SEC Charges Mark Cuban With Insider Trading - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122693827604333637.html <comment><USER2> Cuban is 50? WTF dude looks like he is 35-40 tops.

Also look at how efficient our government is...you break a law and it takes them 4 years to investigate it

<comment><USER3> Where does it state they've been actively investigating this since the event occurred?

Do you think the SEC is like Yoda and feels a disturbance in the Force when someone engages in insider trading?

<comment><USER2> They probably flagged it during the quarter following the transaction. And if they haven't started actively investigating it right away, that seems even worse somehow

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't be surprised to hear a government agency is inefficient, but I hope idle speculation doesn't become a substitute for facts around here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't wait until they reveal their findings about Bear Stearn's insider trading. I heard it was going under one week before it happened; it was the worst kept secret on Wall Street.

<comment><USER5> "Worst kept secret" approximates "public information" at the limit.

<comment><USER4> I don't know. Does it? A relatively small number of people made a ton of money off of it while a relatively large number of people got burned.

<comment><USER5> I was assuming that your measure of badness was "the more people who know this secret, the worse kept it is". By that measure, the limit of a poorly kept secret is exactly public information.

I'm having a hard time coming up with any other continuous measure of "badness" of secret keeping.

<comment><USER4> Me too. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So now can we all agree to stop up voting his pseudo economic theories and investing advice?

The first rule of investing - don't get arrested.

<comment><USER7> Just because he might be guilty of possibly believing he was above the law, doesn't necessarily mean all of his ideas are untrue. It's possible he's just a hypocrite.

<comment><USER8> It's also possible that he's innocent.

<comment><USER9> My understanding of the SEC has evolved since I just finished the Snowball Warren Buffet book ([http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business- Life/...](http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business- Life/dp/0553805096)). There is a section that discusses his run in with the SEC and there is a behind the scenes discussion before charges are pressed (in WB's case, not pressed). I think Cuban has already had a chance to defend himself behind the scenes, and despite this the SEC is still deciding to prosecute. This has example written all over it.

Read the statement of facts in the PDF as well: (<http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf>). After reading it, chances seem slim that he's innocent.

<comment><USER10> Aside from the timing of the trade and the fact that the calls took place, everything in that report is based on the word of the CEO of Mamma.com. I honestly don't know if that matters, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv. But if it does matter, if the line between legal and illegal is whether the other party told you that you were receiving private information, then it's pretty shitty that you could be found guilty based only on that other party's say-so, don't you think?

<comment><USER9> I'd say the timing is a pretty strong indicator, although you're right, this isn't the same as proof.

"On June 29,2004, Cuban sold his remaining 590,000 Mamma.com shares during regular trading at an average cost per share of $13.2937.

On June 29,2004, at 6:00 p.m. after the markets had closed, Mamma.com publicly announced the PIPE offering."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Probably the least surprising news of the year, and I love Mark Cuban.

Techcrunch has some more information:

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/17/billionaire-mark- cuban-...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/17/billionaire-mark-cuban- slapped-with-insider-trading-charges-by-sec/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Full complaint: <http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting. I wonder if the key question will come down to how he came across the information. From what I understand, it can only be considered insider trading if it's based on non-public information. Perhaps Mark based his decision on something public that just hadn't really hit most people's radar yet?

Or perhaps he's 100% guilty and got caught red-handed.

<comment><USER3> The text of the complaint states:

"Despite agreeing in June 2004 to keep material, non-public information about an impending stock offering by Mamma.com Inc. confidential, Cuban sold his entire stake in the company - 600,000 shares - prior to the public announcement of the offering."

If that claim is true, he acted on non-public information.

<comment><USER11> I'm a financial trading luddite, so bear with me, but what happens when you _do_ come across some private information that leads you to believe your stock will tumble? Grit your teeth and wait for the knowledge to go public before selling?

<comment><USER12> I am a financial advisor, but I am not your financial advisor, and this is not financial advice and should not be construed as such.

The answer to your question is yes.

Longer answer: if you have material, non-public information (either first hand or through hearsay), you may not trade on it.

<comment><USER13> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this depends on what your relationship to the company is. If you overhear the CEO talking to someone then you can sell if the CEO is talking to you then you can't. (Then again if you overhear something then it's more likely for you to get away with it so YMMV.)

<comment><USER12> You're wrong. It doesn't matter how you hear it - or what your relationship is. If it's material and non-public, you can't trade on it.

There were people who were hanging out at financial printers to find out material, non-public information, which they would then trade on. There's no relationship whatsoever there, but it's insider trading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Cuban confuses me sometimes. 50% of the time, he claims that entrepreneurs should work hard, and he's ethical. The other 50% of the time, he's running around talking about how we should ban network neutrality because anyone who innovates on the Internet owes a fee to the guys who control the cables.

Uhh WTF Cuban? Pick one side of the fence and stay on it. Insider trading? I know you've got more productive things to do than save some money by cutting a few corners. Stop preaching about ethics and hard work if you're going to pull this crap.

<comment><USER15> Wait... you're saying... people can not be pure good _or_ pure evil?

<comment><USER14> More like outspoken hypocrites. But polarizing the debate works too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I would probably have more sympathy if he wasn't such a blowhard.

<comment><USER17> More sympathy for a guy who allegedly screwed the rest of the shareholders and broke the law?

<comment><USER4> Interesting quote from Cuban's blog a few years ago (also noted by TC):

 _"I had purchased stock in Mamma.com in hope that it could be an up and coming search engine. I thought I had done some level of due diligence. Talked to the company management. Talked to some employees who worked in sales. Read the SEC Filings. I knew that they had a checkered past and had been linked to stock promoter Irving Kott, and that their law firm still handled some of Kotts business, but the CEO, Chairman, lawyers all said that things were reformed and the company was focused on its business.

Then the company did a PIPE financing. Im [sic] not going to discuss the good or bad of PIPE financing other than to say that to me its a huge red flag and I dont [sic] want to own stock in companies that use this method of financing .

Why? Because I dont [sic] like the idea of selling in a private placement, stock for less than the market price, and then to make matters worse, pushing the price lower with the issuance of warrants.So I sold the stock."_

My take is that the company was about to do some bush league shit (which is what PIPE financings often are) and he didn't like it. Because he didn't like it, he sold his shares and wasn't very secret about it. Seems reasonable to me. Regardless, I'd like to read more facts.

Unfortunately, "law" isn't always about "right" or "wrong".

<comment><USER17> Of course he is allowed to sell the stocks if he wants to. But if he knew more than the other shareholders and sold because he knew the stock would plummet, it's neither lawful nor "right".

According to the article, he knew he was not allowed to sell his stake. Maybe he was upset and was not thinking straight, but if the events happened as depicted in the article, there is no other way to describe this than "wrong".

<comment><USER18> I have trouble seeing how insider trading is "wrong", myself. Somebody bought or sold stock who was going to buy/sell at that time anyway. How did the actions of the inside trader hurt them?

Life is full of insider advantages. People profit from personal connections and information all over the place. Why should we pretend the stock market is any different? Especially considering how flimsy the charade really is. "Insider trading" is truly rampant and enforcement is an arbitrary joke.

<comment><USER19> To me this is exactly the kind of thinking that lead to the financial crisis. People selling shonky investments to people who trusted in them and justifying it the same way that you are.

I believe that the fairer and more transparent systems are the most efficient. The 'no rules' system you describe would quickly degenerate into a scamfest with far less participants and far less liquidity. Better to actually enforce the rules that exist to reduce the 'rampancy' of insider trading in my opinion.

Oh and I don't think I'll be investing in your startup.

<comment><USER4> I don't think his startup is seeking investment ;p.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm very ignorant when it comes to things like this. So Mark invested in a company? He heard they were going to do a PIPE, he sold his shares, and the next day they fell 10%?

How did he break the law?

Def. Insider Trading: "Illegal trading by anyone considered an insider who has access to non-public information, and who attempts to profit from that knowledge."

I understand that sentence, it makes sense to me, but I don't see how this is unlawful? What if you're working for a company that you're also a shareholder of and you get the "feeling" that the company is going to tank, so you sell... Is that illegal? Or are these different things.

<comment><USER17> knowing for a fact that the stocks will fall is different from a vague feeling. There's nothing wrong if he had based his decision solely on publicly available information, but if he knew more than the next guy, he's got an unfair advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sounds pretty open and shut to me. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Given this happened 4 years ago, they probably spent a good amount of time investigating just how he found out.

There's a big difference in "was in a position to know" and "did/a reasonable person would have known".

</comment><comment><USER22> As soon as I saw the article on another website, I ran to Hacker News...just to read the comments.

</comment><comment><USER23> Damn, I posted in the wrong thread it seems.

Mamma.com is a company with too much money and no vision - at least that's how they were when someone I knew was dealing with them. I don't know how an "insider" manages to not sell his shares as soon as the opportunity arises.

</comment><comment><USER24> Just saw link at <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122693827604333637.html>

</comment><comment><USER25> If he is found guilty, and he probably is, lock him up for years. And fine him $1B. Also, I am tired of this guy's pontificating.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why the hell did he would invest in mamamamia is mind boggling.

</comment><comment><USER27> haha insider trading is like copying assignment answers in college...its not 5% of potential insiders who are doing it...its 5% potential insiders who AREN'T doing it.

its like driving in the carpool lane by yourself...now and then the cops throw a $500 fine at someone during rush hour to deter others from abusing the rules, but the reality is that the other 22 hours a day you can get away with it, and countless people do

<comment><USER12> Really? Do you have stats to back this up?

