If asked to name the top three people I'd be most unlikely to work with, I'd only be able to name one: Aaron Greenspan. I am so tired of the constant stream of whining (on his blog, HN, twitter, quora, etc) about how everyone is against him and everything is not fair. And now he's bad-mouthing more people, all as part of his overall theme of whining about how Facecash is a brilliant idea that obviously can't get any traction because of the big bad unfair regulators who don't get what he's trying to do.
Aaron, please, please, for everyone's sake, find something more constructive to do with your obviously impressive intelligence. This is just sad.
The theme of the original blog post upon which this article is based is that "Silicon Valley criminals should be held to account for their actions" just as those who are the focus of Occupy Wall Street's protestations should be. This is, in essence, a political argument supported by the blog author's view that an elite few control and dominate society and are able to abuse its laws in order to promote their economic gain.
A few thoughts on this:
1. The subject matter here concerns the idea that laws are selectively enforced to favor a few elites and, whether one agrees with this or not, this is really political subject matter that is not proper for HN.
2. The "crime" allegedly being committed by Airbnb today rests solely on the blog author's assertions that: (a) Airbnb and many other prominent tech startups are handling money in ways that violate California's money transmittal statutes and (b) that fact in turn violates federal laws that make it a crime to commit such violations. While it is conceivable that the laws mentioned might some day be interpreted in this way, it is a huge stretch - indeed, even a frivolous assertion - to say that Airbnb is committing "crimes" simply by operating its business in accordance with its prescribed business model. As matters now stand, however, this is only a layman's conclusion about a complex body of laws - and one that is not supported by the actions or interpretations of those charged with enforcing such laws. In this context, there is no basis for calling anybody here "Silicon Valley criminals" unless it is in a generalized political sense (e.g., the robber barons were "looters and criminals") - that is, through use of the word "criminals" in a hyperbolic, non-specific manner. This is really another way of saying that the subject matter of the post was as much political as anything else.
3. It is irresponsible for VentureBeat to take this underlying material and concoct a headline stating that "allegations of past and present Internet crime haunt Airbnb co-founder." The clear implication of this headline is that there are serious allegations of criminal misconduct currently affecting this particular individual and that is objectively false. No crimes of any kind have been charged. No activity is being engaged in by this individual that has even remotely raised concerns by the public authorities of criminal activity. The relevant activities are said to be "criminal" based solely on a lay interpretation of laws that is not supported by the relevant regulators, by existing case law, or by any criminal enforcement actions of prosecutors. The picture painted by the headline, then, is plainly misleading if not false.
4. The factual background as recited by the blog author may be true or not. Only the persons involved really know. Taken as a whole, the facts themselves are here dwarfed by the problematic legal conclusions set forth as fact by this piece. I would therefore call it a "hit piece" or unfair attack as presented by VentureBeat. The blog author made an essentially political argument in his piece; this follow-on piece, though, attempts to recast that argument as legal fact about alleged crimes and this goes way over the line in my judgment.
Anybody who thinks I am being unfair in so describing the VentureBeat piece need only imagine like allegations being made about you simply because you ran a successful Silicon Valley venture that handled money in some manner, whether as payments or deposits or otherwise. If you don't mind being called a "criminal" when there is no hint that you are doing anything at all to violate current laws, then more power to you. For the rest of us, I think "unfair" is a very understated way of describing it.
So he's right? Every response on this thread seems to be ad hominem. No one seems to be defending AirBNB guys.
It is relevant because any online business necessarily has a lot of information about its customers. Spamming is both illegal and immoral (free riding on the commons), so I would choose not to give my business/info to people with a known history of such activity.
Spamming is not illegal. That is the biggest lie out there, actually. You just have to adhere to some specific requirements when sending unsolicited email.
Also, spamming may be against many company's TOS but that does not make it illegal.
Whatever, that's splitting hairs and not relevant to the main point.
If someone is writing a program to send out unsolicited e-mails on behalf of other parties, it's pretty unlikely that they're doing the due diligence. I don't know what happened but I think it's funny that all the responses are "Aaron Greenspan is a whiny loser".
Also, I don't read any company's TOS when deciding whether to do business with them. Do you? I go by their reputation. If a company has a bad reputation then it makes me less likely to do business with them.
If a company has a bad reputation then it makes me less likely to do business with them.
