Assume for a moment I'm a bad-faith, nosy employer who reads HN on a Saturday morning.
All it takes for me to match up my little stack of current employee's resumes is a person's city of residence, skills, and employment dates. If I'm that kind of employer, that's enough to raise my red flags. If prior employers are named outright, that's a 100% ID. If employment dates are paired with employment location, that's a 100% ID.
I've known employers like this. I've worked for employers like this. Employers are already monitoring social media. Third party services are paid by employers to monitor for staff that might be looking at other jobs. Recruiters make it their mission to know who's looking and what employers are likely to need their services in the near future. This is much of why trust and discretion is the most important asset on both sides of hiring related activities.
Triplebyte burning down their reputation as a recruitment avenue is one thing. Locking job searchers into reputation and livelihood risks inside Triplebyte's own reputation dumpster fire, on the friday before a holiday weekend, during historic unemployment levels, in the middle of a fucking pandemic, is unforgivable. The CEO showing up in person with hamfisted gaslighting (seriously?) in the middle of this self made disaster makes me hope those comments don't get flagged out of future HN search results.
That's a natural assumption, but if you think a step further it's not hard to see why it's false: you shouldn't optimize for local optima, especially if doing that would ruin your global optimum. When you have a goose that lays golden eggs, don't risk the goose for an egg.
(Edit—because I've been wanting to write about this for some time and this may as well be the place:)
The above is the answer I always give to questions of how HN serves YC's business, because it's true and it's solid economics. It's the right answer to give to anyone who's looking at the question through a cynical economic lens (as we all have been trained to do) since the answer is, basically, "we can be even more cynically self-interested by not doing that".
However, I also always feel a little bad after giving that answer because it's not the deeper truth. The deeper truth is that we just feel this way. HN and YC grew up together. In a way they are siblings, and one doesn't exploit one's sibling. Or, to switch metaphors: because HN and YC grew together, the connections between them are complex and organic, like the connections between brain hemispheres. If you get in there and start snipping and moving things around, you're likely to end up with a self-lobotomy.
If you want a hard-nosed business reason for how HN makes money for YC, one is: it leads to people starting startups that wouldn't otherwise exist, and it leads to YC funding startups that it wouldn't otherwise get to fund. That's how HN adds to YC's core business (edit: but see  below). I use that reasoning to explain to people why we don't need to sell ads on HN or do other things to monetize it or drive growth. Again, though, it doesn't capture how I (and I think most at YC) really think and feel about HN. The deeper truth is the two have always been together and we can't imagine them otherwise.
In other words, the value of HN to YC is intangible. That affects how we operate HN. If the value were tangible, then snipping things and moving them around and generally being bustling and managerial would probably be the way to go, or at least the most likely thing that people inside a business would do. But since it's intangible, all that kind of thing gets supplanted by a general feeling of "this is good, don't fuck it up". Since the main indicator of whether we're fucking it up or not is the community, the way HN can most add value to YC is by keeping the community happy. Happiness means two things here: interest (because HN is supposed to be interesting) and trust (because a community can't exist without trust).
This is not a mystical paradise that will last forever—it's a historical accident that an internet forum ended up in a sweet spot vis-à-vis the company that owns it, where the business is better off optimizing for the forum being good and happy than by banner ads or growth hacking. But we all know that it's an honor to get to be stewards of a community in that way, and while nothing lasts forever, we want to keep it going as long as possible, and maybe longer than anyone would have thought possible.
 edit: for some reason I forgot to mention the three formal things that HN also gives to YC: job ads for YC startups, Launch HN posts for YC startups, and displaying YC founder usernames in orange to other YC founders. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23293437 for more.
(Because a simple upvote wouldn't do this comment justice)
I think it's a really, really great response. YC community is indeed very special, and I am often surprised that over these years, it keep attracting high caliber people and has a high signal/noise ratio, while at the same time remains a pleasant community that favors civilized discussion.
Moderating is a thankless job, but please rest assured that many people here value your efforts, even if we don't verbalize this gratitude often.
While I have a handful of YC friends and certainly admire a lot of the YC higher-ups, I will say for me and my co-founder, it was probably more HN that caused us to apply to YCS19 than anything else. Meeting PG/PB was icing on the cake, not the impetus. Thanks for all your hard work on HN - it's a really wonderful piece of the net!
It's clear to see that you (all) have kept HN as good as it is over all these years, not for cynical economic reasons, but because it's right. It's right for the HN community and, given HN's somewhat unique position, maybe we can even say it's right for the larger society.
I'm sure that over the years there have been countless opportunities to ruin the community for short term gain, and because the right decisions were made, the community will in most cases never know or appreciate the choice. The only evidence is that HN is still here, and hasn't been trampled down by the armies of mammon even when so many other internet communities have been.
Sometimes you have to protect a goose, even at cost, just because it's a happy goose and it's alive.
It's rare in a place where so many think they are being hard-nosed little economists (though actually merely joining the chorus of short-sighted armchair bean-counters) to admit that you did something without needing any economic justification.
Not so much #1. It's true that YC companies get attention on HN, but they have to struggle for it like anyone else (not counting the Launch HN posts - see below). We help them sometimes, but we help non-YC startups too, and the question is always what the community will find interesting. YC startups probably have an edge on HN, but if so, it's for more subtle reasons (e.g. the fact that YC alumni have always been a core part of the community).
Definitely #2. The job ads that appear on the front page are only for YC startups, and that's one of three formal ways that HN gives back to YC in exchange for funding it. The other two are that YC startups get to do a Launch HN post, which gets placed on the front page (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...), and YC alumni usernames are displayed in orange to other YC alumni. For some reason I always forget to mention these things when writing on the above topic, I guess because I don't think they add up to the biggest thing, even though they're significant. In my mind the big thing is the connection to startups forming and applying to YC. However, no one has ever tried to measure these things, and I'd feel a bit queasy about doing so. It would feel like stepping out of the magic circle in a fairy tale. One should not step out of the magic circle.
> economic interests are aligned with nuking highly critical comments
This is theoretically true, but the fact that it's been on the home page for 12 hours and has accumulated hundreds of critical comments, none of which any mod has touched, seems to (a) eliminate that possibility and (b) demonstrate that the risk is theoretical, not actual.
(Keep in mind that YC has thousands of investments, so whatever you think of their ethics or the incentives, a filter like this would be impractical and obvious. Also see "Not behaving in a way that damages the reputation of his/her company" on https://www.ycombinator.com/ethics/ - it's hard to imagine YC supporting this.)
This thread rose to the top group of the front page last night (you can see I posted here then, I happened to see it). Then it sunk quickly and disappeared. I was a little dismayed because the cynic in me was thinking along the lines of it being removed for being antithetical to YC company success. I went to bed.
To my surprise, it was back up near the top this morning with almost a thousand votes and hundreds of comments. TripleByte may have chosen to burn their reputation irreparably, but I have gained a lot of faith in YC and the mods here.
It fell because of a software penalty called the flamewar detector. We review posts that get that penalty because there are often false positives. I saw it on the list last night and restored it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280488). That was the only action any moderator took on the post. I'm glad I saw it quickly enough, because there would have been a nightmare of a flamewar about us 'suppressing' the post if we had missed this, when in reality it would just have been an accident of timing.
That raises the obvious question of why we have such software if it causes such problems, but the answer is simply that it helps more than it hurts, overall.
Hi dang, sent you an email about this, but perhaps it would be useful to include a page on HN recording "recent moderator actions". This could make the process more transparent for users and help them understand your actions (rather than producing conspiracy theories every week).
The question is whether that would raise more objections and protests than it would answer. Almost everything we do is defensible to the community, because if it weren't, we wouldn't do it in the first place. (I say 'almost' because we make wrong guesses, but then we're happy to admit mistakes and fix them.) That doesn't mean it's all self-explanatory, though. On the contrary, it can take a long time to explain because there are many complexities, tradeoffs, and non-obvious aspects.
Meta threads and discussions tend to invite objections from the litigious type of user. Such users are rarely satisfied, but have a ton of energy for meta argument, so it's easy to get into a situation where any answer you give leads to two or three fresh objections. Such objections have to be answered with great care, because if you slip up and say the wrong thing, people will use it to start an online mob against you (edit: and will quote it against you for years to come!). This consumes a lot of mental and emotional energy. (Edit: btw, this is asymmetrical: the people raising objections and making accusations are under no such restriction. They can say anything without downside, no matter how false it is or what they accuse you of. They can make things up with impunity and people will believe them by default, because on the internet you are guilty until proven innocent, plus everyone loves the underdog. These are additional reasons why it's easy to end up in a situation where every comment you spend an hour painstakingly composing earns you a bunch more counterarguments and demands.) These arguments tend to be repetitive, so you find yourself having to say the same things and defend against the same attacks and false accusations over and over. This is discouraging, and there's a high risk of burnout. Disgruntled users are a tiny minority, but there are more than enough of them to overwhelm our scarce resources.
I fear this outcome, so we've always shied away from adding such a system. We do want to be transparent, and we answer whatever questions people ask, but it feels safer to do it ad hoc as questions come up. There's no specific question you can't get an answer to, other than a few special cases like how HN's anti-abuse software works.
There's an opportunity cost issue too. The vast majority of the community is pretty happy with how we do things—I know that because if they weren't, we'd never hear the end of it, and then we'd say sorry and readjust until they were. I think it makes more sense to do things to keep the bulk of the community happy, or make them happier, than to pour potentially all our resources into placating a small minority—especially since, once you've done this job for a while (say, a week) you know that nothing you do will ever be completely right or please everyone.