Cause I'll tell you that there's so much more money to be made in legal ways that the benefits of insider trading, coupled with the fact that the SEC loves to make examples of people, that insider trading is very rare nowadays. Everything is logged electronically.

(I'm sorry, but this is the sort of "the rich and powerful get away with murder" crap that makes me want to smack a bitch.)

<comment><USER4> They like to make examples of people, but they also settle a lot, don't have adequate resources and are undermanned. It's a constant cat & mouse game except the SEC is the mouse.

Sachin, you live in Chicago - venture over to the CBOT or talk to some of your friends that work there. While the OP's post is certainly an exaggeration, the rich & connected have access to privy information.

This:

[http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02...](http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02/good_news_our_s.html)

Is not a coincidence.

<comment><USER12> Dan, I agree - but to say that "everyone's doing it" is crazy. It's easier to trade on material, non-public information if you're exposed to it on a regular basis because your patterns aren't readily apparent.

That said, there are a lot of people who will trade on rumors that they consider "inside information" that things don't work out as well as you'd think they would. Look at the volatility in stocks right before earnings announcements. It's hysterical.

<comment><USER4> Agreed, which is why I said the original OP was almost certainly exaggerating.

You can long or short volatility :).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What does it mean to grow up? - <AUTHOR> http://peterdowns.com/posts/growing-up.html

<comment><USER2> My wife and I used to joke about this - we would ask each other "Are we grown- ups now?". Even after getting married, we didn't really feel grown-up. We are both grown-up now - this happened when my first child was born. This probably differs between cultures (I'm Scottish and my wife is English). I _definitely_ wasn't grown up at 19, and I was living in London holding down a full-time job in IT, and living in my own flat.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm 26 now, and one difference I find is that things in life aren't quite as exciting as they used to be. It's hard to explain, and maybe it's just me.</comment>


Source of the famous "Now you have two problems" quote (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247

<comment><USER2> Going out on a limb here but I believe the phrase "Now you have two problems" is just a simplified (and slightly abused) rehash of Buddhism's 84th problem parable.</comment>


Birth of a black hole or neutron star captured for first time - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190110184740.htm <comment><USER2> Interesting speculation.</comment>


40% off Pragmatic Programmers books and screencasts. - <AUTHOR> http://media.pragprog.com/newsletters/2009-11-18.html

<comment><USER2> Anyone have recommendations? The only thing I've ever bought from PragProg is Agile Web Development with Rails, which I can recommend.

<comment><USER3> Most of their language books are pretty good -- Programming Erlang and Programming Clojure are both worth reading, if you're interested in either language.

It's disappointing that they don't discount The Pragmatic Programmer, as that's a book I wholeheartedly recommend to every working developer. I think that's still owned by Addison Wesley.

<comment><USER4> Yeah sadly they don't have the publishing rights to that book. Actually I should reread my copy at some point, seems like every time through something new sticks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> does anyone know how these discounts affect author royalties? Do they get 40% less and do they have any say regarding their books going on sale?

<comment><USER5> Yes they get 40% less and no they don't have any say, that being said 40% off at pragprog is probably still more money to the authors then the 40% + cut that Amazon or other retailers take.</comment></comment>


Lies that Block Startup Success - <AUTHOR> http://copyhackers.com/2013/01/the-3-lies-that-block-startup-success/

<comment><USER2> Did that Mother-as-Martyr bit strike anyone else as strange? She treated it as a given, but call me old-fashioned, I think selflessness _is_ a desirable parental trait.</comment>


Softbank's Imminent Writedown: The Folly That Was Taking Saudi Money [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.tv/v/PNT2/2019/01/01/predictions-softbank-s-imminent-writedown <comment><USER2> This two minute video seems to say very little. That SoftBank is "investing for a future in about 300 years time when we'll all have chips in everyday objects like streetlights and refrigerators".

And that there's going to be a global economic slowdown in 2019, and this will be a problem for Softbanks vision fund valuation. Doesn't say anything about taking Saudi money being bad that I can tell...

Also, there are already many chips in streetlights and refrigerators... seems like a very basic error...

<comment><USER3> > The rest of the video says there is going to be a global economic slowdown > in 2019, and this will be a problem for Softbanks vision fund valuation. > Doesn't say anything about taking Saudi money being bad that I can tell...

You need to have a clickbaity headline! Add some Saudis, Russians, Chinese depending on what trends up now to generate more views.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is just rubbish. Firstly, my fridge has a chip in it today, so what the hell that's got to do with 300 years in the future I have no idea. Secondly, while individual valuations of companies may be higher than analysts thought that tells us nothing about whether the fund will face trouble. As for using leverage for the fund, whilst that is rare in VC funds, it's actually not that bad a move - as the video notes, the investors in the fund are people with investment horizons on the order of decades and deep pockets. This means they can weather a credit crunch or downturn much better than the average leveraged investor. Finally, the speculation on a slow down is just awful - yes! There could be a slow down, in fact over the life of a fund like this they're guaranteed to see a slow down at some point. That doesn't mean the fund is bad - all funds and companies will suffer in a slow down, but if you have a strong portfolio of companies heading into a slow down you're actually in a very good position to exploit weak competition and gain market dominance during the time other companies are struggling with layoffs and restructuring.

</comment><comment><USER5> The news I got out of the video was the debt-based structure of the fund and the effects of that on the fund with imminent writedowns.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nothing particularly about Saudi money, its more about consequences of cheap money on Softbank and by extension Silicon Valley "high valuation - no profit" jig being up by the double threat of high interest rates and low/no growth.

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3hA9cjBBwM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3hA9cjBBwM)</comment>


I Would Like You to Rate Fundamentally New Way to Create Podcasts. Only iOS - <AUTHOR> https://www.deelex.net/ <comment><USER2> So this is similar to a social network, but instead of text and pictures, people share audio clips? Thought you might like to know that I didn't install it just because I didn't quite understand what it was about.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes that's right! This is a social network, there are now empty something, because I'm a developer do not quite understand how to promote the application.</comment></comment>


Big Tech Company Salaries Are Hurting Startups - <AUTHOR> http://thestartupconference.com/2017/03/25/the-350k-google-salary-is-hurting-startups/ <comment><USER5> If you are a startup and are trying to compete head to head with Google / FB / Amazon / Apple / Microsoft for the same people, you are going to have a really hard time recruiting.

But there are plenty of great engineers that don't want to work at those companies for various reasons. There are plenty of great engineers that want to work remotely and don't have that option at the large companies. There are also plenty of inexperienced engineers with high potential that can't yet get hired at those companies and can be great additions to your startup. Do what you can to find and recruit those people.

<comment><USER6> Very true. For both of our companies [1][2] we pay a fair salary plus a quarterly bonus on top of that based on what we can give (based on the company's quarterly profit results). We also offer remote retreats (so far Cape Town, Thailand, Martinique, Spain and Skiing in the Alps) and the biggest contributor to everyone's satisfaction is that we let everyone work from where ever they want and as much as they want as long as it is planned properly.

The result: we've had a couple of employees who received job offers from companies like Apple, Google and Facebook. But after going to the interview process and talking to other employees there they've all (with the exception of one) decided to stay with us, with a significantly lower salary, but a lot more freedom and work-life balance.

Not saying that we've a better offer than Google & co, but saying that our offer is different than theirs and there are enough people out there who care more about other things than just money.

[1] [https://mobilejazz.com](https://mobilejazz.com)

[2] [https://bugfender.com](https://bugfender.com)

EDIT: formatting

<comment><USER7> I'm always curious about companies who talk about "caring about things other than just money". Maybe I'm missing somethings but if you are a for-profit company by definition you care about money, any claims other wise feel like marketing.

<comment><USER8> To me the big non monetary currency is time.

Average US commute time is about half an hour [1], add to that another 15 minutes on each side for context switching and "settling in" and it's an easy 10 hours a week at least you're saving.

Remote work isn't for every job or person, but the financial difference would need to be significant to drag me back into an office.

1 - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/25/how-m...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/25/how- much-of-your-life-youre-wasting-on-your-commute/)

<comment><USER9> Jesus...That certainly puts things into perspective.

10 hours a week is an extra book you can read or 5 movies to watch or just...10 hours to relax and work on your side projects.

520 hours per year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The way the article frames the $350k competitive salary as a "problem" for startups is backwards.

If you're a businessman, you build a business that works with the prevailing pricing that's out there. That includes prices for _everything_ such as raw materials, office rent, AWS/GCP cloud costs, government taxes & fees, and yes, high programmer salaries.

Complaining that your startup is "hurt" because AWS egress transfer fees are too high, or office sq footage $ is too high, or programmers cost $350k is counterproductive.

To think like a businessman, one has to turn that around: how do I build a _more valuable_ business that _can pay_ the high costs of the San Fran office and the $350k salary?

E.g., Jeff Bezos in 1994 isn't going to handicap himself because Microsoft was paying $100k salaries. Google in 1998 can't blame the difficult recruiting on Cisco and Sun Microsystems paying $100k salaries.

Either build up value in the business and/or include the high programmer salaries in the numbers when you ask VCs for money.