Except if I read a bad review about a company from someone who has a record of bad experiences with companies, I do not take that person's review into account and discard it as an outlier. Aaron Greenspan has a pretty solid history of being that guy who has a problem with almost everyone of stature that he has come to know.
Haha, funny. But in this case it is the refutation of the argument that has the fallacy.
So there is the original argument that he's a spammer, which hasn't been refuted. And there is the ad hominem counter-argument which is refuted by being ad hominem.
So I think I am still justified in believing the original argument without contrary evidence. So really you are profering a fallacist's fallacist's fallacy. :)
So there is the original argument that he's a spammer, which hasn't been refuted.
Are you aware that the burden of proof rests on the claimant? Unless you have convincing evidence supporting a claim, you are not logically justified in accepting it.
I was pretty active in the spam world in high school circa 2002-03. Of course we all had nicknames so I wouldn't know. Learned much and glad to have moved on from days of Dark Mailer and fighting "antis" :)
That aside, the bigger news is that Aaron Greenspan continues to a bitter man and a constant dick. Grow a pair and build some shit of your own instead of peddling gossip to valley blogs. Seriously.
An 18 year old would have to engage in some pretty dark stuff for me to indict them later in life as a subpar founder, partner or person. Spamming and porn don't even come close to qualifying.
When I was 15 or 16 (can't remember exactly), I ended up doing contract work for an "Internet Marketing Firm" (read: spammer). I built a ridiculously scalable email crawler and learned a whole lot in the process. I wouldn't do it again -- I would rather not make money than assist spammers -- but at the time it seemed like a good decision. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
Same here, I was 17, learning web dev at a small company and the founder had me creating spam-blogs (splogs) back in 2004 when it was effective for gaming SEO. I know better now as an adult.
"I realize this is blatant self-promotion, but hopefully it won't ruin anyone's day...
In case anyone is interested, I've recently published a book that's pretty directly related to PHP, as well as issues of programming, intellectual property, and computer security and privacy. It's called "Authoritas:... "
I'm not sure what this will do for the AirBnB founder's reputation, but the pattern of incessant whining from Greenspan certainly has lowered my opinion of him.
>Greenspan says, using their dorm room as a base, Blecharczyk designed custom hardware and coded his own software to send out millions of spam emails per week
At millions per week, that would make him just slightly less effective than a 12 year old Chinese skiddie. Given that there are 604800 seconds in a week, even 100M emails is just over 150/s. Not much of an ROI for "custom hardware and software".
Mind you, innocent or well meaning persons can end up on Spamhaus list, but this does not seem to be the case here.
All it means is that Airbnb quite likely knew about the Craigslist spamming done by their affiliates. Legally they seem to be in the clear, but morally is another matter.
People insulting Aaron Greenspan just don't understand him.
If you want to understand him, just imagine a very sensitive precocious child raised on a rigid deontological morality by highly rigid and argumentative parents. This values system is characterized by a rigid logic that mainly focuses on things that are disallowed. For instance, lying is disallowed, betrayal is disallowed, and perfect obedience to official rules and legitimate authority is seen as the highest life virtue. The legitimacy of the authority though is dependent on the attempt of the authority to enact fair rules.
Aaron, as a precocious and sensitive boy who was mature for his age and learned logical reasoning early, absorbed his moral lessons very well and set them up as a set of rigid unbendae rules in his psyche.
When this kind of compex, highly integrated, high integrity, rigid value system encounters reality it finds outrage absolutely everywhere because the truth is that most authorities are quite incompetent and very far from fair. The hackers who are willing to break the rules have an unfair advantage over Aaron, who is literally incapable of breaking the rules due to his early programming. To rectify this intolerable unfairness he must demonstrate how the authorities are not properly punishing the rule breakers and t is hoped that this will ameliorate the unfairness.
I have a lot of sympathy for Aaron. He is really a victim of his short sighted parents who deeply indoctrinated him with this ideology that puts him at a major disadvantage in the modern day. It's not a simple thing to change or break this ideology even if he wanted to, because there are tremendous anxiety barriers stopping him from breaking any rules. He would feel extremely guilty and worried if he used patently selfish intentions and engaged in borderline unethical behaviour like spamming porn for money.
Aaron did everything right. He never lied, never stole, never even used deception or committed a lie of omission. He always shared with others and always engaged brotherly love. He had plenty of chances to betray people's trust for profit and did not take them. He worked hard and long with perfect integrity - moral perfection. And what did he get for it? Nothing. Zuck got 4 billion and his name in the history books for lying, cheating, breaking the rules. That could have been aaron, but Aaron was too morally perfect. It's just not fair!! And it's all the fault of Authority for failing to punish those who broke the rules.
