Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jonathan's Card shut down

jonathanstark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#21

Post by nchlswu »

While Sam's post was admittedly a bit snarky, and his actions did seem a bit 'scummy.' But Sam simply contributed to the experiment. Surely others were going to take advantage of the system. While his actions may run counter to the 'spirit of the experiment,' it's fair game and part of the experiment. Stark didn't enforce any sort of rules for a reason. People who participated in the experiment can continue to pay it forward however they want.

I don't necessarily agree with the reasons Sam cited for running his own take on the experiment, but I have to say I'm sort of surprised by the general reaction by so many -- then again, these reactions are just another outcome of the experiment. I find the following and dedication to this movement utterly fascinating. He made a statement regarding people's generosity (or illusions of generosity?) and the resultant attacks on Odio himself are even more intriguing.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#22

Post by recampbell »

sebkomianos wrote: post #7

Thing is, it was an experiment from the very beginning. Experiments don't have good and bad guys, only observations and results. And the observation isn't a new one: "systems" like that work nicely until the first few exploits.

Experiments have hypotheses and controls. This feels more like art.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#23

Post by jwilliams »

nchlswu wrote: post #21

While Sam's post was admittedly a bit snarky, and his actions did seem a bit 'scummy.' But Sam simply contributed to the experiment. Surely others were going to take advantage of the system. While his actions may run counter to the 'spirit of the experiment,' it's fair game and part of the experiment. Stark didn't enforce any sort of rules for a reason. People who participated in the experiment can continue to pay it…

There seems to be a habit to define the rules of the experiment - on the basis that there are no rules - and then use this to illustrate a particular point of view as "right" or otherwise justifiable.

By your definition it would have also been fine if Sam had actually gone out and bought himself and iPad. Technically fair game? Would that have been ok? Probably not to most people. Not because of the rules, but because we all have our own view of acceptable behaviour.

In this case, he gamed the system and in the process poured water on some people that were having fun. I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system. So yeah. Fair game, but I can see why they're annoyed.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#25

Post by bgurupra »

I just don't see what the experiment was about really considering the audience entirely consisted of people who can afford coffee - I just don't get it! The only explanation is a viral marketing scheme in my mind

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#26

Post by Cushman »

nchlswu wrote: post #21

While Sam's post was admittedly a bit snarky, and his actions did seem a bit 'scummy.' But Sam simply contributed to the experiment. Surely others were going to take advantage of the system. While his actions may run counter to the 'spirit of the experiment,' it's fair game and part of the experiment. Stark didn't enforce any sort of rules for a reason. People who participated in the experiment can continue to pay it…

Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive.

The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. And in fact, it largely can, as the growing popularity of Jonathan's Card showed. That there are people who will abuse the system does not excuse the people who abuse the system— that's absurd.

I'm baffled by your surprise at the reaction. Are you likewise surprised by the fact that people don't like the guy who comes up to the bowl labeled "Free Candy" and takes all of the candy, leaving none for anyone else? "But I'm just demonstrating that any system based on goodwill is open to abuse!" Well, yeah. We know. People hate that.

"But I'm giving the candy to underprivileged children!" That's good for them, then. We hope they enjoy it, dick.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#27

Post by ether »

bgurupra wrote: post #25

I just don't see what the experiment was about really considering the audience entirely consisted of people who can afford coffee - I just don't get it! The only explanation is a viral marketing scheme in my mind

If you read the post, he mentions examples where people buy someone else who can't afford coffee. That was what he encouraged from the initial post as well. Also I've seen many of my friends actually do something like that.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#28

Post by shabda »

I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio.

Sam had the option of taking the gift card and selling the card and keeping the iPad. He exposed the vulnerability. If he hadnt you would have paid in for the card, but someone would have abused the system, and not disclosed it.

Here is a though experiment. There is a widely used piece of software which has a vulnerability. There are bad guys who are going to abuse it. A guy comes and abuse the system, to prove the vulnerability and expose the vulnerability. I s he good or bad? full disclosure vs responsible disclosure

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#29

Post by deltaqueue »

Maybe I'm getting too cynical and pessimistic about society, but an abuse of the system seemed like a guaranteed result of this project. Jonathan's card is simply a redistribution of wealth based on the honor system (masked by words like "karma" and "good will"). Some people will throw ten bucks on the card because it makes them feel great, but leeches will always take part in the project, and at some point there will be more leeches than seeders. People have been abusing programs (government or otherwise) that do the same thing for generations, even without the honor system.

*I enjoy volunteering, donating, paying it forward, etc., I'm just trying to illustrate a point.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#30

Post by sjs »

Cushman wrote: post #26
nchlswu wrote: post #21

While Sam's post was admittedly a bit snarky, and his actions did seem a bit 'scummy.' But Sam simply contributed to the experiment. Surely others were going to take advantage of the system. While his actions may run counter to the 'spirit of the experiment,' it's fair game and part of the experiment. Stark didn't enforce any sort of rules for a reason. People who participated in the experiment can continue to pay it…

Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive. The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. And in fact, it largely can , as the growing popularity of Jonathan's Card showed. That there are people who will abuse the system does not excuse the people who abuse the sys…

He wasn't the only one skimming money from the card he just got the most attention for it by publicizing what he did.

You might even draw the parallel to a white hat who publicizes a vulnerability rather than quietly exploiting it for profit.

edit: He did skim quite a lot to prove the concept. Maybe he was seriously considering that iPad.

Post reply on HN