The other option, as other sibling comments noted, is to attract programmers who will work at a discount. Brian Acton & Jan Koum applied to Facebook and were rejected.[1] They are obviously not the worst programmers in the world and many of their caliber won't get $350k from Facebook/Google. See if you can hire overlooked programmers like them. Some will also work for a discount because they value the startup's equity or other intangibles. A startup entrepreneur has to hustle and make compelling propositions to these programmers.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#2009.E2.80.932014](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#2009.E2.80.932014)

<comment><USER11> That's a reasonable tactical perspective. For the individual entrepreneur, it's valid.

That doesn't mean that this article isn't a valid complaint from other perspectives. E.g., It's totally reasonable that CEOs and investors will grumble about this. I'm sure Bezos, Page, and Brin were grumbling at the costs back in the day.

But I think the interesting perspective here is at the ecosystem level. If startups have to spend a lot more, it changes what's possible. We'll have fewer startups. We'll have less interesting startups. The incentive to pretend to be a zillion dollar winner is higher. As is the incentive to pursue artificially amazing growth rates. And to lie, cheat, and steal your way to making good on your sky-high valuations.

Personally, I think the startup world was way more interesting 10-20 years ago. The pressure to be the next unicorn is so intense that I think we've lost a lot. There are a lot of factors here, but I strongly believe that much higher living and operating costs is one of them.

<comment><USER12> This is why I'm kinda getting on board Courtland Allen's belief in indie startups. They're a counter reaction to that unicorn obsession of the current startup world. And the developer and entrepreneurial ecosystem is now such that launching and running small, competent businesses with useful products/services is easier than ever.

In other words, yes, the ecosystem is starving out traditional startups. But it seems like it's making a breeding ground for indie startups. They don't suffer the cost of a $350k/yr salary, which gives them a nice advantage.

<comment><USER11> Definitely. A friend is bootstrapping a company that she just loves. It will never be a unicorn, but it doesn't have to be. They already have a bunch of wildly satisfied customers, good press, and excellent prospects for sustainable growth. This is probably the last year she'll have to consult on the side to pay the bills. And she's so happy with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sounds like the market is telling startups that early engineers are worth more than 0.1% of stock options.

<comment><USER14> I had more of a financial background before becoming a software engineer. I was shocked when I found out "equity" given to early engineers is so puny.

Why would someone work long hours for low pay with higher risk for 0.1% of high-risk small business?

<comment><USER15> From my own experience, it was naivety and manipulation.

I trusted the founder when he would make big promises for the future. He didn't bring up equity until the last moment once we already were ready to quit and join. In hindsight these are clearly common business tactics (get the person to accept before going into details), but as a young engineer I had more trust in older more experienced folks like the founder. Even when there were huge alarm bells ringing in my head, I said yes. It's hard to describe how a good salesman can have you saying yes to things you aren't comfortable with.

In the end the company crashed and burned after losing all it's founding team who all work at top companies now.

<comment><USER14> > It's hard to describe how a good salesman can have you saying yes to things > you aren't comfortable with.

I recommend a book that describes some of these tricks pretty well. It helps protect me from such manipulation (some of the time):

[https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion- Rober...](https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robert- Cialdini/dp/006124189X)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I work at a startup that isn't profitable yet so our salaries are very low...

\- Our typical junior makes $50 - <USER2>

\- A typical mid makes $65 - <USER3>

\- Seniors (including CTO) make $90 - <USER4>

In greater Boston.

It is VERY difficult to hire at those rates. We had someone come in interviewing for a senior that I would place as a mid (generously...) and he accepted another offer for $150k. At our scale he would be making $75k at MOST.

It takes us 6 months to find a single hire.

But I'm not bitter at Google. I think the market is valuing the workforce fairly. Which means...

\- We are probably priced out of the market

\- We should / do offer higher percentages equity

\- We need to hire the people who the Googles of the world won't hire and train and mentor them __

__That last one works really well. We hired a few people that couldn 't get jobs elsewhere that after two years with us left for a job that pays over twice more but they wouldn't have been able to land without our training and mentorship. We actually congratulate and celebrate those people even though we are VERY sad to see them go.

<comment><USER17> You'll get programmers from developing countries with a good 10 years on them for $70k if you can build a company around a completely async remote culture. And I'm not talking about fad-following framework-crazed devs, but rugged pros who'll cost a premium if they were in a developed country.

<comment><USER18> Hello,

this is not only true for developing countries but even for developed countries. I'll speak about my country, Greece. The average wage for a junior developer is a little less than 20 000 euros per month (around 1000 years/month x 14 months + 4000 for insurance etc) while for a senior may be a little more (but probably less than 30 000, depends on years and kind of work). Wages of more than 35 000 euros are seldom found for developers and are mainly reserved for management positions. The wages are more or less the same on most Southern Europe countries (Italy, Spain etc) and are definitely much less in less developed European Countries (Bulgaria, Hungary etc).

So, if you focus on developers from similar countries you can get top talent (and I mean that, there are many great developers here, most of these people are _better_ than the ones in Silicon Valley since they are working in _their own_ country which the jobs are not much instead of migrating to a different place to find a job) for less than 40 000 euros / year.

The only drawback would be that they'd want to work remotely (or else they'd have already migrated). So the best course of action is to create your company's culture to not only allow but to embrace remote work (i.e by trying to only hire remote people -- this'll also save you money). Also, another idea is that migrate the start up offices _instead_ of trying to convince developers to migrate!

Greece is a beautiful country after all :)

<comment><USER19> "most of these people are better than the ones in Silicon Valley since they are working in their own country which the jobs are not much instead of migrating to a different place to find a job"

These people are better than the ones in Silicon Valley because they refuse to emigrate? I don't follow your logic.

<comment><USER18> Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear (english is not my main language):

Here in Greece there are not too many jobs on local (Greek) companies because of the economical crisis and repression. Definitely there are more candidates than jobs. So most of these jobs would probably be given to the better / more experienced developers while, other, not so good developers will try to emigrate to other countries to find jobs.

Notice that there was no culture of emigrating here in Greece before the crisis, people seldom emigrated because the family ties are strong here and people are raised with a culture of loving their country and not wanting to leave it (and as I said in a previous comment Greece _is_ beautiful - you only want to leave it if you actually starve). This has changed due to crisis of course but I think that a good developer will definitely be able to find a job here in a local company and not need to emigrate.

<comment><USER19> I see. What you mean is that the average employed developer in Greece is better than the average Greek developer due to competition for jobs and culture of attachment to the homeland.

This may be true, but it has little relation to quality of the average developer in Silicon Valley.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Flip the argument the other way.

Startups want to underpay for talent. Google isn't overpaying... the big companies aren't overpaying, the startups are under paying.

Being a startup isn't an excuse, and you're asking people to take less pay to work at a place that has a decent chance (compared to established places) of going under. You're asking engineers to take on more risk for less pay.

If you aren't funded enough to pay your engineers what they deserve, you aren't funded enough to hire more... end of story.

</comment><comment><USER21> (Disclosure: I work at Google)

I describe the ability to hire as being a U-shaped curve: new grads (whether undergrad or grad school) or people that don't actually need to work anymore. Google's high pay actually means that for senior folks, they're getting closer to the right end of the curve! (But also, that they'd most likely be a founder unless they believe so strongly in your idea that they must see it happen).

As bla2 says below: the reality is that .1% is a pretty low equity offer, and while engineers aren't naturally greedy we can do math. A person just out of school might not care, but you shouldn't begrudge folks that say "Umm, the expected value of this offer is pretty bad compared to my current situation". You can offer them something else (work that matters!), but I feel like everyone knows that employee equity is still too skewed towards founders and investors.

</comment><comment><USER22> The biggest thing hurting startups is the fact that big companies provide health care. Having Businesses provide health care, IMHO, is the biggest issues facing job growth in the U.S.

Having been on the ground floor of 3 startups, the biggest issues wasn't salary it was health care, the only people that you can recruit are those young enough not to care, either because they are single or they don't have children. If you want to hire experienced employees the roadblock will be health care. I've lost more people than I can count due to health care issues.

Big businesses actually like to provide health care, they bitch and moan, but if they didn't want to provide it they would drop it. Big business controls the job market by providing health care, it limits employee's freedom to change jobs and start companies. Business provided health care also makes our products and services more expensive decreasing our ability to compete globally.

<comment><USER23> Which is part of a reasonable benefits package. So you're arguing that, in addition to underpaying base comp, they also want to bypass a competitive benefits package--but that may not be obvious to young people who don't think they need insurance.

<comment><USER15> I think the parent is trying to make the case that startups by nature can't provide competitive healthcare, which hurts the economy when small business can't attract top people.

It's much different than a 401k, free meals, foosball table, vacation policy, etc, in that once you experience a major health problem you are compromising your health or face prohibitive costs if you are on a mediocre healthcare plan.

<comment><USER23> They're trying to make that case. Healthcare plans (for the time being) are available outside of employers but are not inexpensive. If the company can't either provide a plan or pay employees enough to buy a plan on their own, they're simply providing inadequate compensation.

I've worked for smaller companies in the IT industry and salaries haven't been Google level but I've always had a decent benefits package, including healthcare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't think the average engineer with 5 years of experience makes 250k; not even in the top 10%. And startups DO pay that much, it's just reserved for powerful exec hires.

Just pay more if you want the best engineers. Asking for a world where top talent works for less money is stupid.

