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

A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

brianhama.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 228 posts

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#81

Post by ricefield »

nirvana wrote: post #74
jsprinkles wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish your comment was the only one, frankly, and we could really use a "you are not a lawyer, stop pretending to be one" guideline. Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661

The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. You're being down voted because you are lying about what I said and attacking me for the "crime" of trying to suggest areas of investigation for this guy.…

> Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects.

Programming and law are two completely different fields, each with its own sets of requirements, regulations, practice, and repercussions. Please don't try to make them out to be the same.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#82

Post by dllthomas »

jsprinkles wrote: post #58
MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, personal attacks (a.k.a. ad-hominem arguments) are discouraged here. Here are the guidelines, for your convenience. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your objections could be worded in a way that is not a personal attack and could be just as informative, or more so.

FYI, what I wrote is not an ad hominem argument, and "ad-hominem argument" is not an a.k.a. for "personal attack" (neither of which my comment is, for what it's worth).

"You want to X? Really?" typically carries an implicit, "How could you be so [some negative quality]?" This is not an ad hominem argument unless it's actually used in an argument ("Don't believe claim Y; this person even wants to X!" would be), but it is an oblique personal attack.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#83

Post by nostromo »

nirvana wrote: post #74
jsprinkles wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish your comment was the only one, frankly, and we could really use a "you are not a lawyer, stop pretending to be one" guideline. Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661

The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. You're being down voted because you are lying about what I said and attacking me for the "crime" of trying to suggest areas of investigation for this guy.…

> The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist.

It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#84

Post by law »

jarrett wrote: post #54
jsprinkles wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate what you're doing, but you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go -- something you really shouldn't predict. By putting the words "this isn't legal advice" before your comment, you aren't magically making it okay to give your opinion in the guise of advice. Just be aware of that.

I agree with jsprinkles for the most part. There is a great deal of legal advice packed in there. The OP needs a lawyer. But on the other hand, I have to agree with nirvana about one thing. A certain amount of work must necessarily fall on the OP to find the right lawyer for the case. As nirvana says, there will be plenty of lawyers who aren't really interested and just say "roll over," while there will be others who…

You don't have to do any work to find a lawyer beyond calling your county bar association's lawyer referral service (or the ABA lawyer referral service). Lawyers are obligated to turn down cases on which they would be unable to provide competent representation. They will ask you for information, you will provide it, and they will determine whether they can competently provide representation. Trust them.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#85

Post by dllthomas »

swalsh wrote: post #64
jwarzech wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's a Kickstarter for legal fees" in 1...2..

People will eventually become cynical, and stop contributing after they realize there are two sides to each story. I find often that the sob stories you read on the internet exaggerate the tragedy of the situation.

Just make users sign something that says the story they put forward is accurate. Details should come out in the trial, and if there's a mismatch, asking for money based on false information is fraud.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#86

Post by daeken »

jsprinkles wrote: post #50
MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How messed up is it that someone can't share what they know (or think they know) because they don't have a credential? Edit: I'm convinced. Don't give or accept legal advice over the Internet. Establish a relationship with an attorney and only discuss it with them. If you don't like the answers they give you, you can find another attorney.

In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice. You know how in criminal proceedings, they say "anything you say can and will be used against you?" It's the exact same for civil actions like this, which is why Public Rel…

Let me start by saying: OP should get a lawyer -- like yesterday -- if he cares about the future of his company. Now, moving on...

> In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice.

There are legal repercussions and serious consequences to many choices we make in life; while this is a particularly tricky terrain to navigate, that doesn't mean he should go in completely blind. If you think that the advice is "frighteningly bad", point out specifics.

> This isn't about credentials, it's about being smart when it comes to threats that can genuinely hose your business, and not listening to a bunch of armchair lawyers on HN who think they have the best course of action without any sort of context.

This isn't a conversation you're engaging in; you're simply shouting down the parent(s). That's not what HN is all about. Please rethink your approach and come back to this from a constructive angle; it sounds like you have valuable knowledge that could come in handy for OP and others, but you can't see past "holy crap, legal advice on the internet!"

