Commenters seem to be missing the point of this. Go visit the signup page, and right at the bottom you'll see this tagline:
If you can spare $50 for a social network I'm guessing you can spare $50 to help put an end to slavery. Yeah, it's 2012 and it's still a pretty big problem. That shit is unacceptable. Really. </whiteguilt>
Personally, I'm not the fan of the "don't spend money on anything until the world's problems have been cured" style of thinking, but it's certainly a novel idea.
Now all they have to do is fix the title of the signup page. Right now it says Signup For App.net.
EDIT: Interestingly, the domain name of freetheslaves.net belongs to "Superhuman Ventures, LLC." I don't know enough about how people taking donations work, but I find it pretty strange that Free The Slaves have a long list of directors and staff (https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=285) but no mention of what their corporate structure is. Is this unusual? Should they explicitly be a charitable organisation?
Their board and staff consist of 27 people, including all directors. The breakdown of their expenditures structure is on the right sidebar of the donation page:
5% Fundraising
11% Administration
84% Programs and Services
At the bottom of the same sidebar are links to their past financial documents, up to 2010 ( http://www.freetheslaves.net/Document.Doc?id=251 ). In that are their compensations per-employee on page 7 and 8. Of the 12 employees listed, no one received compensation of more than $36,000, and the total compensation for all of them was less than $80,000. Most received zero compensation. The average hours each work per week are also listed, so one can take an educated guess about the corporate structure.
Their total revenue (~$2.9 mil) and expenditure (~$3.1 mil) are listed on page 12. For that year, they operated at a ~$200k loss, leaving them with ~$1.1 mil in assets at the end of the fiscal year. More itemized details are available within.
I think it's good to be skeptical of charitable organizations given the corruption that has been exposed in some non profits. As to why 2010 is the last available? The 2011 returns were due in April 2012. Perhaps they're waiting on approval from the IRS before publishing it. Someone else could chime in here with a better reason.
As for the "don't spend money on <x> until <y> is resolved" mentality...I see it all the time:
"It's such a shame that people spend money on Instagram/Facebook/Twitter when space travel/clean energy/cancer research/etc is such a greater cause..."
The communist anti-capitalism rhetoric of the mid 1900s was similar: comparing the luxuries of the rich against the suffering of the lowest common denominator. Perhaps there was a similar pitch on the capitalist side against communism--I just don't see it.
I think the beauty of this organization (and most non-profits) is that it's based on voluntary participation. They're not forcing anyone to donate. Their emotional manipulation is on par with the typical commercial for weight loss, beer, cologne, anti-depressant medication, etc...and in my opinion, their cause is more noble.
> Commenters seem to be missing the point of this.
A plug for a charity that's three clicks in, and occupies, what, 5% of the copy written for this site, can hardly be considered the main point of the site.
The site is a parody of App.net. Simple as that. He also offers an alternative thing to throw $50 at if you have a spare $50 to throw around.
> Commenters seem to be missing the point of this.
Probably because it's the most poorly presented social statement... ever. Requiring users to go as far as to try and sign up (with no indication it's anything other than a developers idea of a dumb joke) is... silly.
And 50 dollars to save the rain forest. 50 dollars for starving children.
50 dollars for social problems, like states that still have death penalty. 50 dollars to allow people to get education and make the world better.
Oh, if everyone who has 50 dollars spare would spend them, we could transform the world into a global utopia by just using what we have and waste anyway. You know what? It could even be done for free if everyone would spend a little of time and his/her skills. Like really, we could just fix problems by moving things around. Best example: Current (as inefficient as it is) food production could RIGHT NOW feed everyone on this planet THRICE(!) (says the WHO, not some random person). It just needs to get there, which also isn't a huge deal if we simply would use the infrastructure we have RIGHT NOW. I don't know, maybe we could even do it without much effort if we would just take use of what's wasted here anyways (because nobody invests into people using that infrastructure, because of the financial crisis that (in a way) forces people to do nothing).
So, if it is that simple, why don't we and change things to finally be able to do something we all want and can be really proud of?
Maybe I am a dumb idiot, but I honestly don't know.
What about getting together and just try to do it? Anything we've got to lose? I mean most people here I guess know to value the experience you get from failing.
Honest question - what does modern slavery have to do with white guilt? According to the wiki entry on modern slavery "Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations."
ihave50dollars.com is a spoof of join.app.net (duplicate layout of main page, text changed), which is a no-ad paid-membership version of Twitter, which apparently got VC funding to some people's amazement. An attempt to sign up takes you to an "end slavery" charity.