On the other hand, if I could ever be persuaded that a full moderation log would satisfy everyone's curiosity and reduce the overhead of misinterpretation, complaints, imagined malfeasance, etc., then we'd be happy to do it.
IMO, this and the child comments are some of the best articulated descriptions of the balance a moderator must make in today's online community. especially the part about fear's impact on your decision making. Thanks for you transparency and moderation efforts. Keep up the good work.
I first want to express my gratitude for your thoughtful reply, and more generally your willingness to consistently engage with the HN community with both reason and compassion. I have no doubt you have the HN community's best interests at heart - there is simply legitimate disagreement about how best to accomplish that. Your cooperative communication style undoubtedly goes a long way in allaying the community's concerns. So, great job on that front.
I agree with you that any community faces the problem of a vocal, critical, and nearly insurgent minority. They seek to identify contradictions in your logic with the predominantly self-interested goal of demonstrating intellectual superiority rather than finding genuine solutions. I can understand the emotional burden of continually sparring with such individuals. You can't please everyone.
In contrast, there is the silent majority. By virtue of their silence, it would appear they condone current management of the site. I am not sure this can be assumed.
First, it is generally the "first movers" of a given activity who are both the first to try it, but also the first to defect. For example, there are people who are passionate about Microsoft or Apple products and review them publicly. When they stop reviewing these products, it is indicative of a lack of passion; they have moved on. The majority soon follows, just like they did when the first movers initially promoted the activity. In this way, the first mover is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Are HN's vocal critics really first movers? The ones who are thoughtful, at least, are certainly among the most passionate and engaged; losing them would be the canary. (Admittedly, you must be able to discern those who are vocal and thoughtful from those who are vocal and thoughtless, but I am confident you have that capacity.)
Second, there is the issue of the 90-9-1 rule. The vast majority of users of HN never comment nor express their opinion; they simply observe. This will be true whether or not they are satisfied with the service. If they are dissatisfied, they don't comment, they simply leave. On the other hand, composing only 10%, the vocal minority must necessarily be the minority. Can we uniformly dismiss this vocal minority as unrepresentative of the silent majority? No, because there is no other proxy for surveying the majority. (Again, you must discern the productive from the unproductive critics.)
Finally, there is the burden of simply engaging. I am amazed by the amount of time and effort you must invest into moderating HN and in writing your responses (among, I'm sure, numerous other activities such as actually writing code). It appears that recapitulating your justifications over and over again is not particularly efficient.
That, however, does not imply that failing to justify your actions is suddenly an adequate substitute. It simply means that the current method is inefficient.
There are a few conclusions I think we can draw from this. We can't dismiss the vocal minority because it's all we have; rather, we must discern those who are constructive from those who are destructive. Further, like blowing onto a flame to put it out, ignoring or suppressing them will likely instigate even more frenzied conspiracizing. Finally, responding to each of them individually is inefficient and burdensome.
I think a basic ledger of "moderator actions" would solve many of these issues. To start, it would probably not be an exhaustive log, but simply actions performed at the thread-level rather than the comment-level. It is transparent, just like your comments and the HN community guidelines already are. It would broaden understanding of your actions, rather than rely on users to dig through your recent comments (the only ledger thus far, without which they undoubtedly draw their own conclusions). Finally, it would reduce the burden on you.
Would it, however, pacify the vocal minority? Would they conspiracize further? Would they levy more demands to change the site?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
But it seems clear that those who are worth listening to, vocal as they may be, are in fact worth listening to. They are the canaries. And if they increasingly demand more transparency (which you would know, not I), that is likely worth making some steps toward satisfying. If they make more demands, so be it.
Communities change over time, especially as a function of scale, and I think HN is no different. The only thing that generally must be kept constant is prudent stewardship, and I am fairly confident your track record satisfies that. There may be mistakes along the way, but as long as you make a transparent, genuine effort to serve the community (as you clearly have done historically), that will go along way in retaining the trust of the community.
To be honest, the reason I don't do it is fear. Normally I'd say "we" in a sentence like that, but in this case the fear is mine.
Maybe such a device would satisfy everyone's curiosity and make the community as happy as a gently tickled baby. Users would raise questions, other users would helpfully look up what happened in the moderation log, and still other helpful users would chime in with past examples of how we do things that way, and why. Enormous pressure would lift from our shoulders and we could sit back and eat potato chips (or carrot sticks), or even better, work on the code. No longer would we be under attack from all sides. The war would be over and transparency would rule the land. Huzzah! (In case that sounds sarcastic, I do have that fantasy sometimes.)
On the other hand, maybe it would be the apocalypse. I fear the apocalypse. There isn't a lot of room for more pressure of the kind I described upthread. We operate on the edge of being maxed out.
Also...I have a feeling that it might not be good in the long run. Moderators here are in a super complex dance with the community. I think it's important for them (us) to have the degrees of freedom that non-public moderation provides. It allows you to do things, try things, take chances, make mistakes, etc., that you wouldn't do if you were under floodlights all the time. It's for the same reason that you wouldn't want your boss standing behind you, breathing down your neck all day—even though you're not doing anything the boss would object to, except perhaps checking Hacker News too much—except that it's actually in the boss's interest for you to be checking HN that much, because it's complicated, besides which sometimes something comes up on HN that actually makes a big difference, plus...never mind, the boss wouldn't understand. It's just best if the boss lets you do your job.
I like this analogy, because the community really is the boss here...if by boss you mean a ten-headed dragon who likes to bite your head off once a day or so, but you know how to reattach your head so it's ok, except it still feels bad to have your head bitten off, plus it takes hours to reattach it. It could be that allowing moderators that degree of opacity turns out to be an essential aspect of operating the site.
But the truth is I don't know. sama suggested we do this 6 years ago and I said no way, for the same reason. Maybe in another 6 years I'll have worked through the fear.
One last thing. If anyone is reading this and thinking of replying "Aha, moderator guy, I've got you! If you're so afraid...what are you hiding from the community? tell us that, you self-contradictor, you!"...I've already planted an effective rebuttal to that precise objection in this thread. So tread carefully, objector guy! Or maybe I haven't, and I'm just saying that, because it's complicated.
I think that if the moderation becomes public, it becomes a target and not an effective way to measure behavior. People will try to game the ways they interact with moderators. They'll start to argue and lawyer you against yourself -- "you didn't demote this post but you demoted mine". I think any of us who have done user moderation for more than a month has seen this kind of behavior.
Transparency is great in public institutions that spend our tax money. In communities like this, we just need a chieftain to handle our disputes fairly and keep us all from going nuts every so often. Those of us who have been coming back for years already know that you do that, or at least try your best to be fair and open and neutral.
I doubt you could keep everyone happy by releasing a log of moderator actions. People complain now, but look at ArbCom on Wikipedia, which makes all the decisions in public, and there are websites devoted to trashing the process there. And if you're not making people happier, nor making their interactions here more pleasant or informative, what is the goal again?
Plus, it's not just moderators getting a chance to make mistakes, it's also the users. I don't want to end up in a log somewhere for my terrible posts. You've told me to improve before, and I did. At least I've tried to. Admittedly my posts haven't been high quality lately. Anyway, the more formalized the process becomes, the less human we're all allowed to be. That can be good or bad, but I think in this case it's been good. Most of the reactions to OP tend to think that privacy is valuable sometimes.
I could be wrong, of course. Do what you think is best for us. That's why we keep coming back.
If you ever write more of what you're thinking on this topic, please let me know at firstname.lastname@example.org. I'd like to read it. Users often point things out that we haven't thought of, but this was a particularly memorable case to me.
This. I mean, I'm all for being aware of others' biases and conflicts of interest, but -- whatever else you might criticize the mod team for -- they're definitely not "running interference" for TB or anything here.
When it comes to moderation of a YC startup on HN, "The first rule of HN moderation is to moderate less, not more" says dang on previous threads concerning YC startups and he has expressed the same sentiment here in this thread
Wouldn't be the first time HN/automoderation/mods have removed 'critical to YC business interests'. Happened to me with the Thalmic Myo, when I open source forced them to open their platform. HackADay also notes that HN autohid my article.
Dang has usually responded with noncommital responses like they never do that. But further requests for being transparent has fallen on deaf ears.
edit: and -1'ed. Is this because "my content sucks"? Is it because of 'offtopic'? Or is it a mod?
Considering karma here determines rights, rate limiting, mod-down, flagging, and more - these points do matter here. And of course the larger issue here is lack of transparency. In fact, with removal of mod scores, the site has gone down in transparency.
I feel like if someone is still upset about a case like this 6 years later, we should probably try to figure out why and see what we can do to settle the matter. But HN has had 15M posts since then and I have zero memory of it. Actually I probably have zero memory of HN from 2 days ago. Can you link to the relevant post(s)?
I looked at that hackaday.com page. It says this: "Quick aside, but if you want to see how nearly every form of media is crooked, try submitting this to Hacker News and look at the Thalmic investors. Edit: don’t bother, we’re blacklisted or something."...but is also linkless. Usually when people make dudgeonly claims and conspicuously omit links, it's because what actually happened doesn't match what they say.
Re "dang has usually responded with noncommital responses": I try to be commital. There is little to be gained by not, since we try not to do things that aren't defensible to the community in the first place. If you have any tips to offer for increased commitalness, I'd like to hear them.
Edit: I just noticed this bit: "further requests for being transparent has fallen on deaf ears". When? That doesn't sound like us.