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#87

Post by slantyyz »

fijal wrote: post #80
law wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My advise is hire counsel to advise you, educate yourself of self representation and court procedures, and rake these fuckers over the coals. This is terrible advice. Unless you're a duly licensed attorney in OP's jurisdiction, don't offer legal advice. You're practicing law without a license, which is a crime. Moreover, were OP to rely on that advice to his detriment, you may find yourself named as a defendant in…

Can you find some documents under which circumstances this is a crime? I find that you should not do that for money or in court on wikipedia, but I somehow fail to find that "giving advice" or even "drafting legal documents" can be a crime.

Yeah, I'm a little confused too. If it's a crime shouldn't the commenter worry more about being fined and/or going to jail?

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#88

Post by jsprinkles »

daeken wrote: post #86
jsprinkles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice. You know how in criminal proceedings, they say "anything you say can and will be used against you?" It's the exact same for civil actions like this, which is why Public Rel…

Let me start by saying: OP should get a lawyer -- like yesterday -- if he cares about the future of his company. Now, moving on... > In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice. There are legal repercussions and serio…

My valuable knowledge is that this discussion shouldn't be happening, because I've seen firsthand what an Internet comment can do legally, both to plaintiff and defendant. So yes, I would prefer it be shot down. I am not legally permitted to discuss the cases in question nor provide specifics of my knowledge, nor will I create liability for myself by refuting specific legal advice being given in this thread.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#89

Post by nirvana »

jsprinkles wrote: post #75
nirvana wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not apologize for responding on the topic and attempting to help this guy. I brought up a lot of possible avenues that could be useful for him building a case. You have merely engaged in ad hominem and quite successfully derailed the discussion. Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way. I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended so…

Wow. Let me respond point by point: > You have merely engaged in ad hominem That's the second time I've been accused of ad hominem attacks in this thread, and the second time it's been flatly wrong. An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it . I am not refuting your point, at all, and I have been careful to do so except to generally label some of your advice b…

> Let me respond point by point:

I wish you had.

>An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it.

Your claim that I am not a lawyer and therefore shouldn't be giving legal advice is, by definition "implying that you personally are not qualified to give it."

Now add to that ad hominem the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, and your repeated insistence that I am, is a dishonest characterization of the argument, akin to claiming I'm not qualified to beat my wife and therefore should stop.

The fact that I'm not actually beating my wife means that your dishonesty about this is an attempt to characterize me in a derogatory fashion. Thus, personal attack as well.

>Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular.

Glad to have you on the record admitting that your intention is to block productive discussion.

>Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark.

It is a simple fact that you have been completely dishonest about my remark. You have been characterizing it dishonestly from the beginning, and when I pointed out that I wasn't claiming what you said I was claiming you evade the fact that this proved you to be lying by claiming those were "weasel wordS". Yes, exactly the point of "weasel words" is to emphasize that you don't know all the facts at hand and you're providing possibilities. Which, in fact, shows your claim that I am giving legal advice to be a wholesale fabrication.

You should be ashamed that you are willingly and proudly derailing a conversation whereby a poster to HN might get some advice for how to solve his problem of finding legal council.

Notice that I was attempting to help him get legal council, not giving him legal advise that would render such council unnecessary as you claim.

So, you have lied about what I have said, you have admitted trolling, and you have evaded every counter argument I have made to the point where all you're left with is "fuck you".

I suggest you consider -- just for a second-- the fact that everything I've said is true, that you went off the handle at me for the "crime" of trying to help someone, and that the entire basis for your admitted attempt to derail this thread is false.

I wasn't giving him legal advice, I was trying to help him get enough info to get a lawyer interested.

Shame on you for opposing that!

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#90

Post by daeken »

jsprinkles wrote: post #75
nirvana wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not apologize for responding on the topic and attempting to help this guy. I brought up a lot of possible avenues that could be useful for him building a case. You have merely engaged in ad hominem and quite successfully derailed the discussion. Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way. I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended so…

Wow. Let me respond point by point: > You have merely engaged in ad hominem That's the second time I've been accused of ad hominem attacks in this thread, and the second time it's been flatly wrong. An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it . I am not refuting your point, at all, and I have been careful to do so except to generally label some of your advice b…

Ignoring the rest of this (very, very sad) thread, this stuck out to me:

> I am telling you to shut up and stop giving advice on a case you're not personally familiar with. You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right?

Not everyone cares about creating legal liability for themselves if they believe they're doing the right thing. I've built my career (and life, for that matter) on wading neck-deep into the grey areas of the law where I firmly believed that my actions were positive. Whether or not he's creating liability for himself shouldn't be your concern.

Post reply on HN