19 April 2016

Karma - the website that reviews you!

| Steven Bailey
Join the conversation
32
Screen Shot 2015-05-06 at 4.53.05 pm

Entrepreneurship can be a lonely game and in the case of these young Canberran gents, it can be controversial too. Monish Parajuli and brothers Dayne Rathbone and Clyde Rathbone (pictured above) are in the latter stages of developing a website which’s primary function is to publically evaluate human beings.

As I sat to chew the fat with the three business partners I couldn’t help but think that Orwell was somehow, somewhere, listening…

Karma aims to give honest reviews about people; not reviews about products or plays or food, but people.

After satisfying a rigorous process to verify one’s identity, a person can log on to read and write appraisals on other human beings. Once an appraisal is published on the site it too can be appraised with comments and a tick to indicate the reader’s approval or disapproval – a digital democracy perhaps.

Obviously such an endeavour gives rise to numerous political, social, legal, and ethical questions.

From a legal perspective, Karma is a tinderbox of defamation cases. Generally speaking, defamation laws protect your reputation by disallowing false information about you to be published. If a publisher is asked to remove potentially damaging material, and it refuses to do so, the publisher may then become liable for any damage caused. As a result, Karma will remove any published material if it is so requested… but, the catch is that it will publicise details of the fact that you have requested that the material be removed. By no means is this strategy a full proof firewall against legal cases but, it’s a start.

The development of the website is as much the result of a shared world view as it is a determination to succeed in the online market. Karma’s mission is stated on the home page of the website: “Our mission is to help create a more informed, accountable, and honest world.”

But is creating a forum where people can write whatever they like about another person ethical or not?

Comedian and generally clever guy Dayne Rathbone says that “transparent societies are more likely to behave ethically, and we should all be working together to celebrate the good in the world whilst protecting each other from potentially harmful experiences.”

But is it as ethical to apply the same notion of transparency to institutions, authorities, and companies as we would to an individual citizen? For instance, it is certainly of public importance that we know how much influence Rupert Murdoch or Gina Rinehart has over Australian Governments, but is it as important that we know the sexual preferences, or medications, of a school teacher or police officer?

The business partners contend that Karma is unique when compared to other similar websites such as LinkedIn or Facebook.

Because the website places an exclusive focus on an individual’s personhood through the eyes of others, it attempts to operate as a deterrent to anonymity – where it is quite easy to create a fake Facebook, Gmail, or LinkedIn account and troll with gay abandon.

Former Wallabies and ACT Brumbies player Clyde Rathbone contends that although one’s first impression may be to the contrary, it would be unwise to lie, make false accusations, or to bully people through Karma. His reasoning is that those who post “slander” and “junk comments” will be realised and appraised accordingly.

“Any review site that wants to maintain a high level of authenticity needs to live up to those ideals, and that’s what Karma does more than many other websites,” he says.

“Heaps of websites are already doing what we are proposing, they’re just not doing it very well.”

On that point, I agree with him.

Where existing websites allow users to create their own profiles or identities, Karma’s function relies on the premise that the collective interpretations of a person’s identity will be a more accurate reflection of who a person really is – and therefor, more ethical.

Monish Parajuli, and Dayne and Clyde Rathbone are certainly an intelligent and driven team. Regardless of whether or not this idea frightens the hell out of you, if their only goal was to inspire people to think then they are instant success stories.

The success of Karma will depend on the team’s ability to assuage people’s fears while maintaining people’s interest. Remember, we will be judging you. 😉

Join the conversation

32
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

Anyone know what is happening with this train wreck?

ABC Radio National’s tech show “Download This Show” have just slammed Karma. “Worst startup ever reviewed” – “Bullying site” – “Why did they choose their own employee as a case study? Reflects on them!” Fifteen minutes and not one word in favour. If these reviewers – who are usually in favour of internet freedom & transparency – hate the site, the Rathbones might as well just shut up shop now. They also had words to say about the look & feel – confusing, and no guidance as to how to get libellous material taken down. Oh, and “misleading soft typography when the topic is so nasty” … Worth listening to the podcast: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/downloadthisshow/dts16052015/6469686

lol. what time has come ! Now even KARMA is getting technologised :p

Bwa ha ha ha ha Karma is too scared to have a ratings facility on its own Facebook page!

vintage123 said :

Well i just clicked on the karma website and scrolled down to the bottom of the page to see a review from Clyde on Artem, one of his former employees……………..and i can tell you now, if i was Artem, I would be very very unhappy.
The whole site is just tit for tat.

Yes, fully agree. I just looked at it and there’s a possible lawsuit already waiting to happen. Artem could well have been mentally ill and too embarrassed to explain himself, while now having it under control or otherwise resolved. Now that it’s in the public domain he’s possibly been defamed. It’s been a long time since I looked at this sort of law, but I believe a defamation defence relies on two limbs, firstly that its true and secondly that its in the public interest that it be made public. I think that lawyers will be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of lots of work thanks to this site.

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

If anyone writes anything negative about me and the moderators let it through, truth or not, i would file an immediate defamation case on both the site administrators and the individuals and let the courts decide where the truth lies.