Wow. Thanks for this. I ignored the email because Triplebyte just feels a bit spammy to me now so I mentally block it out.
Have logged in to stop this from happening and currently apparently I'm "Open to discussing new opportunities", which is news to me. On trying to change it to "Not interested in any new opportunities" there's a dropdown that says "I’d be open to new opportunities in:" and most you can set it to is 2 years. These are whole new dark patterns.
UPDATE You can turn off the setting they're talking about by going to  and then clicking the little grey "Visibility settings" under the Profile URL section.
UPDATE There's a delete your account option on this page , though YMMV:
>> Government identification may be required and we may ask you for more information in order to verify your identify
>> Government identification may be required and we may ask you for more information in order to verify your identify
Same issue as I'm currently having with Airbnb. Though I have never ever provided any ID before, nor did I ever book anything, they asked me for an ID to prove my identity upon requesting account removal. How exactly does my ID _prove_ anything in my case (apart from the fact that I have an ID copy of a person who has the same name as I entered into the Airbnb profile page). Seems more like one more obstacle to prevent people from deleting their account.
I've deleted a lot of accounts in the last few weeks, and Airbnb was the only one requiring an ID prove. I agree, it is indeed part of GDPR for them to ensure I have the right to delete my account. My only issue is that my ID does not prove anything in my case, because Airbnb doesn't know my identity which they could compare my ID with, because I did have to provide my ID after registering and I never booked anything on their site.
It seems like a good idea to get a fake ID, to sign up for (free) accounts using that nym. Or I suppose if you can order fake IDs with custom nyms as needed, then you could consider that the price to delete your psuedonymous accounts.
Also, I clicked that "visibility hidden" and got this email:
You’re no longer letting companies know that you’re open to discussing new opportunities. Your profile will be hidden from employers for the next 24 months. You can change your job search status and make your profile visible again, whenever you feel ready explore new opportunities." (https://imgur.com/a/OBWexgo)
So even that only will get rid of it for 24 months. Let's see if they'll just delete my account.
Since account deletion is such a hurdle, edit your profile to replace your name and info with profanity and let's see how Google and the various content filters will like that once the profile goes public.
The whole government ID thingy is really beyond the pale. Just imagine: you never needed it to sign up in the first place. So now after proving to be not worthy of your trust, tone deaf and ethically deficient, to delete your account you need to give them even more information.
If they have $25m in revenue, receive more than 50k signups a year, or make more than 50% of their revenue selling data on California residents they are subject to CCPA.
CCPA actually has way more teeth than GDPR, because California's Unfair Competition Law allows residents to enforce laws that do not otherwise provide a private right of actions. (though this still needs to be proved out in the courts)
They have definitely been kind of spammy for a long time...I usually ignore their emails but I actually read the first paragraph of this one and it sounded like it was an opt-in feature, so I closed it, but the important line was further down: “You can edit your profile privacy settings to not appear in public search engines at any time.”
I interviewed via Triplebyte last year, and thoroughly enjoyed the service. Before this I would have (and did) wholeheartedly recommended them to anyone; the process was great from the candidate’s perspective and I also have confidence in their ability to accurately evaluate candidates’ skills.
After this announcement, though, I’m afraid that faith has completely crumbled. Even if Ammon had showed up in this thread and immediately announced that this was a terrible idea and they were rolling it back immediately, the mere fact that they were considering doing this is a huge blow. It doesn’t help that I skimmed the email when I got it this afternoon and didn’t even realize it was an opt-out; it was only when I saw this thread that I took a closer look and realized that the email was lacking a CTA button at the bottom for a reason. That seems incredibly shady to me and instantly changed my impression of the company.
Take heed, other companies: it only takes an instant to destroy your company’s reputation, and it’s incredibly difficult to win back that confidence.
For what it's worth, this was what happened to me. They regularly send marketing emails and updates, which I skim from time to time. It wasn't until I saw this thread that I realized that one particular email out of the (actually checks notes) 62 (!!!) unsolicited emails they've sent me in the last 12 months was this important.
For me, it seems like the emails picked up a lot in the last 2 months. I attributed this to covid aka a lot of people instantly out of work. The most cynical take is that they increased email frequency so this would be more likely to fly under the radar. I am not even sure I believe that though.
The fundamental disconnect here is that Ammon seems to think this data belongs to him, for uses he deems appropriate, rather than belonging to his users.
This works for Facebook and LinkedIn because of network effects, but not for some random staffing agency with a tech gimmick. If Adecco or MichaelPage did this it’d attract the attention of ambitious public prosecutors worldwide.
It’s almost a shame, as the idea itself doesn’t seem terrible, but the auto-enrolment and dark patterns for removal makes this whole thing feel like a New Digg moment.
Isn't this legally the case? There's a random place on the internet and people upload details. Not payment info, and I honestly am not clear on how much the rest is protected (USA). This is exactly what Zuckerberg called people "dumb fucks" for, and I don't think anything (legally) has changed.
I'm on your side as far as the "why the hell is this the case", but I think this is the world that (USA and others) live in.
Legality doesn’t really matter here, public perception does. If Triplebyte comes to be viewed as an untrustworthy partner in the extremely high stakes world of career changes, they’re effectively dead.
This is horrible, what a breach of trust. I used TB to stealthily interview for jobs, had a good experience. Recommended them to others. Now I see that if I hadn't seen this post, I wouldn't have known about this and those details would have been public, which had the potential to seriously undermine me at my current position. I'll opt out tomorrow, but according to others it sounds like the visibility link was somewhat hidden. At least with this they're well on the way to becoming the next LinkedIn, at least by their practices. What a dark pattern.
If we're going to be fair, we have to acknowledge the history of email over the last thirty years: spam, spam filters, and the "Mark as Spam" button.
Email is what I use to notify my customers of a 25% sale, not to tell them that I'm going to plaster their data all over the internet in violation of the spirit of the service I'm providing. I use regular mail for that.
My problem with this is the automatic opt in, using my profile and details for more than I intended for them to use it for (regardless of whether I technically signed something staying they _could_ do this, it is borderline unethical to use my information for this purpose), only having a week to "opt out", and not knowing what opt out even does. Sending an email to everyone doesn't cure any of these points.
Your Triplebyte profile will NOT contain any data/details about you or your job search that will undermine you at your current employer. We should have included a screenshot and more details in the email. I'll talk to my team about following up with more details tomorrow. We are talking about a lightweight profile, like your Stack Overflow or HN profile, to provide us the canvas to release badges. That's it.
Even so, the decision to make this opt-out instead of opt-in is extremely questionable. If it’s just a spot to put badges, why is it so critical that it be rushed through next week? And why are you so carefully avoiding talking about the opt-out when a significant chunk of the people in this thread are telling you that it’s the main thing they’re upset about? “Sorry that you feel this way” is the worst kind of corporate-speak non-apology that makes it clear that you’re apparently not interested in responding to feedback, but just making soothing sounds at everyone until the smoke clears and you get to continue doing exactly what you planned.
I don't get why you'd think it's okay to suddenly make private information about your users public. The lesson is not "We should've included a screenshot" but rather "We shouldn't automatically opt our users in to sharing information they thought was private.". This is a betrayal of user trust.
I saw your email in my inbox but didn't read it. I never would've noticed with improved screenshots or not. Do you read every email you get?
The fact that this is the top comment and that folks who trusted you are seeing this email first on HN instead of in their inbox means you fucked up. The details of what trimmings you put on the email were not the fuckup.
Regardless, this breaches GDPR by making data public and accessible to an unlimited audience by default.
I hope (for your sake) that you don't have any users that can invoke their GDPR rights against you by virtue of their citizenship.
For the sake of incentivising companies to do the right thing, however, I hope you do have some EU or UK citizen users who do litigate or have their data protection authority investigate and formally punish Triplebyte, even if only to establish clear precedent here for the future.
In which case, it sounds like at the moment they carry out a "data processing operation" to make your data public, you would have standing to make a formal complaint to your local data protection authority.
Article 18 restriction of processing can apply here. Art. 25 "Data protection by design and by default" would seem to be relevant as well. The section I alluded to above is the latter half of 25(2), saying "In particular, such measures shall ensure that by default personal data are not made accessible without the individual’s intervention to an indefinite number of natural persons."
There's also the question of whether their consent or other grounds of processing suffice, which likely wouldn't for making anything public, but Article 25 makes it clear enough anyway this is illegal.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice but ... I don’t think the European government has legal standing to fine triplebyte. Triplebyte doesn’t have offices, employees or customers in Europe.
A European visiting the US and interacting with an American business does so under the protection of US law, not EU law. This is complicated in the case of Facebook and google because they also do business in Europe, so European courts can fine their European branch offices. But Triplebyte has no such EU presence that the European courts could pursue. And they don’t advertise European jobs. I suspect an EU citizen interacts with triplebyte legally the same way they would if they went to a cafe in SF while on vacation.
The opposite would be crazy. If triplebyte can be fined by the EU, that would also mean the government of Australia or China or Russia could arbitrarily levy fines against any US company if one of their citizens interacted with a US website one time. And everyone would put geo blocks on their websites to protect from liability.
Not a lawyer, not legal advice either, but the GDPR approach to extraterritoriality is somewhat interesting. The presence of offices or employees isn't a strict requirement by law. The law, as written, would seem to apply to a US entity serving EU customers. But international law probably wouldn't facilitate doing anything about that.
