screen shot 2010 10 24 at 12 27 40 pm Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google ResultsSavvy Internet surfer Chris Crompton has found a flaw in Groupon’s email link encryption where adding the search term “addx” (exact Google search = allinurl: addx site:groupon.com) brings up emails of people who have subscribed to the Groupon newsletter. I am unable to tell whether these emails are from people who actually purchased the deals or just signed up for the email list unknowingly.

It looks like this is some kind of Google Analytics tracking flaw for a Groupon marketing campaign, and the emails are from people who have referred deals to others through Groupon’s insecure links. It seems as though when someone clicks on a deal link in a Groupon email and posts it anywhere else online, Google has indexed this sensitive information.

Groupon, which launched its service allowing merchants to create their own deals yesterday, looks like it’s suffering some scaling issues along the lines of what happened to purchase sharing startup Blippy when it exposed credit card numbers through Google search result in April.

I have gotten in touch Google, Groupon and a few of the people whose email addresses were exposed about fixing the sensitive information being leaked and will update this post when I hear back.

 Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results

 Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results
 Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results

 Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results  Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results

 Groupon Exposes Customer Emails In Google Results

peace TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGateWe’ve all had a pretty long week dealing with all this, for lack of a better term, AngelGate stuff. For the people involved, me included, it hasn’t been much fun.

Mostly because angel investors as a group do so much for our community. They are the the grease that let so many young startups go from being an idea to something more. The fact that some of them may or may not have had discussions that may or may not have been inappropriate is, in the end, a sidenote. In fact, the only reason the discussion is interesting is because of how important angel investors have become to the startup ecosystem.

I’ve listened to impassioned pleas from both sides of the argument. I’ve also listened to a few rants that were less than pleasant to listen to. The story is probably not over and there are more private emails that some are lobbying to get posted.

But one thing I’m not going to let happen is this – AngelGate won’t take over the TechCrunch Disrupt agenda. Yes there is a panel on Monday morning that includes two of the major figures in the story – Ron Conway and Dave McClure.

I’m reaching out to both Conway and McClure and asking that the discussion stay on the rails and I’m pretty sure they’ll both think that’s just fine.

We may touch on the issue but for the most part the half hour conversation will be about much more interesting issues. I had a chance, for example, to talk with Sequoia’s Roelof Botha today about the panel and what he thinks we should discuss. He wants to talk about how venture capitalists and angel investors can help entrepreneurs succeed. And I think that’s a grande idea.

In the end TechCrunch disrupt begins and ends with the entrepreneur. We have twenty five absolutely amazing startups launching at the event, and announcements from tons more. You can even meet the guys that turned an idea at the HackDay at the New York Disrupt into a full fledged, funded startup.

Now that sounds like fun to me.

See you all on Monday.

 TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate

 TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate
 TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate

 TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate  TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate

 TechCrunch Disrupt Will Not Be About AngelGate

bloggers Blogging And Mass PsychomanipulationIf I ever write another book it will probably be about one of three topics. The first is the truth about how the press and journalism really works – the sausage making – to show just how much of a beautiful, subjective and chaotic mess it all is. The second idea is to talk about how perfect blogging is, with its constant feedback loop, as a training ground for mass psychology and manipulation. The third idea I’m keeping to myself for now, but it’s more startup focused.

It’s the second one that’s been on my mind lately. Mostly because it’s become pretty clear to me that any blogger worth her salt could start, say, an extremely successful militant religious cult.

Any blogger will tell you how frustrating the early days are. Getting someone, anyone, to link to you. Your first comment! etc. And as your audience grows you are introduced to the first rule of anonymous human behavior – it’s dark and brutal, and reminds me how thin the veil of civilized behavior really is. If there is something nasty that can be said, someone will say it. Over and over.

A big part of blogging is simply keeping the peace. You set rules on whether or not you’ll allow anonymous commenting, or commenting at all. You decide if/how to moderate comments. You decide if/how to respond to opposing arguments and (more often) personal attacks. And you, involuntarily for the most part, evolve your writing in response to the feedback loop. Those are the days of innocence, simple joys and simple sadnesses.

But then you start to get really good at what you do. You write something and you get trashed. The next time you try it a little differently and it the commenters love you. You don’t even do it consciously – but over the years you just get better at it. To the point where you pretty much know exactly what the reaction will be to any given post, and how to tweak things to get the reaction you want.

Zynga talks about constant A/B testing in its games to maximize revenue, a huge competitive advantage for them. Bloggers go through the same thing every time they write a post.

Old media types don’t have quite the same experience because they generally have an editorial agenda, certain writing rules, and editors to please. There are too many layers between them and the direct feedback loop. so they evolve much more slowly. Bloggers have a direct line to the collective mind.