Yeah, sounds stupid to spell it out like this. Not everyone knows what app.net is, nor what its backstory is (I still don't). Ergo the spoof garners a well-deserved WTF.
WHY someone felt compelled to create the spoof is still a mystery to some of us.
I think the spoof was created was because (a) app.net has no value proposition other than wanting $50, and (b) that there were over 100K people out there who put in money regardless.
(No value proposition is more accurately no value proposition for the site by itself. It does have a value proposition if it does billions of users like twitter, but that there is no realistic way of getting there.)
I'm going to be the first developer to build an app on the ihave50dollars API. It's going to be a dating app, because what chick wants to hook up with a guy who doesn't even have $50?
And they will never get past that. I wouldn't mind it being stuck in stage one though. All the App.net spam has seriously degraded the HN quality overnight.
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
When one of those things occur in isolation, that doesn't automatically mean you're fighting for truth.
For example, app.net was never in the being ignored phase, it's got plenty of hype and it doesn't even exist yet.
Also, there's plenty of things that get mocked and nothing more. Sometimes laughter results from fear, sometimes it just results from genuinely finding something hilarious.
But thanks for comparing app.net with Gandhi, that just made it funnier :P
Alright, I read the damned post and I still have no idea what it's about. Is it supposed to be satire, or some other wink and nod approach to...something?
Either I'm just not all that bright, or they took a swing and missed on their message.
I am not really interested in all the twitter/app.net hoo-haa but I find it intriguing that we are at a stage that one guy develops a product and charges $50 for it. And the rest of the world mocks him for not making it free.
People are not mocking app.net for not being free. They are mocking it for being a generally silly idea borne of nerd-rage against 'the man' err... Twitter... wait, what?
Where Dalton is going I don't know (and I feel he's generally a pompous ass when he speaks/writes) but... I think app.net is a matter of OWNERSHIP. Ownership of your data and ownership of the company.
Companies are beholden to those who pay. If it's the users who pay, the power is with them. I like that idea. If it's the advertisers, they don't need to care as much about the user, see FB and Twitter.
Stuff DOESN'T have to be free. I pay for many things, and in general the things I pay for are better than things which are free.
I have no problems with the $50 or the request for it. Those who do should buy GIMP, while I use Photoshop.
If that's the cost of friendship, consider it paid.
All joking aside, I agree with the message. I almost signed up for app.net today, but didn't (after finally noticing the charge aspect (not gonna lie, didn't really look into it)) because it is NOT going to overthrow anything, let alone Twitter.
The warm sentiments of no ads is nice, but end-users don't give a shit. $50 is MONEY, free--adversely--isn't.
I'll be happy if people can prosper from app.net, but I don't see much happening there that didn't happen at google+.
I would never pay for something like that, I barely see a use for ad-supported social networks, but those that pay will feel a psychological pressure to make use of their investment, it will also create a feeling of privilege; whereas something like Google+ is seen as free, open and less valued, and therefore needs to vie for the attention.
Now, putting the joke aside, let's be real. Whilst the majority of you aren't willing to spend $50 (Including myself), the fact is, some people already have and they have managed to raise a lot of money.
I suppose it doesn't matter what product you have as long as you know how to market it and most importantly, solve a problem.
Whilst App.net may be ideal for developers because it considers their requirements, I highly doubt whether main stream users care the problems that App.net is trying to solve. None of my friends would pay for a social network, and neither would I. Why? Because I can use my phone and there's plenty of other free alternatives.
Either way, I wish App.net all the best but I rather keep my $50.
If you can't tell that a site called iHave50dollars.com is a joke... there is a good chance you are confused about a lot of things. It might be time to questions your assumptions about life.
Voluntary charity can of course be a noble and merciful thing.
That said, strike at the fucking root people.[1] The problem isn't slavery. Slavery is a symptom of the problem. The problem is bad economies, which come from bad government. If you're not working on trying to find ways to encourage good government you're a hobbyists, not professionals, and you should take claims like "Our goal: to end slavery in our lifetime."[2] off your website.
If you are interested in improving bad governments then for God's sake don't listen to intellectuals. Read the people who've actually done it.[3] It's not as good as a controlled experiment, but it's way better than pure talk.
[1] I'm actually not sure about 1st world countries like the U.K. There might not actually be a root to strike at there.