Of course there is a question about how you could enforce such a ruling. And if it can't be enforced, is it really a sanction? I guess if countries wanted to take this really seriously, they could get a list of company officers and put immigration flags on those individuals, and hold them temporarily upon trying to enter that country, until the matter was resolved. But that would be rather extreme, and you do raise some good points around which countries can fine the companies of other countries.
CCPA from California seems to have some cross-border implications as well - perhaps we will finally see a framework for privacy laws that works better than today's hotch-potch?
That's not correct. You can pursue damages outside of your jurisdiction through a process called "domestication". Generally speaking US courts will enforce judgements from other countries with a legitimate legal system.
I'm not an expert in the direct applicability of GDPR, but my understanding is a European, living in Europe at the time this change happens (but who was perhaps doing an online job hunt, considering a move) might still be covered. Admittedly this is an edge case, but it's not one I'd want to risk in the era of extraterritorial enforcement of various privacy laws.
I was reading about GDPR last week (since CouchSurfing was another company that turned scumbaggy and put up a paywall that one couldn't even access one's own account to delete it without paying a subscription), as I understand it, it only applies to people who were in the EU as the data collection occurred.
No, it covers EU citizens' data fully no matter where they are or where the data is. It may also cover non-EU citizens when in Europe which is perhaps what the article you read was referring to or had misunderstood.
It seems slightly unclear, but generally a lot of interpretations seem to be focusing on the location of the person. An American buying something in a European airport is protected by GDPR during their fleeting pass-through of the "GDPR zone".
https://www.hipaajournal.com/does-gdpr-apply-to-eu-citizens-... seems to suggest it is based on location. There would seem to be standing for anyone based in Europe that made an account when considering a move to the US, or who is based in Europe next Friday when the "data processing operation" occurs. That seems like it would give them standing, even if they weren't protected while overseas, as this is a new data processing operation.
I don't want a public profile of any kind on your website.
There isn't a spin you're going to be able to put on this that's going to change that what you're doing here is diametrically opposed to my goals. You knew that, which is why you tried to sneak it past everyone.
The problem isn't that people think what you're doing is unethical. The problem is that what you are doing actually is unethical.
For now. What about the future? I just don't trust any company which changes the agreements without asking for my consent. In this case I just want to close my account and delete all my data. Seems like impossible. In Europe after making things like this they could end in jail for breaking GPDR rules. In US it looks like it's fine to gather user's data, sell them without consent, and then forbid to close accounts. And there are always people who repeat "the company is fine, they have right to do it". Except they don't.
Your site is a job search site so the fact that someone has an account means they have been job hunting. This is not like Stack Overflow or Hackernews that you seem to like comparing the profiles to. StackOverflow may have job search functionality but it started as primarily something not related to a job search so my having an account there doesn't mean I have been job hunting.
Your SO account was also never private, didn't contain "test scores" for job skills, and was never a repository of sensitive information about you that you only allowed them to have because you trusted them to keep it private.
I've seen some epic CEO fuckups but this one is special.
Just the fact that someone used your service is a signal for their current employers, it might be used against employees during lay-off rounds as interpreting it that they are 'on the market'. In the current employment climate that is super dangerous. I strongly urge you to reconsider this re-use of data, especially for EU citizens where all use other than the one for which the data is gathered is illegal. See also: GDPR, specifity as well as the section on mandatory opt-in for future use.
Note that you are opening yourself up to major legal and financial liabilities, besides the obvious personal ramifications, ie: you're on the record as a sleaze unless you handle this with velvet gloves from here on in.
What you're doing is wrong and unethical, period. Do the right thing and walk back this ridiculous plan. Until then, I will do everything I can do to avoid your service and have others in my network do the same.
> 25(2). The controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures for ensuring that, by default, only personal data which are necessary for each specific purpose of the processing are processed. That obligation applies to the amount of personal data collected, the extent of their processing, the period of their storage and their accessibility. In particular, such measures shall ensure that by default personal data are not made accessible without the individual's intervention to an indefinite number of natural persons.
You may wish to consult your privacy attorneys; you'll likely be the subject of a number of GDPR complaints considering the above.
My interpretation of the above if you were to do it within the letter of the law (again, talk to your attorneys; I'm just a security director):
1. opt-in via settings page (or a modal on next login) for all people who already have accounts.
2. opt-in during registration for all people who choose to register accounts after the roll-over date.
Again, talk to your attorneys. If you successfully roll over without having taken the suggestion to talk to your attorneys, your conversation with your attorneys may change from "how to best implement this" to "how to avoid getting fined."
Same here. It's annoying that a technical aptitude test that I took when I was a freshman in college might now be publicly viewable as a benchmark for my skills.
And I know the e-mail says that results will only be shared if you did well. But, if you have a profile on TribleByte and there's no signal on your profile that you did well, the only logical conclusion is that you did not do well.
I'll be deleting my account, anyways. I didn't ask for this.
See I did fantastic in the interview, but the interviewer was a noob :/
Edit: To be fair in their survey i think i said something like this sounded good, but it was phrased as "be part of an exclusive club of competent engineers" rather than "show current employer you're interviewing because you clicked on a banner add. And my whiteboard code had a bug.
What makes you think anything on your TripleByte profile was ever "private." It was not. It was merely hidden from the majority of the world. If you have a TripleByte profile, presumably, at some point, you were job hunting, and likely advertising that fact to anyone you thought could help you.
> What makes you think anything on your TripleByte profile was ever "private." It was not. It was merely hidden from the majority of the world. If you have a TripleByte profile, presumably, at some point, you were job hunting, and likely advertising that fact to anyone you thought could help you.
Are you arguing for this change? Whatever the argument is seems to be based on misinterpreting 'private' as 'known by no-one else'. Exactly the same argument could apply to e-mail: it's not private in the sense that no-one else sees it, just hidden from the majority of the world; presumably, when you sent it, you were advertising what it said to the recipient.
> GDPR 25(2). The controller shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures for ensuring that, by default, only personal data which are necessary for each specific purpose of the processing are processed. That obligation applies to the amount of personal data collected, the extent of their processing, the period of their storage and their accessibility. In particular, such measures shall ensure that by default personal data are not made accessible without the individual's intervention to an indefinite number of natural persons.
You have become a class 'A' manipulator. I thought I could see through people's crap. But you take the cake.
Thankfully I felt "odd" when I signed up for your "interview" test and never fully finished it.
Also, you single handedly brought me out of hiatus from commenting on HN.
What you have done with this decision is a friggin stab in the gut. If you think your foolish "it's only X we are making public! Not Y!" means something other than "oops, we got caught, how do we cover this up?!" then you are deluding yourself.
Ammon's previous venture was Socialcam , of which Wikipedia says
> Socialcam's popularity on Facebook suddenly increased in the spring of 2012, via unusually aggressive actions to induce contacts to join. It was criticized as "invasive" and a "bully" by many reviewers, for sharing what users were viewing without them realizing that that would happen.
It was only after articles like "Why I Hate Socialcam Even If It Might Be the Next Instagram" (spoiler alert: it was not) started appearing that Ammon and friends sold to Autodesk for $60 million. I'm sure that investment worked out swimmingly for Autodesk. Win some, lose some, eh? But hey, at least Ammon got some resources out of it, which he went on to use to make the world a better place, and some valuable life lessons about privacy and honesty and respect, right? Right, Ammon?
1. Triplebyte knew this would cause some outrage, especially on HN and Reddit.
2. Triplebyte did some calculations and predicted that doing this on a Friday and only giving people a week to opt-out would result in the fewest number of opt-outs.
3. Triplebyte assumed that many of those outraged online would delete their accounts.
4. Despite all of the above, Triplebyte calculated that this move would make them more money in the long run.
I’m also guessing that these profiles will serve ads. I bet Triplebyte will offer “premium” plans for both job seekers and employers so that they can directly contact you more easily.
I hope this change incorporates necessary privacy measures for job seekers. I hope that this doesn’t become a 1-to-1 LinkedIn competitor that only seeks to get clicks and ad revenue. Only time will tell. I’m very skeptical but I won’t rage yet. I’ll opt out for now and see how it goes...
Amazing that company founded by a former YC Partner could be so tone deaf. Just because their business is failing and they want to pivot into a LinkedIn competitor does't make it my problem.
Dark opt-out patterns send on a FRIDAY before a 3 day long weekend to hide facts from us, with crazy convoluted methodology for deleting accounts, and buried opt-out...
This is shady as hell, and thinking that you can "explain" it to us here and that we are wrong and you are right, and if we had just a little more "Facts" we'd change our mind, tells me everything I need to know about the leadership and future of this company
Triplebyte was already a joke, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Their whole “Fast Track” program claiming to allow you to skip technical interviews is a total fraud of a marketing ploy.
They make you take a 2 hour live coding interview with a Triplebyte engineer, with the promise that if you pass, you won’t need to do any more technical interviews with companies through Triplebyte, only “final-round personality-style on-sites”.
The reality is that any company who contacts you is STILL going to run you thru their entire interviewing process. The extra 2 hour interview with Triplebyte is literally pointless - and any company you try to discuss this “policy” with will be caught confused and off guard.
It’s no surprise to me that a company that blatantly lies about their offering would do some crap like this.
Shame on Triplebyte for their fraudulent and dishonest nature.
"They make you take a 2 hour live coding interview with a Triplebyte engineer, with the promise that if you pass, you won’t need to do any more technical interviews with companies through Triplebyte, only “final-round personality-style on-sites”."