Aaron - society is not to blame for rewarding cheaters. Your parents are to blame for giving you a crippling moral compass that is out of touch with reality.
So a desire to follow the law is some kind of moral failing all of a sudden? Sorry but that is bullshit.
There is nothing wrong with following the law and trying to get others to follow the law and reporting lawbreaking. I am sure you will appreciate this next time you get mugged.
(By the way I have to say I am not sure I agree with Mr. Greenspan's determination that Airbnb and Facebook are unlicensed money transmitters. But there is no reason to attack anyone because they simply want to follow the law.)
It's not a counter argument. I strongly believe Aaron is telling the truth about the porn spamming. However I also believe it does not make the perpetrator a bad cofounder.
Writing a fact based analysis of the personality of a public figure is not bullying. I have a lot of respect for Aaron both personally and professionally. In fact I used the words "moral perfection" to describe him.
Spamming isn't illegal. In fact, it can teach you a lot about marketing. I'm actually impressed than an 18 year old could make enough with it to pay for school.
How do you tell that it is categorically illegal to send unsolicited emails of any type?
Of course, you realize that could, at an extreme, mean that you cannot send a personal email to someone else you have previously not corresponded with.
Spamming refers to sending unsolicited email. Sending unsolicited emails isn't illegal; sending unsolicited emails that do not adhere to the law is illegal in America.
In Belgium it is indeed illegal to send unsolicited mails, IF it is sent for publicity reasons. The law includes a definition of publicity, the gist of which is "promoting goods, services or a company". It's the sender's task to prove that promotional mail was solicited.
It's like a variation of "fight or flight" instinct.
You encounter a boundary and you either "Push through and solve it" or "throw a tantrum and blame other people".
I am not sure that this comment adds anything to the discussion. You can argue that Blecharczyk is reformed, that AirBnB is not currently spamming people, or even that the only reason he is bringing this up now is to generate interest in his anti-Money Transmission Act crusade. Insulting him does not explain why he might be wrong.
Disclosure: I knew Greenspan in college, but I wasn't important enough to be included in his book Authoritas. Sigh.
I doubt the personal ethics of founders sway investors much (if at all), but perhaps the world would be a better place if they did.
Either way, setting up a custom hardware/software stack to spam/peddle pornography as an 18 year old freshman is a pretty impressive feat of ingenuity, but it reflects poor judgement - by an 18 year old (whodathunkit!) Who knows what guy is like now. He might be a saint. Probably not though.
When a spammer gets caught attacking the commons yet again via a new company's "contractors" who just happen not to have been prosecuted or sued or even identified, it's pretty obvious he is the creature he always was.
The fact that people assume Airbnb was automating spam is entirely false.
At one point in our past we did have a small team of remote sales people that we contracted to acquire listings through person-to-person sales, but their efforts were largely ineffective. To set the record straight this process was never automated as purported. Our sales team emailed listings on Craigslist one-by-one and targeted only listings that they thought would be a good fit for our marketplace. At times they did contact people who did not want to be solicited to. However when alerted to these actions we ensured that they stopped immediately.
Yeah, it's just a really weird coincidence that someone who made a couple hundred thousand dollars spamming in college later used the same techniques in a new business? Well, maybe, but you're going to need to do better than say cross my heart and pinky swear.
Also, stop being a bullshit artist. Let me rewrite your second paragraph for you in a truthful fashion: "Yeah, we spammed people. Our sales team went through craigslist and emailed listings we wanted to poach, even if they'd said they didn't want to receive such emails. We're those assholes. But please, let me write about this in the passive tense and distance ourselves from it. What I'd really like is for none of you to hold our admitted conduct against us because, well, that would be really convenient. For us, that is. Further, please don't judge our current conduct by our past actions because, well, again, way more convenient if we can just say random external contractors <bullshit bullshit bullshit> and start over with a blank slate."
Controversy. It is definitely a tried and true publicity method. Whenever someone creates some, I sing it like the prince song and then move on with my life.
Aaron Greenspan's constant attacks of other people read like the theories of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people. In other words, complete nonsense.
Aaron, please, please, for everyone's sake, find something more constructive to do with your obviously impressive intelligence. This is just sad.