[+] [-] mootothemax|13 years ago|reply
If you can spare $50 for a social network I'm guessing you can spare $50 to help put an end to slavery. Yeah, it's 2012 and it's still a pretty big problem. That shit is unacceptable. Really. </whiteguilt>
Personally, I'm not the fan of the "don't spend money on anything until the world's problems have been cured" style of thinking, but it's certainly a novel idea.
Now all they have to do is fix the title of the signup page. Right now it says Signup For App.net.
EDIT: Interestingly, the domain name of freetheslaves.net belongs to "Superhuman Ventures, LLC." I don't know enough about how people taking donations work, but I find it pretty strange that Free The Slaves have a long list of directors and staff (https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=285) but no mention of what their corporate structure is. Is this unusual? Should they explicitly be a charitable organisation?
[+] [-] eric-hu|13 years ago|reply
5% Fundraising
11% Administration
84% Programs and Services
At the bottom of the same sidebar are links to their past financial documents, up to 2010 ( http://www.freetheslaves.net/Document.Doc?id=251 ). In that are their compensations per-employee on page 7 and 8. Of the 12 employees listed, no one received compensation of more than $36,000, and the total compensation for all of them was less than $80,000. Most received zero compensation. The average hours each work per week are also listed, so one can take an educated guess about the corporate structure.
Their total revenue (~$2.9 mil) and expenditure (~$3.1 mil) are listed on page 12. For that year, they operated at a ~$200k loss, leaving them with ~$1.1 mil in assets at the end of the fiscal year. More itemized details are available within.
I think it's good to be skeptical of charitable organizations given the corruption that has been exposed in some non profits. As to why 2010 is the last available? The 2011 returns were due in April 2012. Perhaps they're waiting on approval from the IRS before publishing it. Someone else could chime in here with a better reason.
As for the "don't spend money on <x> until <y> is resolved" mentality...I see it all the time:
"It's such a shame that people spend money on Instagram/Facebook/Twitter when space travel/clean energy/cancer research/etc is such a greater cause..."
The communist anti-capitalism rhetoric of the mid 1900s was similar: comparing the luxuries of the rich against the suffering of the lowest common denominator. Perhaps there was a similar pitch on the capitalist side against communism--I just don't see it.
I think the beauty of this organization (and most non-profits) is that it's based on voluntary participation. They're not forcing anyone to donate. Their emotional manipulation is on par with the typical commercial for weight loss, beer, cologne, anti-depressant medication, etc...and in my opinion, their cause is more noble.
[+] [-] mkopinsky|13 years ago|reply
A plug for a charity that's three clicks in, and occupies, what, 5% of the copy written for this site, can hardly be considered the main point of the site.
The site is a parody of App.net. Simple as that. He also offers an alternative thing to throw $50 at if you have a spare $50 to throw around.
[+] [-] psc|13 years ago|reply
I'm not sure why the LLC owns the site though.
[+] [-] citricsquid|13 years ago|reply
Probably because it's the most poorly presented social statement... ever. Requiring users to go as far as to try and sign up (with no indication it's anything other than a developers idea of a dumb joke) is... silly.
[+] [-] tete|13 years ago|reply
50 dollars for social problems, like states that still have death penalty. 50 dollars to allow people to get education and make the world better.
Oh, if everyone who has 50 dollars spare would spend them, we could transform the world into a global utopia by just using what we have and waste anyway. You know what? It could even be done for free if everyone would spend a little of time and his/her skills. Like really, we could just fix problems by moving things around. Best example: Current (as inefficient as it is) food production could RIGHT NOW feed everyone on this planet THRICE(!) (says the WHO, not some random person). It just needs to get there, which also isn't a huge deal if we simply would use the infrastructure we have RIGHT NOW. I don't know, maybe we could even do it without much effort if we would just take use of what's wasted here anyways (because nobody invests into people using that infrastructure, because of the financial crisis that (in a way) forces people to do nothing).
So, if it is that simple, why don't we and change things to finally be able to do something we all want and can be really proud of?
Maybe I am a dumb idiot, but I honestly don't know.
What about getting together and just try to do it? Anything we've got to lose? I mean most people here I guess know to value the experience you get from failing.