I was never given the impression that there would be no more technical interviews after the Triplebyte one. They were always crystal clear with me that there would be 2 steps for each company: a 30 minute non-technical "pitch call", and a final all-day onsite. They never implied the onsite was non-technical, and I never took it to be.
I think the value proposition is that you skip almost all of the back and forth footsie before the onsite. In my experience it was worth it. There were some companies I interviewed with, not through Triplebyte, where I had 7 or 8 calls before they would bring me onsite. I get it, they want to make sure they're sure before they pay for a hotel and a flight, but it is a big hassle.
> The extra 2 hour interview with Triplebyte is literally pointless - and any company you try to discuss this “policy” with will be caught confused and off guard.
Their contract with Triplebyte stipulates that companies that use their service aren't to incur additional technical interviews, and according to the Triplebyte representative I talked to, apparently the company has legs to enforce the contract if a candidate informed TB of a breach.
When companies try this, and pretend to be confused when there is push back, it's because they got caught with their pants down trying to breach an expensive contract.
It was my experience that every company, big and small, that I interviewed with through TB did on-site technical interviews anyway. In the end, the value-add of TB was that you could filter out many of the companies on the platform because of how cavalier they were to dance around their contractual agreements with their recruiting agency.
I tried deleting my account and apparently it takes 30 days for some reason! That looks so shady!
We're processing your request and should be done within 30 days.
We will verify your request using the information associated with your account. Government identification may be required and we may ask you for more information in order to verify your identify.
Any questions? Email us at email@example.com
If you are in California, CCPA might be of some help.
Article 4(b) actually states that to verify you you (for a data delete request), they must do their best to use info they already have on you, and "Avoid collecting the types of personal information identified in Civil Code section 1798.81.5, subdivision (d)"
and in 1798.81.5,(d)(1)(A)(ii) we see: "Driver’s license number"
4(c) also helps: "A business shall generally avoid requesting additional information from the consumer for purposes of verification."
So if they can verify you another way, they must, and cannot ask for the DL (likely the only ID many people have)!, if i read that correctly
So instead of jumping through their hoops, file a CCPA request and have them chew on that.
After clicking the button I had to click a confirmation email to get this approved. Then it said it would happen within 30 days and I may be required to show govt ID.
Why? I am already verified with my login account. It is not like I am doing something sensitive like changing a password or email. And what is this about needing to show govt id? They have zero reason to need govt ID to opt out of 'Personal Information Sharing' of all things.
Honestly tempted to just delete my profile. (That may also require govt ID.)
Really sorry that you think this is awful. Certainly do opt-out. I think that taking on LinkedIn and creating a better engineering resume is a good thing to do. I can assure you that the Friday announcement is a result of our team grinding to hit a planned release week, not anything other than that (I would have loved to get this out earlier in the week)
If you, like most people in this thread, find this incredibly unethical and/or potentially damaging to your relationship with your current employer and as a result you are trying to delete your account, do one thing first:
Obfuscate your information before you hit the delete button!
Change your name, change your address, change the email to a throwaway, etc.
Yes, they -might- delete your information when you ask, but do they deserve your trust that they will get this right? If you are deleting your account you implicitly are saying you don’t trust their ability to manage this situation the way you would.
Keep in mind one likely outcome of this event is that they go out of business. Whoever buys their assets may well end up with a trove of data that includes your details.
Registered on hacker news JUST to post this. I saw this email earlier today, skimmed it and thought "hmm cool they're competing with Linkedin or something" and then immediately forgot. I had absolutely no idea they were going to exploit my data and breach my expectations of privacy to drive traffic to their website (an issue in and of itself). And the part where they tell you to go ahead and opt out is hidden in there! Really not good
The audacity of the plan itself. The dark patterns. The doubling-down-admit-no-wrong-non-apology defense of it all by the person in charge.
It all feels like quite the specimen - something that should be preserved for study by future generations. For what not to do, but also because sometimes its nice to have a prototypical example of unethical, tone deaf, short sighted trickery and how it can destroy a company. All in one self-contained package.
So maybe that's the gift Triplebyte leaves us with.
Apparently deletion requires ID or something. Um... thats less good. I vaguely understand why if it was needed to sign up. [addendum: nope!]
Suggest you think carefully about your next step if you have an account. Maybe gibberish your account to whatever extent you see fit, update the email address somewhere less identifying (perhaps sneakemail) and go on with your life. Assume all details will be sold (you mean you didn't already?!)
I think they are out of touch with their userbase. Or they have even more plans their userbase won't like.
There's an option to control public visibility. Opt-out but this is only partial details. I would not rely on that "partial" aspect.
Worse still: if you want to "not be contactable for new opportunities" that only lasts for 24 months at max. You can't select a "not wanting offers at all". Minimum is 1 month.
This means you could be inadvertantly outed as "looking for opportinities" without even knowing it.
> I vaguely understand why if it was needed to sign up.
Nope! Triplebyte flew me across the country, put me up in a hotel, and otherwise arranged a job for me with nothing more than my email address and a phone number. The first time I had to provide ID in the entire process was when I filled out the I-9 form on my first day at the company that had hired me.
Maybe, but, depending on how it's implemented, these profiles might technically be "public" but not indexed by Google or have easily guessed URLs. In any case, it seems like the only information this would leak beyond what would be on a LinkedIn profile is the fact that you've taken a TripleByte assessment and done well. That seems pretty innocuous.
When big companies do, it's understandable - they know they can get away with it and they often do. But what makes these beloved and trusted folks commit such actions? (I've never used TB, but had heard so many good stories about them and had put them in my mind into that category of companies that almost send a handwritten note to their first 100 users, etc.)
Are we (users) perhaps partly to blame? Maybe we do let them get away and they know that? How many people are really going to delete their profile now? (instead of just opting out) Perhaps we should be more principled in our response to such things? Imagine they lose 90% of their user base because of this idiocy. May be that'd serve as a broader lesson of real ethics?
I remember well when Quora forced me to install their app on mobile (not just a reminder pop-up, they blocked the page fully) - I sweared to never use them ever again. I kept my promise for a year or so, and then somehow went back to reading it later; so I am guilty myself of not being principled. But these sort of decisions really really puzzle me.
That's one version. Another one could be, you're having a great career at a company, suddenly your profile goes public and shows that you are looking for a job outside the company. Someone in your current company notices and now your career will screech to a halt even though you where never really that serious about it. There are so many bad versions on of how this could unfold...
This is utterly amazing. He just blew up his company with one horrible decision. It’s over. The people they rely on (talented software engineers) are almost all one or two degrees away from HN. They’ll never trust TripleByte again. I expect you’ll see TripleBytes partner companies start to distance themselves next week as well.
Considering this apparent questionable behavior, and the dark patterns people are mentioning on HN... was the original business entirely legitimate?
I've found the currently en vogue leetcode grinding and whiteboard hazings to be questionable, and I'm wondering this scandal will prompt anyone to reconsider the whole sketchy institution of software developer "tech tests".
Wow, looks like triplebyte profile settings page is full of dark patterns. Like, setting yourself as not interested in offers will forcefully revert back after a time period, and that even though there’s a checkbox for opting in to being shown to companies you can’t save the profile without giving consent.
What a shame. I hadn't used this site and it seemed like it may have been a good resource, but the backlash in this thread combined with the official response to the backlash and the dark patterns implemented in all parts of the process guarantees I'll never make an account.
TripleByte has taken on $50 million in funding and covid is deeply slowing down hiring. I'm guessing this is the desperate phase of company growth as they try to pivot to increase growth metrics. I'm curious if they would have done it had covid not happened.
I was surprised by the level of funding for a recruiting company. Their model is really costly too because they have at least one two-hour Skype screening interview for potential candidates and I imagine they need lots of those to present a few candidates for interview.
Even though headhunter fees can be high (10-30% back when I used to use them), this seems tough to scale unless their thought was they would capture all the headhunters in the world (eg, google eating classifieds).
I don’t think that’s possible with a process that requires so much manual effort. I read about their aim for using AI, but just the cost of developing a usable training model to reduce the need for in person screens requires, what, hundreds of thousands of successful placements.
I remember needing 100 phone screens for 20 phone interviews for 5 in person interviews for 2 offers.
Assuming anyone I trust to do Skype phone screens is at least $100/hour, that’s $200 x 2 hours x 20 just = $40k for screening. Even if they break even with placement fees, that’s not an amazing margin to warrant such investment.
Personally I actually even asked them to make my profile publicly accessible as I hoped it would help a bit to prevent having to take all of those unnecessary tests, again and again every time I apply somewhere. Same goes for my Toptal profile, you have to pass a bar to get in there so it has value. People repeatedly mentioned me they found me there. The interview I had with Triplebyte was pretty good in my opinion, got great feedback from the test and I generally felt it was a reliable company.
It's a pity they are starting to do stuff like this. I'm not sure if it's a PR blunder or a pattern emerging but the damage has been done.
I’ve seen the kind of code competitive programming sites put up and the solutions people share. There is a complete disregard for best practices. Memory leaks are common in solutions. APIs that should be using const or references to prevent errors. In competitive coding all that matters is finding a solution. But in industry there’s much more to it than that: how do services like Triblebyte present that?
This behavior from Triplebyte is unacceptable. If you live in California, there is CCPA now with financial penalties for companies that don’t comply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Ac... It’s similar to Europe’s GDPR. CCPA allows sending a deletion request and they will be fined if they don’t comply.