<comment><USER25> The average engineer at google with 5 years of experience makes at least 250K. To put it bluntly: I'm pretty sure the average _cash compensation_ (that is, disregarding RSUs entirely, which is likely at least another 100k/yr) is going to push 200K. The same is substantially true of the main competitors to Google (Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft).

<comment><USER26> Since the interviews at Google/Amazon/MS is famously hard they don't have the average developers (or shouldn't, then they have done a bad job with the recruitment). THEIR average is not the same as the average in the industry. I do think they are a bit closer to the average than they think but not very close to it.

<comment><USER27> I'd consider myself average at best and got job offers to two of those companies. I still work at one of them and have been promoted (so I can't be that terribly bad).

Honestly, reading cracking the coding interview and the algorithm design manual go a long way to summarizing relevant information you learn in college. Knowing how to write Python coupled with working through those books is probably enough to get hired like maybe 7/10 times. (I say 7 because a bad interviewer can sink your interview and there is nothing you can do about that).

My point being, is that the people that work at those companies are not dumb but that they are for normal people too. I wouldn't not apply just because you think everyone is somehow really smart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The "Google compensation package" (not Salary) is making it a realistic option for Google employees to buy homes in the Bay Area after a few years of work. (Unfortunately thereafter, the RSU pyramid makes it really hard to _leave_ Google, since you'd be giving up a virtual fortune, shimmering off in the distance like a mirage...)

Your startups... aren't doing any of that. Most of them pay shit-all for equity and salary, even for early engineers, even for senior-level employees. On top of that, most of them fail, leaving engineers with worthless stock and a hole in their bank account balances.

I'm sorry, this is a simple game of economics - if you want those engineers, you need to give them more in their package. Deal with it.

<comment><USER29> > Unfortunately thereafter, the RSU pyramid makes it really hard to leave > Google, since you'd be giving up a virtual fortune, shimmering off in the > distance like a mirage...

Never understood that argument, how is it different from your base salary, isn't it a similar mirage? Per year you get XX USD in RSUs vesting, you don't have to consider granted RSUs as being "yours".

<comment><USER28> > Never understood that argument, how is it different from your base salary, > isn't it a similar mirage? Per year you get XX USD in RSUs vesting, you > don't have to consider granted RSUs as being "yours".

If you can/do get an offer that replaces your outstanding RSUs and you're willing to move on, then none of this really matters - you are going to move on and the whole conversation is moot.

However, RSUs are typically based on looking back at previous work, not forward like a salary. If you did a ton of work at the beginning of your career and earned a huge stack of RSUs, you've sunk a cost... but one that is easily recoverable simply by waiting. Even if your output drops.

The biggest problem is that people are very often more productive and energetic in this field at the beginning of their careers, so much so that big companies don't even want to _touch_ older people - built-in Silicon Valley ageism. And that's its own whole can of worms...

So after a few years when their productivity begins to slide and their life priorities change, they get married and have kids and buy cars and homes and pay for private schools... and getting a new job becomes more difficult by virtue of ageism and the sheer volume of outstanding RSUs a company would have to offer you making you a very unattractive candidate, people find they literally cannot tolerate the risk of moving on.

I've heard stories of people willing to accept fates such as being "roofed" (see Hooli on Silicon Valley) for months at a time looking for a new position internally while learning to be a world class barista in the employee lounge, simply because by sitting on their ass and doing nothing, they can afford to buy a house next year, but they can't find a new job because nobody is willing to give them the half a million they feel is owned to them as what is essentially back pay. It becomes a working pension, albeit one where the end goal isn't funding retirement, it's the freedom to move on. This is so common a phenomenon it has a name: Golden Handcuffs.

So yeah, some percentage sunk cost, some percentage risk tolerance, some percentage boredom tolerance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This article is basically arguing that farm teams should be able to afford pro athletes... Having engineers who "perform in the top 10%" is a nice-to-have, not a requirement for startup success.

<comment><USER31> I agree but the problem is also the money. A lot of the VCs want to talk about how many ex GOOG and FB engineers who graduated from MIT that they have building their next unicorn. They don't have the same story talking about three state school graduates from Kansas who may be just as talented and have a better product. They also never want to fly to Kansas, like ever.

I've lived through this working at a startup in central PA. We were in discussions to be acquired by several of the top 10 west coast tech companies and having to have an office in PA and come here killed all but one deal. Some Director of X doesn't want to fly to Philly and take an hour train to visit the team. This is despite the fact that costs here are like 30% and there is plenty of reasonable talent.

<comment><USER32> Very few people fly to Kansas. There isn't really a major airport in the state.

<comment><USER33> Technically true, though everyone on this board thinks Kansas City is in Kansas...

<comment><USER32> Yeah they named the whole state after some other state's second-best city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I am naive... however, some opinions...

If the startup is truly revolutionary|innovative, shouldn't we see VC's pounding down the doors to give them money? If they have money, shouldn't they spend that on their personnel (assuming they are not manufacturing robots or something) if we are talking software?

Seems to me that startups want to have their cake and eat it too. If you have money to pay, then pay competitive wages. If you don't, offer equity. If you have something worth a shit, people will want to work for your startup.

The next facebook, unless it is the next facebook, isn't going to sell a lot of people. I look at the YC list of startups and shake my head... most of them don't make much sense. They might be winners, but I would ask for a large paycheck instead of equity for most of them.

<comment><USER35> No, VCs are fallible and don't always recognize opportunity. They may not trust that it can be delivered. They might be hedging their bets for whatever reason. Having a good product is no guarantee of significant funding.

Most startups, even potential game-changers, only have a limited amount of cash on hand and need to make it stretch as far as possible. You're thinking about the unicorn case which is so rare as to be a joke.

<comment><USER36> I also have a limited amount of cash, and thus I need to work where I can maximize my compensation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Then hire remote? Don't found in SV? This article makes it seem like startups want something valuable for a cheap price, which is unlikely.

</comment><comment><USER38> Well, Hacker News seems to be hurting this website, so here's Google's cached version: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RD5ZRW...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RD5ZRWKCqcAJ:thestartupconference.com/2017/03/25/the-350k-google- salary-is-hurting-startups/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

<comment><USER39> The definition if Irony!!! Google is hurting us, so use a system by Google to read how Google is bad for (some) business(-es) which you could not read if Google didn't exist, while at the same time this article wouldn't exist if Google didn't exist!

(and right about now I'm watching myself looking at me seeing me)

<comment><USER40> that isnt ironic

<comment><USER32> There are lots of Alanis Morissette fans on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm leaving Google this week to start my own company again. The prospect of eventually sitting on the other side of the table and competing with these big companies used to bother me but I've realized that the personalities I'm looking for don't flourish at Google, and vice versa.

Google engineers (those that stay past the first vesting event) tend to be very risk averse, even for engineers. I'm not talking about technical risk and skill but I mean career and life risk. There are relatively few motorcyclists and skydivers. On our last team Vegas trip I kept track of how much everyone was gambling as a proxy for their risk appetite and decided that Googlers like a sure thing, not a risky payout down the road.

My point is, you may want Google's talent bar (who doesn't?) but you aren't truly competing for the same people. Give me some smart pirates and a fast ship.

<comment><USER42> >On our last team Vegas trip I kept track of how much everyone was gambling as a proxy for their risk appetite

Yikes. Gambling is just a dumb idea in general (it is literally designed to make you lose money)... unless you are gambling with other's money. ;)

There is a diff between "With enough work, this risky thing could work out" and "With enough luck, this risky thing could work out if I stop while I am ahead"

<comment><USER43> > Yikes. Gambling is just a dumb idea in general

Or, a thrilling and potentially expensive form of entertainment. I don't feel it's dumb when I lose $200 at the blackjack table when I'm in Vegas for a bachelor party.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The other problem is that with so many startups nowadays, none of them offer a compelling enough vision or mission that would entice someone _away_ from the Google/Facebook/Microsoft's of the world. A lot of them are either still working on their product-market fit in a niche field or they are hire front- end devs for some CRUD analytics tools.

I'd much rather go work at a non-profit, NGO, or government-based organization where there's a better mission statement or something you're doing for moral reasons.

If you're a startup who can't hire but you're still doing whiteboarding problems to screen candidates, you're doing the equivalent of using vanity metrics.

<comment><USER45> > none of them offer a compelling enough vision

Bingo! You could get 0.1% equity and low pay to work on yet another food delivery or social photo chat app or you could work at M/G/F/A/A for $200k+RSUs and at least know you have competent co-workers and management.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Here are some options, but notice how controversial they are:

1\. Employ younger, inexperienced people and train them

2\. Import immigrant developers

3\. Hire people in different geographies

As an alternative, why not:

1\. Hire older workers

2\. Hire the unemployed American workers

3\. Hire in America?

Well, because it costs more? Does it?

I don't know, I am just trying to open up the conversation here.

Edit: made language more neutral

<comment><USER16> We have had high success with #1.

<comment><USER47> now are you referring to #1 (younger + training) or #1 (older)?

<comment><USER16> Younger + training.

We've tried the latter too but have not been even remotely as successful. The job requires some mental elasticity and they older developers we tried it with were a bit too set in their ways. It didn't make sense given the market since at least here older developers are pretty well employed so the salary is still high.

