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

Protect Kids, Get F*cked

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#21

Post by jlangr »

tptacek wrote: post #15
jlangr wrote: post #13

I suspect people who really want to "protect kids" find a way to do it that doesn't involve greed, lawyers, stupidity, and liberally cursing. Maybe there wouldn't be as much need to protect kids were there fewer people who talked about "getting f*cked" or screwed when talking about kids. Jerk.

As a parent of two middle schoolers, I am a lot less worried about adults using adult language to talk about business than I am about the people who can't tell the difference between that and actual threats to my children.

Whatever. Just another guy who thinks he's owed something because he did something that he thinks everyone should be gushing over.

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#22

Post by joewee »

tptacek wrote: post #19
jpatokal wrote: post #10

Let me just quote one bit of that: Our service was free as we were working out the business model. We actually had a genius business model but hadn’t implemented it yet. We wanted more users so we spent money on marketing. Maybe the real problem wasn't the insurance?

No, the real problem wasn't insurance; it was that a firm-seeming commitment to fund the company fell through at the worst possible moment. A lawsuit wouldn't have fixed anything for them; it'd have taken years to resolve.

They would have been in a much better position if they had actually turned on the revenue model before asking for money. Without that, the only metric they had to impress investors was user acquisition which was dropping.

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#23

Post by homosaur »

While you made a lot of mistakes here, it's also pretty frustrating that there's a good deal of VCs who are basically only looking for the next Twitter. Why would anyone think viral growth would be realistic for this product? How does one acquire that much capital while knowing so little about business?

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#24

Post by tptacek »

jlangr wrote: post #21
tptacek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent of two middle schoolers, I am a lot less worried about adults using adult language to talk about business than I am about the people who can't tell the difference between that and actual threats to my children.

Whatever. Just another guy who thinks he's owed something because he did something that he thinks everyone should be gushing over.

Yeah. Stupid guy talking about his stupid life experiences. He should grow up.

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#25

Post by tptacek »

joewee wrote: post #22
tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the real problem wasn't insurance; it was that a firm-seeming commitment to fund the company fell through at the worst possible moment. A lawsuit wouldn't have fixed anything for them; it'd have taken years to resolve.

They would have been in a much better position if they had actually turned on the revenue model before asking for money. Without that, the only metric they had to impress investors was user acquisition which was dropping.

Or he'd be in a much worse position, because his cost of customer acquisition was high and the money he'd earn from charging wouldn't come close to covering his operating expenses, and charging would slash his new user signups, which were probably the only realistic lead gen he had to work with. Which is, you know, the situation that gets most people to consider venture capital.

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#26

Post by coryl »

tptacek wrote: post #19
jpatokal wrote: post #10

Let me just quote one bit of that: Our service was free as we were working out the business model. We actually had a genius business model but hadn’t implemented it yet. We wanted more users so we spent money on marketing. Maybe the real problem wasn't the insurance?

No, the real problem wasn't insurance; it was that a firm-seeming commitment to fund the company fell through at the worst possible moment. A lawsuit wouldn't have fixed anything for them; it'd have taken years to resolve.

The real problem was they had no business model; spending money to get users when you don't even know what your return is? That's ludicrous. That's a core business issue from day one.

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#28

Post by tptacek »

coryl wrote: post #26
tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the real problem wasn't insurance; it was that a firm-seeming commitment to fund the company fell through at the worst possible moment. A lawsuit wouldn't have fixed anything for them; it'd have taken years to resolve.

The real problem was they had no business model; spending money to get users when you don't even know what your return is? That's ludicrous. That's a core business issue from day one.

That depends on what kind of business you want to start. I'm a fan of growing slow and not taking outside capital. It worked pretty well for me, and working with VC, not so much. But the fact that bootstrapping works for some products doesn't mean it works for all of them. In particular, a product with serious operating costs and high cost of user acquisition is hard to bootstrap.

It's one thing to sell products to, say, every freelance developer in the world. Freelance developers are (relatively speaking) wealthy and interested in products that improve their practices. Parents are not generally in an ambient state of seeking products to secure their kids Internet connections. That makes them hard to reach and sell to.

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#29

Post by stuffynoses »

We received email after email from parents thanking us for saving their children’s lives, literally.

Yes, please tell me more about all these children whose lives your service saved. Just like To Catch A Predator's ridiculous premise (that digusting, fat 50 year-old men who live in their parents' basement are hooking up with hot teenagers), yours reeks of trumping up a problem that only exists on the extreme fringe. Literally.

one of the partners installed our software. He tested it, he used it, it worked. He got it. He called us and said he wanted to invest as soon as possible.

Who is this investor? I want to know because anyone who would vote money on an anecdotal experience like this is an idiot.

Your story is interesting, but only when it sticks to the parts about you rushing into an investment without due consideration or self-protection.

If you wanted funding, you should've asked Congress for it. They love to exaggerate child sex exploitation as much as your service did.

Re: Protect Kids, Get F*cked

#30

Post by vacri »

jlangr wrote: post #13

I suspect people who really want to "protect kids" find a way to do it that doesn't involve greed, lawyers, stupidity, and liberally cursing. Maybe there wouldn't be as much need to protect kids were there fewer people who talked about "getting f*cked" or screwed when talking about kids. Jerk.

Such liberal cursing - saying 'fucked' once. To hell with your overbearing conformance, I say.
Post reply on HN