"Our mission is to build an open, valuable, and skills-based credential for all engineers" - this is literally a copy of the other yc startup hackerrank. In fact their ceo said at a public event the skills-based credential will be called a hackerscore. Every developer will have a public hackerscore. Companies would pay for developers based on hackerscore. So like if your hackerscore was 1500 you would get offers for $150,000, if your hackerscore was 2000, you get the $200,000 offers, so on. Sort of like an SAT or GRE score. You could link your hackerscore to your hackernews account for more karma. Like if you made smart comments on hackernews your hackerscore would go up by a few points. If you solved more puzzles on hackerrank your hackerscore goes up. If you help more people on Stackoverflow your hackerscore goes up.
Are the triplebyte guys calling it hackerscore as well or is it triplerank or some such? I personally think the underlying motivation is sound but first you need to earn the trust of the community.
FYI because of this hacker news post, I just wrote Triplebyte as follows:
I saw a post on Hacker News that Triplebyte is going to be
posting to the interenet [sic] the profiles of people who
have interviewed with you. I do not give you permission
to post any information about me and explicitly request
that you do not. Please acknowledge this request.
The reply offered to delete my account, and I said yes. They replied that they had deleted my account.
I interviewed with triplebyte last fall. I passed all the automated testing and did ok on the real person one (not being formally trained I struggle with concepts I've never applied in a real project). After they told me I wasn't yet good enough for their fast track program I emailed them to have my profile deleted.
I assumed they were doing this already tbh. They sent an email back saying my account was deleted and I haven't gotten this email. I guess now I'll get to see if they really did delete it.
This news does make me consider re applying for triplebyte. Showcasing skill is a pain point when I've applied for positions (sure a github & some links but who knows who really did any of that).
I can't think of a worse way to handle this though.
I had considered Triplebyte as a platform to use years ago but never got around to filling it all out. I _did_ see this email but didn't really think about it until I read this article.
No doubt, this move was made to incentivize more cash flow for Triplebyte. I've lost my trust in the company and will not be recommending them to anyone I speak to again.
Customers will use your service, if they trust you and you provide value. Pulling sneaky things like this to keep your shareholders happy are not the things I want to be apart of. If you can't make money, why not consider offering Triplebyte to be paid, instead of going behind our backs in a sneaky way trying to sell our personal data.
I don't know the US law. I'm just wondering... if US companies have to ensure their software is fine according to GDPR for Europe clients, I'm wondering how it is with other law.
The other law I'm thinking about is the general rule that for every change in a contract all parties must agree. It is normal that I get a letter from my bank "We are changing the rules, here you have 30 days to say you don't agree. If you won't, we'll assume you agreed. If you won't agree, your account will be closed.". So, I can say I don't agree. Here, they just assumed I agree.
Any change, like the one Triplebyte made, is not legal here without my consent. Yet, they made it.
I'm wondering what else they would change. I don't want to wake one Sunday morning to notice that they I'm charged a couple of millions because they changed the rules during the previous night.
I'm not going to show then any of my IDs. Just no. Knowing all information from my ID here has a similar power to knowing SSN in US. Instead, I just devastated my profile. There is no real information anymore. I'm wondering about adding some longer description that I'm protesting against their change of rules. I'm wondering how they would react to this. Maybe it is the way to delete my account, who knows.
I have found that Triplebyte's emails are kind of spammy because they send so many. Before this point that made me a bit on edge. Now I very glad I didn't have time to finish any of those quizzes and will definitely not be using the product. I also believe that any employer who looks at any solid resume would know that the candidate knows how to find the minimum value in an array (an example question), so I could never understand why asking questions like that was adding any value and it made me skeptical.
But I have to ask ... since my understanding is that hiring companies make you redo the technical interviews again, what is the point of doing the Triplebyte interview process at all?
Also related, there was a startup that was scraping your Linkedin status and sending that to employers who subscribed, effectively doing the same thing Triplebyte is planning to do. There was quite an uproar over that, too.
Speaking of Linkedin, your employer can view your profile if it's public, so again, similar problem to what Triplebyte is doing.
The hiring company has to follow a standardized flow for any candidates they get through Triplebyte. Triplebyte does their own evaluation and reports the results, and then each hiring company is only allowed to do a short non-technical phone screen plus a single day of onsite interviews before either rejecting the candidate or extending an offer.
 and they enforce this—they specifically ask the candidate to report any technical questions asked during the phone call.
>Is it confidential?
Yes. We will not share any information about you with companies until you’re ready. We will also ask you for companies to block in case your current or past employers are on our platform.
Hmmm think they're going to need to change up their homepage. This doesn't seem very accurate at all anymore.
Actually, keeping this on now even after they've made this decision seems pretty disingenuous.
I took one of their dev quizzes when they launched just for the hell of it and entered my name as "Die in a Fire" which gives me a giggle every time I get an update from them. This time around, it was even funnier. I have such a dislike for middleman industries like recruiting. I know they provide real value but once one of them gets hold, it's almost inevitable they'll use their market position to squeeze everybody involved.
They are really putting the smtp servers to work this week, I've been getting two or three emails a day from Triplebyte, spamming about these changes.
If they are really doing remote jobs, maybe I'll have to look again, but when I aced their silly test and got interviewed originally, they only worked in the Bay Area, Seattle, and NYC, and I'd rather pull out my toenails with hot pincers than relocate to any of those places.
This should become a new web app, or something. A podcast, email newsletter, what have you.
I.E. How Not to Ruin a Company
Which gives examples of companies doing what what Ammon did, etc. Pretty cool, IMO! Hahhahahaha. (sorry,just finished watching the Last Airbender, so I'm a little jumpy/laughy).
I've always found TripleByte's marketing-disguised-as-help left some vague sense of distrust with me. I think it was pretending to have some deep insight about recruitment that never felt in the least bit believable. I guess the instinct was trustworthy, unlike them.
You're missing an important argument. You could have had a profile there from before you joined the current employer. And now you're just maintaining it. Doesn't mean you're actively looking for new job.
Really bad move. Shows the investors are putting the squeeze on them for new revenue, what they can do is now more important to them than what they should do. Well, good thing I used my 'junk mail' domain to sign up with them.
Ooohh, I got lucky. After I evaluated the platform a few months ago I asked for my account to be deleted, something about the whole platform felt off. They don't measure so many of the most important success factors for good engineers.
I read the first sentence, and falsely concluded that they were just pointlessly offering some oauth service. There's too much email that it's easy to get away with something like this without users realizing it.
Kinda reminds me when LinkedIn invited your Gmail contacts without your consent. I think fb did something similar in the beginning. So the lesson is that if you want to grow quickly you do a land grab, just stomping on your user's rights.
I'm blown away that I can't go ahead and delete my account. Seriously? I opted out of this change, but at this point I don't trust that to be respected anyway. I really want my account deleted immediately.
So... you post a profile on triplebyte hoping to get recruiter interest, and maybe a new job, but prefer that your current employer not find out. How would that work, exactly? After all, your current employer may have recruiters who look at triplebyte and who aren't stupid.
The privacy issue is overdone: your profiles must be as good as public already. That said, the company should have educated its users first, so they understand this.
Unfortunately that's the easiest way to build a real business around recruiting. Same with car sales. If you do your job well, the user won't come back for a few years. Therefore the user has to be the recruiting companies which guarantee repeat business
I understand that Triplebyte is in trouble due to Coronavirus and they will do anything necessary to stay alive. Even if their "product shift” actions are not ethical: they really have nothing to lose.
What I do not understand how this is legal? We have all these new laws ("California Consumer Privacy Act" of 2020, GDPR, etc.) and it seems like this kinda of actions are legal. The goal of these laws is to protect us against companies which have nothing to lose and they are force to do things which are considered non-ethical.
I'm curious about why this post appears to be on it way to being flagged off of the home page. It's valuable information and is likely very relevant to the HN community. Thanks for the heads up @winston_smith.
It set off the flamewar detector. We review submissions that are affected by that software, and turn it off for threads that aren't flamewars. I've done so for this one. Other than that, moderators didn't touch this post or (as far as I know) even see it.
I think there's a lot of variance in the way people use HN (I don't upvote stories much either, though plenty must, given the vote counts we see), but dang has had plenty of time (i.e., nearly 8 years in the job) to observe what combination of upvotes, comments and other behaviour may indicate a
I expected Triplebyte to help me find a job. This is what they said they would do—the only thing they said they would do—and they did so admirably. Then some eight months later they dropped a bombshell.
I’m not even sure what your argument is here; are you saying that because “an entire generation across age ranges” (whatever that means) collectively did... something... now companies can indiscriminately trample on everyone’s privacy forevermore, and nobody’s allowed to try to reverse the situation?
I get what you are saying, and yes, those are totally reasonable expectations in any community.
Im just saying - I think its amazing that _anybody_ trusts any of these Silicon Valley organisations to do anything reasonable. They are convenient to use, sure ... but ever trusting them to put your interests above their own. I dont understand how people can believe that.
If you hand over info and put in on their servers .. you dont own that info at all. They can, and will, do whatever they want with it to make another $
The problem is that non-SV companies aren’t generally any better, and frequently worse (cf all the security leaks where they release info that they didn’t mean to publish). The best we can do as individuals is push back against it when we see it happening, and advocate for legislation like GDPR to enforce it legally.
Your original post is poorly worded at best to get your point across; it comes off as a victim-blaming status-quo-advocating cheap quip, which doesn’t add anything to the conversation, either about this particular instance or the general problem.
