This is alarming, yes. You know what is more alarming? The fact that hardware and websites have conspired together along with brick~mortar retailers, and cell phones, to create an entire profile about everything I do.
Then at some point in the future someone can buy this information. Then some young HR person who has read too many pop psychology books will determine "You're not a good fit" or much, much worse.
The PR effort behind this app is amazing. I feel equally intimidated and flummoxed when I try to imagine how they achieved such marketing success. Why did anyone care about this particular app before it started the frenzy, and why does(did?) it continue to grow so much?
I wouldn't really say it's PR, it's more like it just went viral. As in, I wouldn't say the Bedroom Intruder guy or Charlie Bit My Finger had great PR. They just did something that touched a nerve and people pounced.
I find the reaction to this app idea a bit confusing and irritating. Clearly the community this app would attract would be toxic, that should be obvious to everyone at this point.
I would make sense to me if the conversation was around "Why build an app specifically to encourage the behaviour we already mostly wish didn't exist on the internet". The fact that people act this way, even with their real names attached on Facebook, makes a story. That someone is trying to focus that aspect of human behaviour and encourage it with an app makes a story. That it's a widely held opinion that this app would immediately become a toxic hellhole of garbage content and trolling makes a story.
Instead, people are pretending that this app adds something new. Twitter is already used, very frequently, to name and shame people or to rate them negatively in some way. And they don't get to "opt out" either. I can't opt out of some blog or Facebook post or mass email saying nasty things about me. There is literally nowhere on earth were this is the case. The concept of being able to opt out of anyone being allowed to mention you in a medium seems to have been invented for this story.
The same goes for the "how can we be sure a rating is justified or the rater even knows the ratee?" or any of the other concerns. They all boil down to "anything that lets you publish speech online allows you to libel/slander someone online". Everything I read about this insults my intelligence in a fairly novel way.
They really aren't doing themselves any favours here:
'Peeple co-founder Julia Cordray told the BBC: "With any new concept there is naturally fear.
"When the people found out that the Earth was round instead of flat and that we revolved around the Sun instead of the Sun revolving around us, naturally people were upset and confused and they pushed back with all that they had.'
Somehow I don't think that the heliocentric model is a useful comparison to make to your idea for a website...
I'm absolutely wary of any technology that's going to enable/encourage bullying or trolling. I think there's a fine line between censorship and ensuring a safe community (especially in the wake of the Oregon shooting and corresponding reddit thread), but I see this app leading to Bad Things happening.
That said, the thing I'd like to see the discourse focusing on is not necessarily an app that encourages bullying, but bullying itself. I think the intensity of the uproar this is causing is throwing up a huge red flag - people as really scared about bullying. I think we as a community/country/world should absolutely talk about Peeple, but in talking about the symptom, I hope we can also get to talking about the root cause and what we can do to treat it.
Bullying is something that people do because it's easy -- picking fights with people who can't fight back. So this maybe be a fine distinction, but I think that anything that enables or makes bullying easier is not just a symptom, but is contributing to the root cause. In any communication tool, certain kinds of interactions are easier than others and are thus encouraged. For instance, the fact that Facebook has like button but not a dislike button is a deliberate choice that affects how easy it is to express different sentiments on Facebook. I believe it's possible to design a communication tool that encourages positive interactions and discourages negative ones.
Other good examples: George Orwell's concept of Newspeak from 1984, a language literally incapable of expressing concepts like freedom or dissent against the government. For another example, consider Journey, a multiplayer video game where the only possible interactions between players are positive or helpful.
> Positive ratings post immediately; negative ratings are queued in a private inbox for 48 hours in case of disputes. If you haven’t registered for the site, and thus can’t contest those negative ratings, your profile only shows positive reviews.
This seems like this would strongly disincentive anyone from registering for the app in the first place.
I guess it will take about three seconds before someone realizes you can give a person five stars (making it a "positive review") and then write a horribly negative review about them.
This just sounds like a bad idea overall. Even if they resolve issue with negative reviews and bullying, why would we want to rate people? This is not rating their skill at something, or even their appearance, it is rating them as a person. That goes against everything that most people stand for.
Most of the time, we strive to live in a world where every person has value. Everyone is their own unique person, and we respect who they are. Although society often fails to live up to that ideal, I cannot fathom why someone would write an app to explicitly avoid it.
The date is wrong, though. It was more like 2007/08. They had strong PR going, from sheer outrage alone. There was a segment on Dr. Phil, where he proceeded (to his credit) to tear them a new one.
They were aiming to become the TMZ, for regular people. The site was real, it existed. I never found anyone I knew on there, but apparently they had real people (in addition to the number of obviously fake profiles to get people to stay and join). Not sure why it was shut down. They were running with a skeleton crew, so I doubt it was lack of funding. Most likely it was the backlash and the realization that it would cost a fortune in legal fees (defamation of character, anyone?)
1) Anonymous reviews of real people are unworkable, they descend instantly into the familiar internet culture hell of trolling and awfulness.
2) Nobody wants to write negative reviews of other people using their own real name.
3) Nobody needs a new destination to find faux-positive fluffy reviews of people by other people. To the extent there's demand for that, existing social media does it pretty well already.
Therefore, this will fail quickly and decisively if it launches at all, joining other similar efforts such as Secret and Ello that attempted to solve problems that didn't really exist in the first place with not very well thought out solutions.