But I am more than willing to try it again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> In my view, this complaint is just one step above an acquaintance who claims to have an _amazing_ idea, and all you have to do as an engineer is make it into a reality and then we'll be super rich

Oh... but you can't really pay me that much (or at all), but once this idea comes to fruition, I'll be so glad I invested all my time and energy.

This is what I hear when a startup can't pay a competitive salary. If you can't offer to pay a competitive wage, you shouldn't be in the business (or you really _do_ have an amazing idea, and the engineers are willing to take that bet based on merit or based on trust the founder has previously established)

<comment><USER49> _In my view, this complaint is just one step above an acquaintance who claims to have an amazing idea, and all you have to do as an engineer is make it into a reality and then we 'll be super rich_

No, this view is _exactly_ the same as the folks that crawl out of the woodwork back in 2010 when they find out you write iOS apps: you build my idea, and we can split the profits. The fact that a startup throws some token amount of money at you doesn't change the formula.

Can't afford a million dollar CNC milling machine? Then you don't get to make widgets. Can't afford the going rate for a software developer? Then you don't get to make shitty throwaway apps for profit. The difference is that the milling machine vendors will tell you to pound sound when you whine that you can't afford it, whereas there's always a doey-eyed college grad ready to believe they're going to get rich writing the front-end for "Uber, only for cats".

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Solutions

1\. Hire candidates that these big companies overlook, or that aren't interested in experience-blind trivia style data structures & algorithms interviews

2\. Hire in locations where the cost of living is low

3\. Allow your engineers the freedom and flexibility to work remotely. A side effect of this is that it opens up your candidate pool outside of your geographic confines and allows you to accomplish #2

4\. Shorten your work week, or even remove the mandated work week altogether. To most this probably sounds blasphemous, but engineering is the type of work that doesn't have to be confined to a M-F 9-5 schedule.

5\. Increase equity (0.1% is an absolute joke for most startups)

Hiring remotely is the easiest way to compete with fat corporate compensation packages. I would gladly take a pay cut if it meant being able to forgo my $2k/month rent in NYC and digital nomad around Europe and Southeast Asia.

</comment><comment><USER51> Alternative hypothesis: these salaries are _helping_ startups.

It is fantastic that someone not born into wealth and connections can pay off their debt in record time, then save enough to cover financial security and take a few risks, such as quitting the well paying job to bootstrap a company before your twenties are over. And if the venture goes pear shaped, there are plenty of high paying jobs to catch up with the rat race.

I've heard of $170k starting salaries in the Valley last year, admittedly for the best students from MIT or Stanford. But on that money, or even half of it, you do not need to hot bunk to put a serious amount away, and give yourself the time to develop the product or convince a decent technical person to join you. And you won't be (as much) at the mercy of investors or clients.

</comment><comment><USER52> Man, every startup at SXSW was bitching about this.

I think it's an easy fix...

1) Startups need to pay more than they want to. If you want a talented engineer, they aren't free. I see a lot of startups offering WAY low salaries and then getting frustrated they can't find devs... it's basic supply and demand. Budget accordingly and stop making business plans that involve finding devs for lower-than-market-rates.

2) Hire more junior people, build a process to mentor them. Recognize that they will leave after a year or two...

3) Hire freelancers to augment where needed.

4) Hire remote workers who live in cheaper locations -- realistically these days the only hard part about managing a distributed team is when they are in dramatically different time zones.

5) Work smart... a stitch in time saves nine, measure twice cut once... hire good product managers, UX designers, and QA people to help keep your project momentum going. Devs building prototypes that you just want to changeup as soon as it's launched... those are the most expensive wireframes you'll ever build... you're not only saddled with the dev cost, but tech debt to make changes. Prototype to keep costs down.

6) Cut other costs... Get rid of your office, for starters.

<comment><USER53> > ...realistically these days the only hard part about managing a distributed > team is when they are in dramatically different time zones

Well, there are cultural issues. You _need_ to write things down more to work remotely effectively and lots of people don't like to read or write.

<comment><USER52> Think about every issue in your current backlog. What's the real reason it's in there, and not in the done pile? I'd willing to bet the root issue is lack of documented scope leading to a lack of ability to estimate which leads to a lack of ability to prioritize... Writing and reading are important; I wouldn't let people get away with half-baking requirements even if I worked right alongside them... always be kind to your future self and document.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> First off don't bother trying to outbid google/facebook/amazon. Instead look to the good engineers that they can't hire. Large companies can afford to put a large list of requirements down and throw out anyone who doesn't check all the boxes. Zero in on a frivolous requirement that the bigco's commonly use to reject good candidates and target those engineers.

Secondly the real elephant in the room is equity. The path between early employee in successful startup and payday is narrower than ever and filled gotchas. There is a reason we tell startup employees to treat equity as worthless.

Bluntly it's a 'tragedy of the commons' type problem. Individually each startup will have large incentives to keep all the dollars at the top while constantly delaying any possible payday for early employees. Collectively trust in equity grants has collapsed to zero. It doesn't matter if _you_ individually are a good startup, because an engineer isn't going to gamble away a 300k salary on the off chance that this time it is different.

You also can't simply solve this problem by saying: "engineers should have known X about Equity". No thanks, instead I'll take the cushy big-co job with benefits, reasonable schedule, and _cash on the barrel today_. Sounds easier than trusting that I've found all the ways I could get screwed by professional business people who do this every day.

</comment><comment><USER55> One of the reasons Google and other top companies pay so many engineers high salaries is to prevent said engineers working on startups. Other comments mention that PhDs are doing trivial and insignificant work at Google -- why? Because Google doesn't want them working on new startups.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm old enough to remember when the big 5 colluded to keep salaries low...

<comment><USER57> Which is funny, because reading the comments seems to be suggesting they're colluding to keep salaries high in order to squash startups!

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I hate posts of this nature. There are no hard facts; it's a collection of thoughts communicated as 'facts' via a blog post.

Plenty of Google engineers become start-up co/founders. If you are good at what you do, the start-ups will magically find money for you.

If the a start-up is an equity-heavy sweatshop. You don't have to make $200K to know who is taking advantage of you.

</comment><comment><USER59> Maybe starting a company in an area consumed by rampant cost-of-living and salary inflation isn't the smartest idea.

Besides, your Uber for Cats startup probably doesn't need GoogSoftppleBookazon-grade engineers to slam together a mobile app and some CRUD services.

</comment><comment><USER60> One of my friends was rejected while interviewing for some SV startups. But was not rejected by Google. Now he works in Google. Startups should re-think how they're interviewing people. Seems like they suffer more from broken interview process, not Google salaries.

<comment><USER61> But when everyone on HN is constantly complaining about how the Google interview is ridiculous and shouldn't be emulated by startups, this sounds like a perfectly acceptable outcome. Skills needed for successful startup engineering vs Google engineering are not the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Why doesn't the article explore starting up in different geographies?

Also, the most interesting questions are:

* How much of the pool are employed by those companies?

* How does the largest segment of employers pay? What percentage of top talent do they employee.

I'd bet there is a larger percentage of top talent at top talent at other companies. Many, many people don't want to work at mega companies. Also, many, many people, particularly the best, are motivated, like startups, by challenge themselves, working on something important to them using tools they enjoy, people they enjoy working with and most importantly external factors and how work relates to their own life.

<comment><USER36> "Why doesn't the article explore starting up in different geographies?"

Honestly, because most VCs are insanely lazy, and have no interest in traveling anywhere outside the Bay Area to do stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Optimizing for compensation is a silly idea at an engineer's salary.

I am a whole lot happier in a small company that pays me a reasonable salary and is fun than a huge company where I have to play politics and jump through hoops on command.

EDIT: Plus I get a lot more responsibility and exposure to everything involved so that I am better equipped to strike out on my own.

<comment><USER63> It's not silly for everyone. You can retire _way_ quicker on $300-400k than you can with $120-160k. Not everyone wants to work an extra 10-30 years.

<comment><USER64> Especially when a lot of people worry about being employable as an older developer. Makes sense to make enough money to be independent earlier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Startups should be paying _more_ than established companies. The odds of success are low, the hours are worse, the benefits are worse, and the odds that the job will disappear within two or three years are high. Seldom is the equity worth much unless you're in the first few employees.

</comment><comment><USER66> It's actually like the golden age of Wall Street. The companies here are collecting the smartest people in the world to improve their Ad click rate and camera filter.

The talent also believe they are making the world better place but the truth is just few people care about the REAL problem in the REAL wold.

</comment><comment><USER67> The article assumes that most of the engineers at that experience level are hired by Gooogle/Facebook etc, but it is simply not the case. The acceptance rates are quite low and there are plenty of 5-10 year experienced engineers who would be willing to work for startups at $130k.

</comment><comment><USER68> As long as startups refuse to hire unless they find a young white/asian guy who's good on the spot/whiteboard with trivia questions you'll have a hard time hiring---google or not.

I've twenty years experience and couldn't get hired last year, so gave up and joined a freelancer site. Getting lots of work now, no questions asked, and guess what? Five star reviews, and work from home. I'm not interested in games and prefer to get work done.

<comment><USER69> nice!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Every founding team wants the _best_ engineers to build their CRUD app.

Maybe top talent is a requirement for some startups, but most won't make it or break because they've got the very best engineers. Or even the next tier down. Or even one tier below.

The vast majority of startups need a few engineers (usually only one) who have been around the block and know what pitfalls to avoid. The bulk of the team should be mid or junior level to do the grunt work.