Chill everyone. Ammon didn't mean to betray anyone's trust. He just executed public profiles feature very poorly and compared them to profiles on anonymous platforms which was naive.
Before a lot of people see this and delete their profile if I were him I'd do this>
+Continue keeping it an opt-out feature. But give a long lead time. A month or two. Regular emails warning that profile will go public and a personalized screenshot of what exactly would be included.
+If users want to approve the public profile, they will stop receiving these emails. They should also be able to choose who to show in their profiles.
+If users forget to approve or deny, make an extremely minimalist profile public with only initials of the name listed.
Sure, they sent out an innocuous-looking email that didn't actually describe the important details of what was happening, on a Friday, hid opting out in low contrast on a page where it would be unexpected to find it, and made deleting accounts so difficult that I would have never found it if someone hadn't posted it here, and it requires a government ID to do it.
But sure, all these dark patterns were unintentional--they didn't mean to.
Hey everyone. Happy to answer any questions about this. Basically, we think that LinkedIn profiles don't do a good job of showing engineering skill (especially for self-taught people or people from non-traditional backgrounds). I'm excited to just build better support for showing side projects and GitHub contributions. LinkedIn profiles have become the default engineering resume (despite the fact that most engineers are not particularly happy with their LinkedIn profile). But there's lock-in. I hope that we have enough scale to be able to chip away at this.
What a foolish decision to make. Knowing what you know about HN users, did you expect that this would go well? You can pretty much assume that Triplebyte will be persona non grata henceforth, especially as word spreads that you are publicly exposing people and only giving 1 week to opt out.
Extremely foolish and really shines a bad light on your decision making capabilities. Why would I put my trust in a company that is so shady?
You will change this bad decision and apologize, but you have betrayed the trust of all the people who have used you. Even if you change your policy now, we know you will change it back in the near future. No one will use your services again, because of this betrayal. You just killed your entire company in one fell swoop.
I’m shocked that someone associated with YC could make such a demonstrably poor decision.
A lot of people go through YC and while their filter is better than most I assure you this is hardly the most shockingly stupid thing I've seen someone in YC do, ever heard of Meta? That was a dumpster fire from start to finish.
(posting from a throwaway account, but long time HN user).
Well, I was just about to go through your process, since you announced that you are opening to remotes (I'm in the EU), but now I've requested that you delete my profile. No way I want my current employer to know I'm looking, especially in the current climate where job hunting is difficult.
As other people have mentioned, you now have a deeper problem than entering a new market. You just broke your users trust.
And the sad thing is that this was a real opportunity, because linkedin sucks. Unfortunately what you failed to realise is that there is appetite to switch from linkedin to a more honourable company. Not to an equally or more dishonest one.
Most likely your staff were trying to warn you about this from the beginning, and it would be worth your time reflecting on why you didn't take note of that more deeply.
I know you are looking for actionable routes to save your company right now. In my opinion, the loss of trust is so bad that only a pretty costly signal will now cause people to reevaluate. The one that springs to mind is for you, Ammon, to announce that you are stepping down as CEO and starting a search for someone who is committed to privacy to take on the role.
Well, sorry that you feel this way. I don't agree right now (clearly). But I'll certainly take this seriously and think more about it/listen to feedback. We're talking about relatively basic profiles, to give us the canvas to launch public achievement badges (that we hope allow us to better help people who don't have traditional credentials). My view, building this, is that we're not displaying anything more private than hundreds of other companies. Stack Overflow has public profiles. Hacker Rank has public profile. AngelList has public profiles. Even HN has public profiles. We are launching public profiles for a product that has not had them in the past, and I get that that's a more sensitive thing to do. What we've focused on to keep that from harming anyone is what data we include in the profiles. I wish we'd include more details about that in the email.
> Stack Overflow has public profiles. Hacker Rank has public profile. AngelList has public profiles. Even HN has public profiles
This seems so obviously disingenuous to me. You know why Triplebyte is different, right? You understand why employees would want to keep the fact that they have a Triplebyte account secret instead of public, right?
If you do know that answer, then you should recognize that you're betraying the trust you created with the user. If you do know why Triplebyte is different, then you're lying to us here.
If you do not know why Triplebyte is different why on earth are you the CEO of a recruiting company. That's absolutely unforgivable.
This one sentence gives away that you're either lying to us or willfully ignorant and careless about your users. Either way, I'll never trust you again.
First off, thanks again for taking the time to speak with us on HN.
I think you’re missing/avoiding the issue that people might want to hide the very fact that they have a Triplebyte account at all. It implies that they have job hunted in the last 5 or so years, and someone who’s been at a single company for longer than that might not want that information to be available.
I work at Google, and I can tell you as a fact that our Privacy Working Groups would never let us launch something like this without explicit user consent.
Google did something significantly worse -- and spent ages apologizing for it and never really recovered from the reputation hit, and I suspect that negative impressions Buzz gave people were a contributing factor to G+'s total failure.
All of these companies have opt-in profiles. When you sign up for the service, you can tell already what you’re getting into and what will be displayed. As far as I’m aware, none of them started as an unrelated service that suddenly announced they were going to make a public site and seed it with information from anyone who’d ever interacted with them.
I've always wondered if people who use corporate doublespeak like this realize how transparent they are.
Why not just say "We think we'll make more money by sharing private information our users trusted us with, without their consent." Then at least I think you'd get points for candor and honesty. As is, no points for either and everyone reading knows what you mean.
By the way, is it true you require a government id to delete your account? If so, why?
> Stack Overflow has public profiles. Hacker Rank has public profile. AngelList has public profiles. Even HN has public profiles.
Come on now, these examples are not even remotely similar to what you are doing here.
Firstly, it's up to me whether or not I even create a profile on those sites.
Secondly, if I choose to create a profile, I have full control over what is shown publicly.
What you are doing here is making information public whether I like it or not. This is not OK, and you trying to defend it here is mind boggling, and demonstrates clearly what little regards you have for privacy. I for one will now never have anything to do with TripleByte.
The difference is that people expected their relationship with Triplebyte to be private, and not a public matter. A lot of people do not even want the fact that they're on the platform to be public. Like it or not there's a cultural expectation of "people have Linkedin all the time even when they're not necessarily job hunting," a level of leniency and acceptance that does not apply to Triplebyte (which is currently viewed as a "I want to get a job now" website)
I have had a really positive experience with Triplebyte so far but hope your team can understand the root of what is bothering people about this decision.
You mentioned Hacker News in passing. HN has public profiles indeed, but most of them don't have much information. Either people don't want to fill them out or they don't care to, possibly because they just want to do other things on HN (like post comments or upvote articles and comments.) The way public profiles work vary from service to service, as does people's expectations regarding those profiles. From what I've read, it sounds like public profiles haven't been Triplebytes focus, but users are now upset that they're being brought into focus or given more exposure than they ever expected before (assuming people are correct in the fears they've been expressing here.)
You're exposing job searches publicly that were supposed to be private. You advertise this privacy when users create new accounts, so you can't play dumb and pretend that somehow over years of running a company like Triplebyte it never occurred to you that folks don't want their search made public.
I’m having a similar gut reaction. I just got the email and had I missed it (which is entirely possible since Triplebyte has been bombarding me with erroneous newsletters), I’d have a by default publicly visible profile. Just went in and turned the visibility off.
The roll out of this needs to be handled better, with extra care given to privacy settings, and verbiage on the profiles.
For example, Triplebyte has the following language - ‘I am currently open to new opportunities’, heh, yeah, please, show that on my public profile while I have an existing job.
A robust technical assessment site focused on tech is good, especially if it is nuanced in assessing people (not hard cut offs, finding strengths and weaknesses on a spectrum, etc), but please, take good care of privacy and clear communication.
Right! How can you share anything about your desire to find a new job without recruiters seeing it? And then, how do you make sure that the platform somehow excludes your current employer's recruiters? As with Ashley Madison, where you might find your spouse looking for you. So the privacy concern is a bit overdone, but nonetheless, the company's behavior is a bit shocking. If the CEO thought the users' profiles were as good as public, why not communicate that well to the users to begin with and later float the idea of making profiles truly public?
A public stackoverflow/github/angellist profile does not leak information to my employer that I'm seeking new opportunities.
Tripebyte is fundamentally different and dangerous there.
It make no difference whether you're sorry that people feel that way. It's the wrong thing to do - you're going to hurt people doing this.
It make no difference that it's a fantastic opportunity for you and Tripebyte. It's not what you told people when they signed up and entrusted you their names and jobseeking. It's the wrong thing to do - and only lawyers are going to end up benefiting.
The difference between what you are doing here and the other public profiles you mention is consent.
When a user creates a profile on Stack Overflow or Hacker News, they are consenting to share whatever data they give on that particular platform.
When a user created a profile on Triplebyte, up until now, they were consenting to that data being used in a private profile for the purpose of connecting them with job opportunities, privately. Now, you've emailed all of your users on a Friday evening to say "by the way, if you don't opt-out in the next week, we will take this data that you gave to us under the assumption that it would be private, and make it public (and potentially searchable)."
By saying "we'll do it unless you say no", you are not getting consent.
If you're familiar with the tea analogy of consent, a la https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8, this would be like you saying "well, other users (not necessarily every user, or you, the user in question right now) have had tea (not necessarily the same type of tea) from other platforms. This is just like that. So, if you don't say no to our tea in the next week, we're going to drop the tea on you. We hope you enjoy!"
