that I've never had anywhere
| else.
|
| Saying that it's just another product and that it can be copied
| in 5 minutes is missing the point. The choices that they've
| made, their decision to eschew everything except for voice,
| help create a medium that is intimate, thoughtful, and kind.
| And otherwise busy people are addicted to it.
|
| Someone I know said that talking on ClubHouse felt like being
| back at Stanford. Just the electrifying conversations. The
| sense of possibility. There's something special here.
|
| Recently, I decided that I'd like to interview a cosmonaut who
| has never been interviewed by the west before. To tell his
| story before a broader audience. And I started a ClubHouse room
| to do it, and people from around the world came together to
| help me. Including people who knew him! I'm just a stranger,
| but they heard me explain why I wanted to preserve this man's
| legacy and that was enough. People were happy to chip in and
| help.
|
| That's magical. And I haven't experienced anything like that
| before. There's this profound sense of intimacy that this
| platform produces that's missing elsewhere.
|
| I keep repeating myself, but _there is something here_. It 's a
| mistake to discount it.
| exogeny wrote:
| It's hard for me to think of anything less niche than "like
| being at Stanford" given the extreme, tech-focused, affluent,
| bourgeois-as-fuck description that implies.
|
| The average person doesn't want to spend hours listening to
| thought leaders who are in love with their own voice
| pontificating randomly on topics that don't affect or address
| their lives in any way. To believe that they will to such an
| extent that A16Z is willing to give them a $4B given zero
| revenue, declining traction, and no clear business shows that
| all you need to do to gain ever-increasing valuations in the
| tech world is to serve up the exact kind of frou-frou,
| nebulous bullshit that you wrote and that VCs eat up.
| areoform wrote:
| > given the extreme, tech-focused, affluent, bourgeois-as-
| fuck description that implies
|
| While I understand where you're coming from, this is the
| kind of conversation that has turned me off from most of
| the internet.
|
| On the months I've been on ClubHouse, I've never had an
| exchange like this. But elsewhere on the web? It's fairly
| common.
|
| Text is a hard medium to discuss complicated ideas in. It's
| too easy to be snarky. You get kudos for it. But that's
| harder to do in voice. Because you'd have to hear my
| reaction, and the reactions of others. You'd have to hear
| how off-putting it is.
|
| I prefer ClubHouse now, because the rest of the web is so
| snarky. And do you blame me? Given how you've reacted to
| me?
| stale2002 wrote:
| > I prefer ClubHouse now
|
| The problem is not that you prefer clubhouse. Instead, it
| is that you have ascribed some magical property to it,
| and are treating it like it is some revolution.
|
| That is great that you have found something that you
| prefer. But there is no need to talk in such grandious
| terms, when talking about a simple voice chat app.
| guscost wrote:
| > thought leaders who are in love with their own voice
| pontificating randomly on topics that don't affect or
| address their lives in any way
|
| Yes, those conversations are dreadful. And there are a lot
| of them. But you're doing just another version of "Reddit
| is a website filled with silly cat pictures" here.
| dancemethis wrote:
| There's no intimacy, thoughtfulness or kindness in a
| proprietary software where a corporation can get the
| conversation and use it for its own means.
|
| On the opposite, by being predators of user privacy they are
| hostile.
| opheliate wrote:
| > Someone I know said that talking on ClubHouse felt like
| being back at Stanford.
|
| I think this quote reveals a lot more than the person you
| know necessarily intended.
|
| > Recently, I decided that I'd like to interview a cosmonaut
| who has never been interviewed by the west before.
|
| I would have loved to listen to this conversation, but
| unfortunately, I come from a working-class background in the
| UK, and as such, I don't know anyone who would have a
| Clubhouse invite to give me. I'm not trying to make any
| assumptions about your background here, and I'm sure there
| are many people on Clubhouse who come from un-privileged
| backfrounds, but perhaps the intimacy of the environment
| comes from being surrounded by people who come from a similar
| place (i.e: Ivy League colleges, Silicon Valley companies)
| due to the exclusivity Clubhouse has imposed.
| areoform wrote:
| I am a high school dropout.
|
| I'm happy to send you an invite. Message me on twitter.
| gkoberger wrote:
| If you only talk about the tech behind it, then you're correct.
| However there is a scarcity of time and attention, which is
| what Clubhouse aims to capture. People want to be where things
| are happening. That's why land is abundant, yet I pay $2600 for
| a one-bedroom apartment in a city.
|
| I've been using Clubhouse for a year, and seen various
| iterations. Earlier, there was so much human connection. I
| talked to amazing people almost 1:1, and it was like being part
| of a small club. As it grew, it became more like a 24/7
| conference where you could drop in to hear any topic you want.
| Less my thing, but still fascinating.
| areoform wrote:
| Have you heard of Prelon and Small Steps, Giant Leaps?
|
| https://prelon.org/
| Invictus0 wrote:
| The calculus on privacy is simple. Would you rather be a $4B
| company that used shady methods to get users, and pay a small
| fine; or, be a $0 company that followed all the rules right into
| the graveyard? All the old hypergrowth network companies used
| these shady tactics to get their users; now they want to solidify
| their moat by banning the same tactics for other companies.
|
| I'm not saying that a company can never succeed by following all
| the rules--just that it's a lot less likely.
|
| Have we learned nothing from 2008? The only thing that is going
| to deter white collar crimes is jail time--everything else is
| just the cost of doing business.
| sthnblllII wrote:
| Thats not going to happen as long as people keep electing
| politicians whose largest donors are Facebook co-founders.
|
| https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/22/elec-o22.html
| pyrale wrote:
| > a $4B company
|
| Small correction: a company that acquired capital at a $4bn
| valuation. As VCs are well known to shore up countless failures
| with few overwhelming successes, That valuation is essentially
| useless.
|
| If you want a correct valuation, you'll have to wait and see
| what employees get for their shares.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Founders don't give a single damn about the employees.
| They'll be doing lines of cokes on company budget, and walk
| away with a fat load of cash even if it fails. VC has never
| been for the employees, and never will be.
| incadenza wrote:
| I think they've correctly learned that these concerns aren't
| sufficient to prevent users from flocking to the next new app
| that their friends are using.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-02 23:01 UTC)