</comment><comment><USER71> It's about location. Google salaries in Boulder, CO are not that high.

<comment><USER72> What are Google salaries in Colorado like?

<comment><USER73> Lower than in Bay/NYC, but still good, partially offset by the lower state tax rate, and (signing) RSUs aren't any lower than in the Bay, which means that take home pay for someone in Colorado after rent can be higher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Absolutely 100% spot on. We don't even interview Googlers anymore for this very reason. They literally think a "pay cut" means 300k+.

<comment><USER75> Is this slave mentality or what?

If I make 350k+, and a startup is telling me I should take their 150k base + worthless options deal, or else I've "pigeonholed myself in the current role" (actual quote), I think they're just being stupid and unrealistic.

<comment><USER76> Are these the same bullshitters that one finds in the "recruiter" population?

"Slave mentality" is a term I often use as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Don't start companies in places where the prevailing rates are in the 6 figures unless you have the cash to afford it.

The idea that software engineering is a "talent" strikes me as wrong. Knowledge of algorithms and data structure is attainable by anyone willing to put in the time to read a book. Hire people, incentivise them to learn what's important to the success of your company. Pay them to practice their new skills. Being congenitally "smart" is not the only path to being useful and innovative in a company. Being curious, willing to learn, and having a company that knows how to steer its workforce is.

<comment><USER78> > Knowledge of algorithms and data structure is attainable by anyone willing > to put in the time to read a book

Cognitive limits _do_ exist. Hardwired g-factor correlates like working memory will ultimately limit any one individual's capacity for understanding the above.

I do agree with your larger point, though. SF/NYC/Boston are not the only places one can find high-IQ individuals motivated to learn and build things.

<comment><USER77> I'm not so sure one needs to be high-IQ to be proficient. Outside of pure CS research, there's nothing in practical software engineering that requires much more than average to slightly above average intelligence to comprehend. the main thing you need is a person that is genuinely curious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> There are a million different factors where startups are at a disadvantage to big tech companies. That's the whole point of a startup. Of course you can't compete on salaries. But if you're smart you'll find that startups have many advantages in recruiting that the big companies don't. Namely self determination and recognition - the two most coveted workplace qualities of any good hacker.

</comment><comment><USER80> Wow we are really getting underpaid here in Europe (Amsterdam). Max salaries for Seniors is really around 70k per year. Without an extra bonus.

<comment><USER76> Same here in Berlin, I got an offer with 75k p.a. as Sr. DS.

I mean one could cite the living costs, but then one also has to compare the different taxation / social welfare models. $350k+/year sounds huge, I would actually switch to Google for that amount (ofc. knowing what a senior/lead role encompasses).

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> I ma co-founder of London based startup and salary was one of the reasons I decided to build dev team in Poland. East Europe is great resource for smart software engineers asking for 50% of what we would have to pay in London (and London is still 50% behind SF). I am surprised why so little startups are looking for remote employees.

</comment><comment><USER82> Speaking of big tech company salaries, here's a very fresh data point: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13985376](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13985376)

Sorry for the shameless plug, feel free to downvote if not appropriate!

</comment><comment><USER83> The idea that VC-funded startups should pay the same cash salaries as big companies is a sign of hot markets. It happened in 1999 as well. In reality, startups should pay less because they give equity, allow more freedom and creation, and have less stupid corporate rules. It's not for everyone, but that's the tradeoff.

Generally when you're borrowing from VCs who expect a 30-50% return on their equity, it's a bad idea to pay too much cash. (It's like paying salaries on a credit card - the lender may be willing, but they still want to get paid back) When it does become equal, it's a sign of froth. To get the benefits of a startup without any downside runs up against, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

<comment><USER36> Why should VCs get a 30-50% return on what they put in, but engineers don't get a 30-50% return on the salary they sacrificed to actually do the damn work of the startup?

<comment><USER84> Because we live in a capitalistic society where supply/demand ultimately controls price, not what's fair.

I.e. On average, engineers get paid what they do because if they demand any more, another peer of equal caliber, on average, will take their job. VC's get paid, on average, what they do because no other VC will do it for less.

<comment><USER36> So basically a bunch of classist bullshit.

<comment><USER84> Whether or not that's true, you have little to no power to change it.

Unless you have some genuine superhuman value for justice , you'll be better off spending your energy learning how to work within the system versus being angry/complaining about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Isn't that kind of the goal?

They get the talent that could build great companies on their own, and if that talent is interested in the same areas they are, they lower the risk that talent will end up building successfully competition.

If the markets are worth winning, the difference of a $50K * team size doesn't really matter in the big picture.

At the same time, by driving up the ante, if an area they're not paying attention to does get traction, to get to a successful exit there's a higher likelihood that the startups will need VC capital only the likes of Google Ventures and similar corporate venturing funds can provide.

Seems like a solid strategy to me.

</comment><comment><USER86> I see a problem where companies are looking for the magic wand of the "hero engineer". For example, a manager at a small company asks me if I can refer someone with the following qualifications: excellent technical proficiency in many areas, front end and back end, great communicator, great leader, has a design vision, experienced in obscure areas.. etc.

Come on! Even the people I know who meet these qualifications are often not all they are cracked up to be. What happened to training people? What happened to looking for role players. In my career I have seen good teams accomplish great things with no geniuses.

</comment><comment><USER87> My solution: business and executives in Bay Area, engineering in Poland.

Syncing: I have to wake very early every day, but it's a small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things. "Remote, office not required" book have a case study of 37signals with two founders in Europe in USA. European moves his day forward, USA wakes up very early, at least 4 hours of overlap a day is enough.

Relocation: If you open European subsidiary, you can long term relocate people to USA on L1 if necessary.

How to find good people: It helped that I studied in Warsaw before relocating to Bay Area and I know some good people who stayed in Poland due to personal reasons.

</comment><comment><USER88> Seems that startups are paying above average if you check some stats:

[https://jobsquery.it/stats/data.projectIndustry/startup](https://jobsquery.it/stats/data.projectIndustry/startup)

</comment><comment><USER80> What is the net income over a 150k salary in San Fransisco?

<comment><USER89> In California/SF the net take-home is about 8k/month on that salary. Average 1 bedroom rent is about $3000. Knock down another ~1000 per month for average things like a car, parking, phone, internet etc and your spendable take home is about half the actual paycheck.

Congrats, you're really making $50k a year!

<comment><USER90> You mean, you're _saving_ $50k/year, minus what you spend on fun. And yeah, congrats! That's quite a bit better than most people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> I like the to see startups be pressured into offering higher compensation. Startups take advantage of engineers by over promising and under delivering.

</comment><comment><USER92> Traditionally, startups had the advantage of compensating with equity/options that in time would be worth a lot of money. But ever since the laws passed after the dot-com bust equity is mostly worthless unless you're one of the founders or investors. That IMHO is the real problem here, not the big company salaries.

</comment><comment><USER93> If startups want to compete effectively for talent with big companies, they need to communicate more effectively about the value of their equity (and in many cases, give more).

I built a site that helps startups do this: [http://www.optionvalue.io/](http://www.optionvalue.io/)

</comment><comment><USER94> These moments feel like validation for sticking to our guns and not relocating to the valley. From what I hear from our coastal investors, hiring engineers is a major major problem in their portfolio and it's only getting worse. Frankly, we don't struggle to hire engineers.

</comment><comment><USER95> Are we supposed to cry for the capitalists now?

That's your free market. Enjoy the ride.

<comment><USER96> Haven't you heard? There's a shortage of STEM workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> Another problem is the cost of housing. Even if you want to join a startup in the Bay Area, it's hard enough to pay the rent/mortgage on a big tech salary, let alone a startup salary.

</comment><comment><USER98> So Startups need to pay more? Either in cash or equity?

I don't see the problem.

</comment><comment><USER99> Oh boo hoo. Companies pay these kind of salaries because they can extract significantly more value from the work than what they are paying.

</comment><comment><USER100> There's no way six digit salaries are going to be sustainable in the near future. This kind of money is possible because of low interest capital going around but when the rates inevitably rise and capital dries up, it's going to be hard for companies to pay someone $350,000 USD /year doing the work someone in Vancouver, BC can do for $100,000 CAD /year.

I recall during the dot com bubble people justified a six digit figure for knowing HTML.

</comment><comment><USER101> Give employees more ownership faster of the company. A billion dollars is a lot and enough to spread around

</comment><comment><USER102> On the other hand it means that anyone with that salary can easily (no sacrifices of any kind) take a salary of $0 for two years, for equity alone, if the right idea and team comes along.

So here's a question: does that happen?

For a hint as to the answer, consider the existence of the word xoogler.

<comment><USER53> That's called being a partner, right?

<comment><USER102> Yes, cofounder. (That is exactly what my comment was about - sorry I wasn't clearer.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Maybe startups, instead of going for the lavish offices, should put more of that VC money into salaries and health benefits. Or try to offer a better work/life balance. This entitled idea that startup founders have that they can pay shit wages and work people to death needs to go.</comment>


Why I'm sitting at home crying on a Saturday afternoon - <AUTHOR> http://violetblue.tumblr.com/post/130440543695/why-im-sitting-at-home-crying-on-a-saturday <comment><USER2> That was weird.

I stopped using Facebook a few years ago (don't remember when), because something trivial about the site annoyed me (don't remember what).