Are you aware how much that would cost?

Yes.

Well i just clicked on the karma website and scrolled down to the bottom of the page to see a review from Clyde on Artem, one of his former employees……………..and i can tell you now, if i was Artem, I would be very very unhappy.
The whole site is just tit for tat.

vintage123 said :

If anyone writes anything negative about me and the moderators let it through, truth or not, i would file an immediate defamation case on both the site administrators and the individuals and let the courts decide where the truth lies.

Are you aware how much that would cost?

Worst. Idea. Ever.

I truly could not get far enough away from this.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

It would be good if they could turn the clock back 20 years and review Rolf Harris.

Excellent idea.

In fact, instead of trying to attract “reviews” of dubious worth, wouldn’t it be easier to collect all Australian court reports and enter them on a searchable database?

Volunteers (similar to the people who do so much amazing work on Trove) could then spend their time finding pictures from Facebook to link to the alphabetised list of people who have appeared in court reports.

I say this because once upon a time I learned an acquaintance of mine was about to take on a new employee – he had no idea until I pointed it out to him that this prospective employee had recently used sleazy lawyer tricks to successfully dodge being convicted of selling smack to an undercover cop. I helped him dodge a bullet there.

In the early days of the internet one could access all Australian (and a few overseas) court reports including Family Law stuff.
I think the Privacy Police intervened much to the disappointment of law students and general voyeurs.
Most employers would use the internet to check out prospective employees (and review current ones) these days.

That’s nothing. Until the privacy laws you could go to any post office and purchase an electoral roll which contained the full names, addresses and occupation of every person on the electoral roll. Nowadays access to the electoral roll is tightly controlled. You cannot buy one, you must go to the AEC office and even then it only contains the name and address of voters with many not even listed (called silent enrolment). The National Library has electoral rolls on microfiche but the most recent is 2007.

This is an absolute shocker. How are they going to differentiate the thousands of “John Wilsons” and “Elizabeth Patersons” and “James Scotts”? Specify their addresses? Work histories? What if someone commenting THINKS they have the right Charlie Smith, but don’t? How are these geniuses going to supervise the inevitable flood of mistakes? And how are they going to identify the posted “opinions” of random trolls? Are they planning to charge money to take down information that citizens don’t want to see up there about themselves? To put it plainly – is this planned extortion?

Sigh.

It looks like the answer to my question is yes. From the SMH -> “She also said users of the site’s ability to rate people who had not chosen to be on the site was worrying.”

Your proposed side will be a haven for covert aggressives and group bullies to inflict abuse on others.

The blood of many suicides will be on your hands with this.

@ClydeRathbone – it’s clear from the response to this (the news of your proposed website) that there’s a massive issue not being addressed.

I invite you to be transparent and up front about …. will you allow reviews of non-members (those who choose not to sign up)?

A simple yes or no would demonstrate your openness and would be preferred to an indirect or long winded answer.

In today’s world bullying through ‘convert aggression’ is rife. That’s where people harm others in underhanded ways so that they can get away with it. This website risks being a platform for such harm and abuse. This could include:
– Undermining veiled as complements
– Comments that are true statements but misrepresentations without full context
– ‘Lobbying’ others to agree with negative (but dishonest) comments about someone to target, harass and bully them and hide behind the power of numbers to establish some sort of validity

Those in positions of power can easily embark on an undermining campaign, recruiting others along the way to deliberately and dishonestly destroy someone’s reputation. This most vulnerable and socially isolated will be most at risk.

So back to the original question – would you allow ‘ratings’ for those who do not wish to risk such harmful abuse from others such as the above?

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

It would be good if they could turn the clock back 20 years and review Rolf Harris.

Excellent idea.

In fact, instead of trying to attract “reviews” of dubious worth, wouldn’t it be easier to collect all Australian court reports and enter them on a searchable database?

Volunteers (similar to the people who do so much amazing work on Trove) could then spend their time finding pictures from Facebook to link to the alphabetised list of people who have appeared in court reports.

I say this because once upon a time I learned an acquaintance of mine was about to take on a new employee – he had no idea until I pointed it out to him that this prospective employee had recently used sleazy lawyer tricks to successfully dodge being convicted of selling smack to an undercover cop. I helped him dodge a bullet there.

In the early days of the internet one could access all Australian (and a few overseas) court reports including Family Law stuff.
I think the Privacy Police intervened much to the disappointment of law students and general voyeurs.
Most employers would use the internet to check out prospective employees (and review current ones) these days.

dungfungus said :

It would be good if they could turn the clock back 20 years and review Rolf Harris.

Excellent idea.

In fact, instead of trying to attract “reviews” of dubious worth, wouldn’t it be easier to collect all Australian court reports and enter them on a searchable database?

Volunteers (similar to the people who do so much amazing work on Trove) could then spend their time finding pictures from Facebook to link to the alphabetised list of people who have appeared in court reports.

I say this because once upon a time I learned an acquaintance of mine was about to take on a new employee – he had no idea until I pointed it out to him that this prospective employee had recently used sleazy lawyer tricks to successfully dodge being convicted of selling smack to an undercover cop. I helped him dodge a bullet there.