[+] [-] guscost|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rythie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meej|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ronbo|13 years ago|reply
I was thinking it should have been called 'i had fifty dollars, but i gave it to these people'
[+] [-] anewguy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctdonath|13 years ago|reply
Good night that was painful.
ihave50dollars.com is a spoof of join.app.net (duplicate layout of main page, text changed), which is a no-ad paid-membership version of Twitter, which apparently got VC funding to some people's amazement. An attempt to sign up takes you to an "end slavery" charity.
Yeah, sounds stupid to spell it out like this. Not everyone knows what app.net is, nor what its backstory is (I still don't). Ergo the spoof garners a well-deserved WTF.
WHY someone felt compelled to create the spoof is still a mystery to some of us.
[+] [-] vineet|13 years ago|reply
(No value proposition is more accurately no value proposition for the site by itself. It does have a value proposition if it does billions of users like twitter, but that there is no realistic way of getting there.)
[+] [-] zem|13 years ago|reply
someone was simultaneously bored and disdainful of app.net.
[+] [-] moron|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gexla|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gexla|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefantalpalaru|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianwillis|13 years ago|reply
It would appear that App.net is now at stage two.
[+] [-] Kiro|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zem|13 years ago|reply
-- Carl Sagan, "Broca's Brain"
[+] [-] neutronicus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guscost|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingisfun|13 years ago|reply
For example, app.net was never in the being ignored phase, it's got plenty of hype and it doesn't even exist yet.
Also, there's plenty of things that get mocked and nothing more. Sometimes laughter results from fear, sometimes it just results from genuinely finding something hilarious.
But thanks for comparing app.net with Gandhi, that just made it funnier :P
[+] [-] scoith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redthrowaway|13 years ago|reply
Either I'm just not all that bright, or they took a swing and missed on their message.
[+] [-] unimpressive|13 years ago|reply
It's making fun of the idea of paying $50 to sign up for a years membership to this service.
[+] [-] Munksgaard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ballooney|13 years ago|reply
Edit 30s later: Oh it's a spoof. My faith in humanity restored.
[+] [-] neebz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sofuture|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Baba_Chaghaloo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notlisted|13 years ago|reply
Companies are beholden to those who pay. If it's the users who pay, the power is with them. I like that idea. If it's the advertisers, they don't need to care as much about the user, see FB and Twitter.
Stuff DOESN'T have to be free. I pay for many things, and in general the things I pay for are better than things which are free.
I have no problems with the $50 or the request for it. Those who do should buy GIMP, while I use Photoshop.
[+] [-] 4ngle|13 years ago|reply
All joking aside, I agree with the message. I almost signed up for app.net today, but didn't (after finally noticing the charge aspect (not gonna lie, didn't really look into it)) because it is NOT going to overthrow anything, let alone Twitter.
The warm sentiments of no ads is nice, but end-users don't give a shit. $50 is MONEY, free--adversely--isn't.
I'll be happy if people can prosper from app.net, but I don't see much happening there that didn't happen at google+.
[+] [-] malsme|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rulero|13 years ago|reply
Now, putting the joke aside, let's be real. Whilst the majority of you aren't willing to spend $50 (Including myself), the fact is, some people already have and they have managed to raise a lot of money.
I suppose it doesn't matter what product you have as long as you know how to market it and most importantly, solve a problem.
Whilst App.net may be ideal for developers because it considers their requirements, I highly doubt whether main stream users care the problems that App.net is trying to solve. None of my friends would pay for a social network, and neither would I. Why? Because I can use my phone and there's plenty of other free alternatives.
Either way, I wish App.net all the best but I rather keep my $50.
[+] [-] tudorizer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rrbrambley|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevencorona|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnruss|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amalag|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seagreen|13 years ago|reply
That said, strike at the fucking root people.[1] The problem isn't slavery. Slavery is a symptom of the problem. The problem is bad economies, which come from bad government. If you're not working on trying to find ways to encourage good government you're a hobbyists, not professionals, and you should take claims like "Our goal: to end slavery in our lifetime."[2] off your website.
If you are interested in improving bad governments then for God's sake don't listen to intellectuals. Read the people who've actually done it.[3] It's not as good as a controlled experiment, but it's way better than pure talk.
[1] I'm actually not sure about 1st world countries like the U.K. There might not actually be a root to strike at there.
[2] https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=285
[3] http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-development-policies-and-tre...
[+] [-] rickdale|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] facorreia|13 years ago|reply
Buying the membership doesn't prove you HAVE 50 dollars, it proves you HAD it.
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
I spend too much time on HN.
[+] [-] georgespencer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzaman|13 years ago|reply