The author seems to have written many accounts of what a terrible company Facebook is, how LGBT people are treated appallingly by them, how they're starting in on refugees and how they're ruining privacy for everyone. And then jumped through every possible hoop in order to _keep using their website_!

Is she just confused about how boycotts work?

<comment><USER3> > _And then jumped through every possible hoop in order to keep using their > website!_

I don't think you read the entire article. Her goal at this point is to delete her account[1], which she cannot do until she regains control of the account. She's at a stalemate right now.

[1] _" But now I just want out. I want my account deleted. I want the bullshit, inaccurate pages Facebook creates about me without my consent gone, too, but that's just a bitter little joke for the ages, isn't it? Facebook is just going to do whatever the fuck it wants to me. And to you."_

<comment><USER2> I did read the whole thing. Her goal _now_ is to get the account deleted. She was trying to keep using the site before they asked for an official ID.

"Facebook is just going to do whatever the fuck it wants to me. And to you."

Perhaps, I don't know what Facebook is doing to me. I didn't delete my account, I just stopped using it. It fact, I still get emails from them that are redirected to a 'facebook' folder that I haven't checked in a while.

I'll check now. Hmm 1,558 unread messages...ok...

Oh well, if it was important, they would have phoned or emailed or something :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> She's hardly the model of anti censorship:

 _In July 2008, Blue sought restraining orders against online critics David Burch (aka Ben Burch) and Nina Alter to prohibit them from e-mailing her, editing her Wikipedia page, or writing unkindly about her online._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Blue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Blue)

<comment><USER5> That's pretty shitty but how does it relate?

<comment><USER4> Part of the article was railing against Facebook for censorship.

<comment><USER6> A government or private company censors, private individuals libel and slander (in this example).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "This is reality. This is not theory. This is not assertions on Hacker News about how you must have something to hide if you want to keep something private. This is not about a man in a position of power and influence, who has industry privilege and respect for his wealth and status, at Google or Facebook saying that anonymity, or multiple online identities, demotes a 'lack of credibility'. We don't care of you believe we're credible, we just don't want your willful ignorance to ruin our lives or get us killed. This isn't about telling us that someone must have been targeting LGBT people that one time – because, wouldn't you know, you seem to have a new reason every year. This isn't about how many people were in your company's Pride contingent, and it damn well isn't about jerking around a group of drag queens – who cope with the suffering done by outing every day, and for fuck's sake we've buried too many people we love – for one of your little press appeasement moments. This isn't about YOUR beliefs, or what you think is best for us. This is about you making us live in fear. This is about the fact that you have had a chance to make it right repeatedly, and when faced with one kid saying no please don't publish my birth name – you looked away, again. [https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=1020470...](https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=10204701697172621) "

I normally avoid tumblr like the plague, but I chose to read this post. I encourage anyone who reads this to view the full post to get complete context.

I thought it was raising some good points about Facebook's poor UX for account recovery.. until I got to this paragraph. I feel that while there may be many valid points to this article it is shrouded in certain biases and stigmas that dilute the overall positive message it was trying to make in the first place.

<comment><USER8> That link is strange. Person is using Facebook. They then voluntarily send Facebook their _birth certificate_ and are bewildered and upset that Facebook used that info and corrected (read: edited) their profile? I really dislike Facebook but come on, you signed up for this. If you don't like Facebook's policies (and you shouldn't), then don't use it. What gives anyone the right to use someone else's service, then dictate how that service should work?

And even supposing we create some new privacy law, how would that even work? The right to identify with any name? That can't be signed away at all?

<comment><USER9> The birth certificate was not the only form of ID that person sent. Facebook outed the past name of a transgender person -- that's never ok, and it's a problem taken very seriously in the transgender community.

And yes, if you want, you could say that, well, trans people just shouldn't use Facebook, but given the position Facebook occupies in our society in practice, that's quite a statement.

Just as important, in cases like this, the damage has already been done -- potentially quite serious -- be the time the user might choose to abandon Facebook over the problem.

Forcing trans people to provide a bunch of ID to use the site, outing them to the world, and then saying whoops, sorry, but you can quit the site if you don't like it -- that's not ok.

And your basic attitude seems to be that trans people's own fault for being different from most people, so of course they should expect to see problems or to just stay off of common services if they don't like those problems. This attitude is part of the problem -- basic human empathy seems like it would require a more considerate attitude than that.

<comment><USER10> > Facebook outed the past name of a transgender person -- that's never ok, and > it's a problem taken very seriously in the transgender community.

Why is that not okay?

I mean, if people want to change their names for whatever reason then that's fine, but that doesn't mean that everybody is obliged to pretend that your old name never existed.

If I were Hitler, living under an assumed name in Argentina, and somebody outed me as actually being Hitler, would that be okay? (Pick a non-Hitler but still criminal example if you prefer.)

<comment><USER5> Did GP really have to say "the past name of a non-criminal transgender person" to carry their point?

This is a company we're talking about. And the person in question doesn't seem to be a criminal. The name certainly wasn't outed because that person was a criminal.

I'm shocked by the atrocious quality of the comments in this thread. There's plenty to say about real name policies, yet all that people are coming up with are ridiculous strawmen. Disturbing.

Edit: Scratch that last paragraph, I didn't realize most of the nasty comments in the thread are in fact coming from _you_. You seem like a very unpleasant person to deal with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I respect her (disclaimer: I know her IRL from conferences and stuff) for not doing the "hey, I know a Facebook employee" solution; that is almost always my first response to problems with services, but doesn't scale, and doesn't help the actually vulnerable people who don't know people.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm sorry she had a bad experience (and if the situation was triggered by something she posted that's horrible), but from a security point of view, if the automatic security questions can't be answered and you can't provide an "official government ID", the only way that you should be able to get access back to your account is "from a favor from someone on the inside that knows that you are you".

If there's any way that she can just say she's herself and skip the security procedures on a regular basis, then they aren't security and anyone else can just do the same thing to skip the procedures, so they might as well not even have them.

<comment><USER12> She's not saying that Facebook shouldn't have security procedures. She's saying that Facebook's security procedures aren't designed properly and that they don't work for her. Plenty of identity providers (she cites Apple's policies in particular) have more reasonable ways of recovering your account.

<comment><USER13> She's saying they're not secure, but quite the opposite is true: they're _too_ secure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm sorry to hear you don't agree with the Facbeook's policies. I agree with most of what you wrote, including the right to privacy. The Facebook is an advertising channel, and they make money by targeting ads. So, it's not surprising they want to know more about you. Solution: Don't use the Facebook.

<comment><USER13> It hasn't been called "The Facebook" in ten years.

<comment><USER15> No. It still is. Just look at the comment you responded to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've no idea why she's put up with FB for long. I've none of the issues she has with Facebook, I just hate it on privacy reasons. So... I don't use it.

But if she's gotta use it just submit fake ID. Scan your license or passport, and edit information. This works fine and there is nothing wrong with it.

Complaining about their security policies... Eh I'm gonna guess that FB engineers probably want to protect user accounts as that's in their interest. It doesn't help them to lock users out for no reason. FB is a private company, and, as much as I dislike them, they can do whatever they want, including requiring ID to login.

Though, I'd imagine you could file a lawsuit to force them to delete your info, if they refuse to do so without ID. But that'd probably leak your ID in the process.

<comment><USER13> > FB is a private company

Facebook is a public company. I'm surprised anyone reading HN would have missed their rather high profile IPO.

<comment><USER16> public means government owned

<comment><USER17> Sorry, this is incorrect. There are several very similar sounding terms here, which do not mean the same thing.

A "public company" or "publicly traded company" is a company traded on the stock exchange.

A "state company", or "publicly owned company", or "public sector company" is a company owned by a government and not traded at all.

The terms here are a regrettable accident of history, which often confuses people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Whether you sympathize with her plight or think she's ridiculous, one important issue remains for all Facebook users. Even if you quit using Facebook, there's no assurance that Facebook will stop collecting data on you, and there's no assurance that Facebook will purge data pertaining to you from their database and website. In fact, it appears that your absence does nothing to curtail their data collection, nor their fictional representation of you. That is extremely problematic. Ideally ending one's account would end the data collection and the data profile. Failing that, at a minimum, one's personal data should no longer be displayed. Unfortunately Facebook's "security" policy seems indifferent to the real-life well-being and personal security of their current and former users.

<comment><USER19> Having a profile you can "claim" is a feature, just look at IMDB actor profiles if you want a more understandable example that's not reliant on Facebook's creepy surveillance. It's not creepy to Facebook that they gather the info ergo they see no reason to not create the absentee profile since to them the profile is "look we've already done all this work for you" type bait for the few remaining internet users not on Facebook.

<comment><USER18> The entirety of your assertion is specious, but there's little value in debating it. The simple fact is that when a user closes their account, they should, at a minimum, be offered the ability to hide their profile from display. Ideally, they would be offered the ability to delete the entirety of their profile data. Facebook, as a company, is effectively stalking every man, woman, and child on the face of this planet. That is not a feature, no matter how much twisted double-speak you employ to justify their actions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm sitting on my couch shaking my head because I fell for the bait and wasted five minutes of my life reading a few paragraphs of attention seeking nonsense.

Know what would help this person with whatever problem that they are having? Getting to the point.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I don't get why Facebook doesn't do account recovery via email. The photo ID your friends thing is ducking annoying; I have a hard time passing it.