I imagine priests and rabbis and career politicians have much the same experience. Speaking publicly so frequently they learn exactly how to manipulate the audience, or the camera, to get the reaction they want. It doesn’t work on every individual, but the masses as a group are easy to manipulate. and your audience tends to self reinforce over time, meaning the people who buy what you’re selling tend to come back for more, and others wander away.

In a post last weekend I wrote about women in tech. I feel like I’m on pretty firm ground here, since more than half of our senior staff are women, including our CEO, and we cover female entrepreneurs whenever we find them. I know exactly the post I could have written to get a super big high five from our audience. Talk big about how the problem is so prevalent, talk quietly about what we do directly to help solve it (but note how much more we must do!), and then salute the ringleaders who are making a living out of pretending to care about the issue (without, of course, pointing out that they are frauds). Seriously, I could have had you as a collective group eating out of my hand on that one. I even pointed to a couple of posts by men that did exactly that (also very experienced bloggers who know how to write a crowd pleaser when they need to).

I didn’t do that though. I wrote a different post that I intended to question some of the basic assumptions that are being made about women in technology. And I knew exactly what the comments would be like. More FU than high five, for example.

And that’s ok with me. I’d rather say what I really think than pander to the crowd. This is an issue that’s too important to use for my own glorification.

It would be so much better if we could stop a lot of the bullshit that we see in blogging. To do that we need a smarter audience – one that sees through it because they’ve been trained to, and demands a little more meat on the bone from the sites they frequent. I’m telling you flat out that any decent blogger can manipulate the hell out of their audience. Don’t let yourself be one of the manipulated.

In a follow up post I may explain some of the common tricks to manipulate the crowd so you can see through them more easily in the future. And just for the record, we try to avoid manipulating readers here at TechCrunch. Or at least to abuse that power as little as possible. And most of my favorite blogs also play it straight.

Remember this, though. When you’re reading something here that’s getting you really riled up, stop. It may be that you really should be thinking the exact opposite of what you are. And if you find yourself floating through a post agreeing with all the subtle pandering, wake up! And call us on it immediately.

And yes, I know exactly what you as a group are going to say in the comments below. If I told you it would change the outcome, of course. But I think you know deep down that I’m right.

 Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation

 Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation
 Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation

 Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation  Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation

 Blogging And Mass Psychomanipulation

 Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”A couple days ago, I wrote a post wondering if it wasn’t time to change Facebook’s social graph dynamic? Specifically, I called for a simplified system that had two layers: your friends and your followers. I think that their current social management system which relies heavily on friend lists is highly flawed. And guess what? Mark Zuckerberg agrees.

Tonight at a Facebook Developer’s Garage meeting at Facebook’s headquarters in Palo Alto, Zuckerberg fielded a question about the service’s privacy controls. He said that the ideal solution for sharing different things with different people is to make a friend list. “But guess what? Nobody wants to make lists,” Zuckerberg admitted.

Exactly. While the idea behind friend lists is great, for the average user (in other words, 99 percent of Facebook’s 500 million users) it’s simply not something they’re going to do. Or even if they make them at first, it’s not likely something they’re going to keep up with. Facebook has tried to lower the barrier to entry a few times (most recently a couple days ago) but they are still simply too time-consuming to set up and maintain.

My solution is the two tier system: either someone is a friend and you have to accept them as such. Or they’re a follower — meaning they can opt-in to following your public updates without you having to okay them. When you update on Facebook, there would then be a big switch to decide if you want something to go to just your friends or to your followers (which would include your friends).

I see no reason why there couldn’t be an option to use lists that further filter things beyond that. But friend/follower would be the main list/function that everyone used.

Zuckberg is clearly thinking a different way to solve the lists issue. He thinks it still has to be something like friend lists, but done a different way. He noted that they have to come up with a way for people to control each thing they want to share, but do it in a way so that the tools are really easy to use.

Again, even with such a vague statement, I’m worried that this is going to be too complicated.

To be fair, it’s an insanely difficult problem Facebook is facing — and Zuckerberg knows it. He notes that after over six years of adding various privacy controls over features, things became “really hard to use.”

But he still believes in the idea of sub-groups of friends because the average user has something like 50 friends now — and people who use Facebook more often, have a lot more. Those users might not want to share all their information with even just those people. Or worse, he noted that ”the people who you are most afarid of seeing [some item] are on your friends’ list.”

He also spoke to the fundamental idea of friending someone and them accepting it as what they need to look toward going forward. He also believes the problem may simply come down to design. Again, the idea behind friend lists is correct in his mind — it’s just the implementation that isn’t. I still like my idea.

Information provided by CrunchBase

 Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”

 Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”

 Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”
 Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”

 Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”  Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”

 Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.”

 Page 1 of 5  1  2  3  4  5 »