You are not just "launching public profiles for a product that has not had them in the past", you are launching public profiles and on them you are _sharing data that was given to you under the agreement that it was private_. You are using data that folks gave you in a very, very different way than for the purpose they gave it.
Finally, just to really drive this home, you say "What we've focused on to keep that from harming anyone is what data we include in the profiles."
And, what data is that? What personal data, given under the agreement that it would stay private, won't harm someone if made public?
Full (presumably legal, or at least professional) name, coupled with profile picture (presumably a clear photo of their face) and, I'm guessing, also the locations they said they were looking for a job in? Although, fine, in most cases sharing that data is mainly annoying and trust-breaching, that combination of information can be devastating if leaked. Consider a person who has escaped an abusive ex-partner, and has managed to keep private about what new city they've moved to, now popping up in a Google search for their name that has their picture and the fact that they're looking for a job in Los Angeles. This person probably isn't your core user-base, but stories like this are real, they happen, and if you get enough users, they will be among your real life user stories. You have to consider user stories like this when you are trusted with personal information.
Others have addressed the obvious privacy issues, so let me address your logic on the business side of things.
I apologize in advance for the tone, but your move with exposing profiles made me angry. Good thing my TB profile is fake (and performs worse than my actual, real life resume despite all the embellishments)
1) There is no lock in - I can move on and off LI whenever I want, and have. I've exported my data and used it to create my own resume site with analytics that I send out to companies. I can see who viewed my CV, when, and whether or not they actually read through it or bounced immediately.
I've also learned to track the progression of my candidacy through the organization using this trick (recruiters tend to view my CV on their Windows desktop during work hours, hiring managers tend to check out resumes in the evening on their iPhones or Macbooks, engineers/tech leads tend to use Macbooks, desktop Macs or Android phones in the morning or during lunch time. Usually when I've hit the engineering lead I tend to get invited to interview).
It's extremely easy to create your own CV website for free (github/lab pages) that's versioned by git and deployed automatically using a CI script.
2) You're attacking the tech hiring problem from the wrong angle, like everyone else. There is no issue with discovery of candidates and employers. LI and stackoverflow, etc do a great job of approximating this O(N^2) exposure process, the filtering and sifting.
The ACTUAL problem is on the hiring end - companies won't take a chance on non-traditional candidates (not talking about race and gender here, more about credentials).
You have to start by chipping away at the costs of showing competence for a candidate (the traditional way to do this is to get a three- or four-year degree that's either expensive in terms of time and money, or useless, and if you get a degree with a low score, doubly so, even though you might be a better programmer than the people who scored over 90%).
This will only happen by convincing hiring orgs to hire non-traditional candidates, and this requires establishing a very strong signal/noise ratio for candidates coming from your hiring channel.
Before you start PRing me about how great TB is at this - no it isn't. Not any better than leetcode etc, and those are terrible at predicting engineering competence.
The objection seems to be that this is automatic, with opt out, instead of with opt in. Another commenter makes the point that the opt out button is difficult to find. Those are the issues you should address.
Anybody know where the fuck the opt out button is? I literally can't find it on mobile
Edit: For anyone else struggling to find it, look for the box with the heading "Profile URL". There's a link in the upper right corner of the box that says "Visibility Settings". It's light grey text and kinda hard to notice that's a link.
Just for anyone else, if you're forcing users to opt out of something like this it should be a BIG BUTTON AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.
I can appreciate that it's an exciting opportunity for your business, but your failure to read the room here seems spectacular. My jaw dropped at each of your responses failing to understand why people were concerned and react appropriately. Hopefully there's something in the explanation of new functionality that's been missed and it's a misunderstanding?!
If I opt-out and make my profile non-public, what kind of information in the profile will still be public?
Because, in the "Visibility" link in the profile builder says: Your public profile will be invisible and will not appear in public search engines. This simplified version of your Triplebyte profile showcases your technical achievements based on actual skills, not pedigree (it does not contain your score details, job status, or preferences). Turn your visibility “ON” in order to share your unique Triplebyte profile URL on job applications, LinkedIn, GitHub, and other platforms.
However, "Learn More" says the URL will be inaccessible when not Public. So, which is it?
I interviewed with them last year, and just got this email. There may have been some of the usual boilerplate about “publish, disseminate, or publicly perform your content in order to provide our services” somewhere (actually, I recall a surprising lack of legalese) but there was absolutely not any attention drawn to the possibility that my profile would be shown to anyone other than the companies looking at the round of candidates I was included in.
I'm interested in knowing whether you surveyed at least some of your users (random ones, who aren't coworkers or acquaintances) what they thought about the change you just announced. I can understand that as a company you may wish for secrecy before you make a strategic move such as this one, but this sounds like the kind of change that'd be good to ask users about before doing it. Or maybe this didn't seem like a controversial move to you guys? (If so, bummer, but I hope you can still prevent or fix a potentially serious mistake.)
FWIW, I hadn't heard of TripleByte before, but this is not a good way of hearing about it, nor would it encourage me to become a user, if people's fears match what you're actually planning to do. If they're correct, it sounds like you're about to intentionally or accidentally implement a dark pattern. I hope that's not the case.
You just lost any trust and goodwill that Triplebyte built up with myself or any of my engineer friends.
Here is that problem: people gave you their data because you told them that you would make it available to companies that were NOT our current employers or the general public. None of us agreed to let you post the fact that we were actively seeking employment.
You betrayed our trust and are using data none of us agreed you could use in the way you are using it.
Please do not turn it into another Rolodex and competition for connections. It’s bad enough to know that connections could be mined through inference, but I’ll be leaving the second I find out you are turning into a social network.
A nicely styled resume and showcase should do the trick nicely.
Geeks don’t dislike LinkedIn because the formatting isn’t right, they dislike it because of the dark patterns. If that’s the measure with which you’re trying to compete with LinkedIn, it’s safe to call this one a win.
We plan to add more engineering-specific sections to the profiles. I think there's a lot of room to just display what matters to engineers/eng hiring managers better. Then we want to use the profiles to push the industry to look beyond traditional credentials (school, work at top companies). Recruiters say that they want to do this, but we need to get them off of LinkedIn where everything is designed around the traditional credentials.
You know what, it's clear that you've put a lot of thought into this from the product & strategy side, and these are genuinely great ideas with significant potential social impact that are worth exploring further.
But it really is a shame that from this incident, myself and many others will no longer be willing to trust you and your team with the data needed to execute on these ideas.
At the end of the day, we entrusted you with extremely sensitive data in order to use your service that could threaten our very livelihoods if exposed. Your choosing to expose this data without explicit opt-in shows an alarming lack of empathy for your users and that you were never deserving of this trust.
> I think there's a lot of room to just display what matters to engineers/eng hiring managers better.
There's no doubt a lot of truth there.
What matters a lot to engineering managers are the answers to questions like "What other roles is this candidate interviewing for?" "How well did this candidate do in their Triplebyte interviews for our competitors?" "What are the salary ranges of other roles this candidate has clicked on or applied for?"
Will that also form part of every user's public profile, with the same "1 week to opt out, 30 days to enable opt out" process? Or will that data only be available to hiring managers with Triplebyte Premium accounts?
That’s an interesting thought, but I haven’t seen any change in both attitude and the interviewing process from companies on TripleByte. Do you have any hard numbers showing that companies are willing to walk the walk instead of just talk?
why ignore the legal precedent? it's more than personal opinion in every sense of the word, it's an already hashed-out question that had a very clear consequence. "Recruiters say" doesn't even come into the conversation -- this has been tried before. do you have a legal team? do you pay them more than pocket change? god help you, but at a certain point you chose to ignore the book
I think it would make more sense to make this opt-in. For instance, I set my profile not to be displayed a while back, but when I checked on this new thing, it was set to make at least some part of the profile public by default.
Keep in mind that Triplebyte profiles have no reason to exist except people looking for work, and that most people have a reason to want to be sure that a current employer does not have an easy way to find out that they're looking for work. I can have a HN account and it doesn't make anyone think I'm looking for work, but if an employer sees my profile on Triplebyte, it tells them at the very least that I was at some point looking for work. If they see it on Triplebyte after having previously not seen it, it tells them that something changed recently.
I would definitely think this should be an opt-in thing.
Gdpr 100% applies here to any user residing in the EU, and as one I find it appalling that this is opt-out. Further, I couldn't find an option to delete my account, which is another clear violation of GDPR. I wonder how long before they get hit with a juicy fine.
Yeah, my understanding is that if they did not make an attempt to block EU citizens from using the site then GDPR does apply. The problem is that IIRC, when I was singing up they were explicitly serving only few cities in the US. Might be misremembering though, it was a while back.
If I recall correctly, the corporations that explicitly do not aim to serve EU citizens (and make reasonable attempts to block them) do not need to follow GDPR. Then there's a matter of enforcement - I don't think EU can do anything to a company that does not have any presence in the EU. IANAL, but I am an EU citizen living in the US so it would be great if I'm mistaken here. :-)
I have a triplebyte account and would love for you to take on LinkedIn, but it absolutely needs to be opt-in. Sorry if that makes things inconvenient for you, but I’m going to delete my account if you go through with this.
When are you going to be available outside the US? If you were going to offer the service how much would it cost to have you do the interview/skills assessment as a service if you’re not going for other markets any time soon?
No one asked you to broadcast our progress on your platform or participation in it. I made sure to not only make my account not look it's mine, I used every control to lower its impact on my footprint and pushed my peers to.
From today onward Triplebyte has established its place in the lexicon as a ghetto self-serving linkedin wannabe. Good job.