I have the 2SV thing set on my account, so haven't seen the ID challenge in a long time.

<comment><USER8> Doesn't FB see itself against email and would prefer to be the replacement? FB doesn't even allow reporting security issues without signing up. I found a rather strong phishing attempt going on and had no way to report it. Oh well.

They might also have data that shows people often get email compromised at the same time. Or that picking out faces works better (faster recovery?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> friends and i have successfully evaded facebook's idiotic (read: trans- exclusionary) "real" name policy by photoshopping the text of legal documents on a few occasions. a laborious option! but worth considering.

<comment><USER22> In my most recent review of random ID-generating tools (all I wanted were plausible and random names and details), I found that many will now "generate" documents -- state drivers licenses, passports, etc. -- which could presumably be submitted.

Mind: that likely puts you solidly into fraud category.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I understand this is far from the point of this piece but interesting bit anyway I think.. I don't agree with some of what she says (I've gone through this account recovery process without issue since it's been in place for quite a while--I deleted my account 2 or 3 years ago).

Twitter I expect to be a place where I am following strangers. Facebook on the other hand.. I am very much surprised to see that she could not identify people that she has 'friended' (the 'all black people look alike' Facebook bug aside). Why click 'friend' if you don't actually know the person?

Again, I understand that is not the whole point of the article but it is worth mentioning that Facebook has been pulling this stuff for years and for her to get ticked off about this stuff _now_ seems a bit ridiculous.

<comment><USER24> _Why click 'friend' if you don't actually know the person?_

Perhaps someone is a relative in another country? Someone who you've never seen in person, or maybe you met for a few minutes, 30 years ago.

That's the situation with me. I created a Facebook account years ago but never used it. I recently logged in again to contact a particular individual. I had 13 friend requests pending. Which I accepted, even though I didn't "know" the people.

Those people were my cousins in another country, and their spouses, and their children, etc. Other members of my extended family interact with them, even though I don't.

So should I refuse their friend requests? No. Facebook is for more than friends that you can identify. It's a way to keep in (loose?) contact with distant relatives.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why people "friend" people they don't "actually know". The real world isn't as simple as you suggest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Why doesn't Facebook use the social graph to verify identity? Have the user contact their Facebook friends and let those friends vouch for them. Weighing friends by length of friendship, frequency of interaction, etc. so that you cannot verify your account using sockpuppets.

<comment><USER7> What would be the implications of such a system when accounts are compromised (as they so frequently are)?

<comment><USER25> You mean all of your friends' accounts and yours being compromised at the same time?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I thought the obvious problems with forcing the issue with real names online was well known at this point, and that pseudonymous participation was generally accepted.

Is this really an accurate interpretation of FB policy?

</comment><comment><USER16> > Facebook's account security is apparently based on its users knowing what > every one of of its friends looks like (do you?) …

Well yeah. You're supposed to be able to recognise your friends in that test if it's really your account. I don't see what is the problem? I've passed these tests several time, you are presented with 6 different pictures for each friend (so it's hard to fail) and you can re-pass the test several times with different friends if you fail the first times.

I stopped reading after that. Why would I read about someone ranting about her fake facebook account being locked?

<comment><USER17> It works well for the way a lot of people use facebook, and very poorly for the way some people use facebook. There's a baked in assumption that you only "friend" people who you can identify from their photos.

(This one isn't a fake account, it's a "professional" account, so she's "friends" with a lot of people that she only emails for work purposes and has never met)

For a hilarious example of how this can fail, a guy I used to work with has a facebook account for his pet bird. It is friends with the pet birds of lots of other people. I was present on the occasion when he forgot the password to this account, and spent quite some time trying to guess the names of birds from their photos.

Facebook has a fallback authentication mechanism of showing them some government-issued ID (which could have worked for Violet Blue, and not for my colleague's bird).

<comment><USER27> > This one isn't a fake account, it's a "professional" account, so she's > "friends" with a lot of people that she only emails for work purposes and > has never met

In fairness, I don't think this is a model that Facebook can easily cater to, given that the express purpose of their site is to map relationships between groups of people what know each other in real life, and to use that information to show them ads. Not saying that I approve of that, but it'll be pretty hard for them to differentiate between a fake account trying to scam people, and this person who can't identify her Facebook friends.

LinkedIn, or better still, actual email would be far more appropriate for such work related purposes and also not fall into the "real name" crap policy.

<comment><USER5> > In fairness, I don't think this is a model that Facebook can easily cater to

It's not a model they're asked to _cater to_ , it's a model they _break_ with a poorly-thought-out verification mechanism.

It's NOT ABSURD to be friends with people whose face you don't know. And I know a _lot_ of people with HUNDREDS if not thousands of friends on facebook, most whose names they certainly do not remember.

<comment><USER16> Seems completely absurd to me. You are supposed to know what your friends look like (aren't they called friends?)

<comment><USER28> There's _friends_ , and there's "Facebook friends". In reality people have thousands of different relations between people, and nuances to those relationships. Facebook has two-you're either "Friends", or "not Friends". Needless to say, this is a tremendously leaky abstraction. Thus, don't assume that because two people are Facebook friends, that their relationship in any way resemble friendship.

<comment><USER16> you're playing on words. If you add someone on facebook, it's because you know them.

<comment><USER28> > you're playing on words

The words we use to describe our relationships are important, and the fact that Facebook flattens them all down to two is a significant issue. Especially when we have people who don't understand that, and seem confused why people are "Facebook friends", but not _actually_ friends.

> it's because you know them

Sure, but that doesn't mean I know what they look like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> When the crying person gets this all resolved, perhaps the crying person will want to consider alternatives to Facebook, such as diaspora*.

<comment><USER22> "The alternative" is almost certain not to be _an_ alternative Web-based service, but a set of protocols allowing for interactions between independent and independently hosted systems.

Diaspora was a valient effort, but sadly, appears quite doomed (I was an early fan and user).

<comment><USER30> From everything I've seen/read during the security research phase for my project, trusting in the computational/security integrity of endless P2P nodes is not a road I want to go down.

There really is nothing _a priori_ wrong with the centralized system, PROVIDED said system/operator makes strong Privacy / Data Sovereignity guarantees from the word go.

<comment><USER22> Fair point. It's not necesarily the case that you'd see extensively P2P nodes. But again, a distributed _protocol_ based system would allow for local supernodes, competently administered, to exist.

There's also the issue that client nodes, under _any_ model, _also_ require security updates and practices. The universal P2P model really isn't far from that, and certain auto-updating models seem arguably preferable to present offerings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's sad :(

Mirimir might like a Facebook account, but then he doesn't have a phone or government ID. So he's just shit outta luck. He could maybe get some usable fake ID. But Facebook isn't so easy to trick with online mobile numbers.

But then, who needs Facebook?

Edit: I'm agreeing with the author that Facebook can't be trusted to keep disclosed information private. My point here is that the only reliable strategy is to avoid providing true identity. And Facebook makes that virtually impossible.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'd like to see a wiki documenting the harm that comes from Facebook, sort of like how [https://reddit.com/r/gunsarecool](https://reddit.com/r/gunsarecool) documents mass shootings.

Violet Blue is lucky because she has a platform and her problems will get notice. Everyone else just deals with their life quietly, and we the public don't get a good grasp of the problem.

<comment><USER10> > Everyone else just deals with their life quietly

And it works out great for most of us.

Want to deal with facebook? Use facebook. Don't want to deal with facebook? Don't use facebook. Not that tricky.

<comment><USER8> Nah, it's beneficial for people to publicly complain about things like this. So long the claims are true or reasonable it's good to pressure companies into changing bad policies.

Only thing I'd question is that she's had to "bury" a lot of people due to FB and that there's such a dangerous threat to her safety from this. It could be true (especially in years past or in shitty countries) just seems extraordinary and should have citations. I'd be surprised if FB tricked users into revealing personal information, got them killed, and wasn't sued like crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Fuck facebook. If you do not agree with the platform................................

</comment><comment><USER34> > facebook's account security is apparently based on its users knowing what > every one of of its friends looks like (do you?)

This isn't central to the post or anything, but uh, is this really that uncommon...?

<comment><USER35> People accept friends requests on Facebook and social media sites from people they don't know all the time. Some seem to treat it like a game - how many friends they can collect. Others because of peer pressure or not wanting to miss out on work related opportunities and a whole host of other reasons.

Social media relationships are _not_ equivalent as your offline friends, relatives and acquaintances.

<comment><USER34> Thanks for being mature enough to actually answer my question, as opposed to those who just downvoted.

I can honestly say I wasn't aware of that mode of usage. It seems alittle counterproductive, though I suppose you can always depend on Facebooks feed ranking to not show you posts from all the randos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Well, in this case, Facebook indirectly gave Violet Blue a lot of new media exposure? I had no clue to her existence until now.

I don't like Facebook, but in this case, I'm glad FB didn't cave in and give Violet Blue her account back--just because 'She has a friend at FB'. I don't like inside special favors.

<comment><USER9> 1\. Violet Blue has been a reasonably widely published journalist for many years now. Her bylines include CNet and the SF Chronicle, and she's written or edited a couple of dozen books. She writes both about sexuality and technology, and sometimes about the ways in which they overlap.

2\. Your reading comprehension has failed you. Several different people at Facebook offered to do her inside special favors and she chose to decline that because she doesn't like that kind of thing either.</comment></comment>