The advantages this app will be bringing will be very less compared to the creepy features. I don't want to sound like a cliche, but there are no second chances once you are on there. People improve and change over time. But, once you have a history of everything for everyone to see, bad stuff comes back to haunt you.
Considering credit companies and advertisers have been sprinting along this path of rating human beings for a while now, maybe Peeple (if executed well) can provide a necessary counterweight?
[+] [-] thom|10 years ago|reply
http://m.snopes.com/2015/10/01/peeple/
[+] [-] adevine|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcunite|10 years ago|reply
Then at some point in the future someone can buy this information. Then some young HR person who has read too many pop psychology books will determine "You're not a good fit" or much, much worse.
[+] [-] raymondgh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adevine|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Torgo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freshhawk|10 years ago|reply
I would make sense to me if the conversation was around "Why build an app specifically to encourage the behaviour we already mostly wish didn't exist on the internet". The fact that people act this way, even with their real names attached on Facebook, makes a story. That someone is trying to focus that aspect of human behaviour and encourage it with an app makes a story. That it's a widely held opinion that this app would immediately become a toxic hellhole of garbage content and trolling makes a story.
Instead, people are pretending that this app adds something new. Twitter is already used, very frequently, to name and shame people or to rate them negatively in some way. And they don't get to "opt out" either. I can't opt out of some blog or Facebook post or mass email saying nasty things about me. There is literally nowhere on earth were this is the case. The concept of being able to opt out of anyone being allowed to mention you in a medium seems to have been invented for this story.
The same goes for the "how can we be sure a rating is justified or the rater even knows the ratee?" or any of the other concerns. They all boil down to "anything that lets you publish speech online allows you to libel/slander someone online". Everything I read about this insults my intelligence in a fairly novel way.
[+] [-] gilleain|10 years ago|reply
'Peeple co-founder Julia Cordray told the BBC: "With any new concept there is naturally fear. "When the people found out that the Earth was round instead of flat and that we revolved around the Sun instead of the Sun revolving around us, naturally people were upset and confused and they pushed back with all that they had.'
Somehow I don't think that the heliocentric model is a useful comparison to make to your idea for a website...
[+] [-] brighteyes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbshadel|10 years ago|reply
That said, the thing I'd like to see the discourse focusing on is not necessarily an app that encourages bullying, but bullying itself. I think the intensity of the uproar this is causing is throwing up a huge red flag - people as really scared about bullying. I think we as a community/country/world should absolutely talk about Peeple, but in talking about the symptom, I hope we can also get to talking about the root cause and what we can do to treat it.
[+] [-] rcthompson|10 years ago|reply
Other good examples: George Orwell's concept of Newspeak from 1984, a language literally incapable of expressing concepts like freedom or dissent against the government. For another example, consider Journey, a multiplayer video game where the only possible interactions between players are positive or helpful.
[+] [-] croddin|10 years ago|reply
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09...
> Positive ratings post immediately; negative ratings are queued in a private inbox for 48 hours in case of disputes. If you haven’t registered for the site, and thus can’t contest those negative ratings, your profile only shows positive reviews.
This seems like this would strongly disincentive anyone from registering for the app in the first place.
[+] [-] Kristine1975|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tclark225|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ColinWright|10 years ago|reply
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10319096
Snopes page: http://m.snopes.com/2015/10/01/peeple/
And of course, there's the problem of "Peeple the thing" versus "Peeple the app"
Submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10318966 (no comments)
Article: http://www.wired.com/2015/10/peeple-the-thing-versus-peeple-...
[+] [-] dingaling|10 years ago|reply
Archive suggests there was something parked there in December 2014
https://web.archive.org/web/20141217043318/http://forthepeep...
[+] [-] codingdave|10 years ago|reply
Most of the time, we strive to live in a world where every person has value. Everyone is their own unique person, and we respect who they are. Although society often fails to live up to that ideal, I cannot fathom why someone would write an app to explicitly avoid it.
[+] [-] tossitaway|10 years ago|reply
This idea already existed. http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Gossipreport.com
The date is wrong, though. It was more like 2007/08. They had strong PR going, from sheer outrage alone. There was a segment on Dr. Phil, where he proceeded (to his credit) to tear them a new one.
They were aiming to become the TMZ, for regular people. The site was real, it existed. I never found anyone I knew on there, but apparently they had real people (in addition to the number of obviously fake profiles to get people to stay and join). Not sure why it was shut down. They were running with a skeleton crew, so I doubt it was lack of funding. Most likely it was the backlash and the realization that it would cost a fortune in legal fees (defamation of character, anyone?)
[+] [-] CPLX|10 years ago|reply
2) Nobody wants to write negative reviews of other people using their own real name.
3) Nobody needs a new destination to find faux-positive fluffy reviews of people by other people. To the extent there's demand for that, existing social media does it pretty well already.
Therefore, this will fail quickly and decisively if it launches at all, joining other similar efforts such as Secret and Ello that attempted to solve problems that didn't really exist in the first place with not very well thought out solutions.
[+] [-] morgante|10 years ago|reply
They managed to upset thousands of people without even writing a tiny bit of code.
[+] [-] dizzyviolet|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brandall10|10 years ago|reply
With anonymous unsubstantiated claims, would such a service not disintegrate in a big class action ball of libel?
[+] [-] tsotha|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theshadowmonkey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamadam|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostmsu|10 years ago|reply