It would be good if they could turn the clock back 20 years and review Rolf Harris.

Yep. Litigation and suicide. The two things we already have too much of.

Solidarity makes a good point. What is to stop people from paying for reviews?
How are identities going to be checked to ensure they are not fake profiles and why do we need this extra invasion?

I believe we should be able to meet people and provide them the information we choose to. Networking websites such as Facebook, linked-in already make it easy for someone who does not know you to find out where you work, who you know and where you go if you are not careful with your privacy settings.

‘RDS threw food at me and humiliated me in front of friends and family because I did not agree with her views.’

Are you going to have to censor your behaviour in case someone writes a karma review?

I don’t like it.

I take it only people signed up to Karma would be appraised?

Some of the aspects are interesting, however I believe there should be a opt in option. I think that social networks have created enough ability for people to share their opinions and judge other people. Karma have dealt with fact that you cannot do this anonymously but unless your identity verification process reflects what banks and government processes it is easy enough for someone to create fake identities. My concern with this is more the impact on the individual. People make mistake, have bad days, and they should be given the opportunity to move on, right their wrongs not have something that publicly records this against them. The application of these sorts of concepts needs to be considered, there is enough stress in society, and if you look at some of the negative impact Twitter and Facebook have on individuals being judged such as suicide. The owners of karma need consider this to take an approach that is socially responsible. The idea of a goodwill engine is great and the focus should be on that, I would remove the negative feedback capabilities.. You are still meeting your ethos of building a better society.

If anyone writes anything negative about me and the moderators let it through, truth or not, i would file an immediate defamation case on both the site administrators and the individuals and let the courts decide where the truth lies.

I can already hear the defo lawyers rubbing their hands with glee over this…

Wow, I so want no part of this. People posting personal things about me (or you) online kinda sounds like a terrible idea.

Hi Clyde,

I have a question about how karma.wiki will work. According to the post by Steven Bailey:

“After satisfying a rigorous process to verify one’s identity, a person can log on to read and write appraisals on other human beings.”

Does this mean that the only way to read reviews of people will be to sign up as a member? Or will you allow non-members to read everything on the site but not allow them to post until they join up?

Thanks for taking the time to respond; I guess that’s -1 Karma point for me! Good luck with it but I still don’t see it working in either positive or negative scenarios. In helping others out you are still seeking some kind of “reward” by having it documented online. Plus if you started to get negative comments I imagine you’d just disable/delete your account.

It’s a good idea but will have too many problems in reality.

Honestly, who is going to join up to the site if people are going to badmouth them?

In Clyde’s example above, why would his friend Mike’s tenants even join the site so their landlord can “warn” others? Or can you rate people who aren’t members which raises another whole kettle of fish?
And if they are members of the site, what’s to stop them returning fire on their landlord with made up and unproveable claims? Even if it’s untrue, we all know mud sticks.

I think due to human nature it will end up with pockets of congratulatory backslapping interspersed with lots of bullying.

Good luck.

Hey Clyde,

I read about the dramas you were having on the tech side and that resonated with me, been there and smarter if not more advanced because of it.

I think this has the potential to be a game changer for people who deal with people. The trust business is absolutely booming and you’re part of that. It will be interesting to see how it pans out and evolves. Anonymity can be an app killer as I know you’re aware.

Nice work.

Holden Caulfield12:36 pm 07 May 15

The idea is sound, I think, it’s just a shame there’s too many whack jobs/trolls out there who would see the value (for themselves) in messing around with a site like Karma.

It would be cool if it worked, though, so don’t let my negativity stop you.

I’ll paste good reviews for $20 a pop.

Cheers

ClydeRathbone11:49 am 07 May 15

Rollersk8r said :

I don’t get it. I really don’t.

So best case scenario you have a bunch of people sign up to say their friends are all nice. Then what? It would be extremely foolish to write anything about anyone else in a professional capacity.

Maybe let people share pictures of coffee and food. We’ll call it The Facebook.

Hi Rollersk8r (if that’s even your real name 🙂

I’d like to share a short story with you.

I grew up in a small town in South Africa where our parents were always entrepreneurs. We call my dad “The Mad Scientist”…he’s this highly creative and eccentric guy who’s built all kinds of businesses…some have been epic failures and others have been successes. And my mother was involved in the local community, lending a hand to important social causes. Both my parents have fantastic reputations in our hometown.

But when they immigrated to Australia, nobody knew them. So in terms of their reputations they were starting from scratch. It was frustrating watching them struggle to make friends and find opportunities. I think that many organisations would have benefited from my parents experience, but local businesses were totally oblivious to this resource that was available to them. I often wonder how different my parents experience of moving to a new country might have been if all the goodwill they gained in South Africa was easily knowable to people here.

When you do a search in your web browser for “reputation is”, Google predicts the next word will be “everything”. We intuitively know that our reputations are incredibly valuable, but even as human lives increasingly move online and the world becomes one large village, reputation is still mainly transmitted by word of mouth or locked in a small network of personal friends and contacts. And so we’re just not accessing the full potential of our reputations.

Let me give you a practical examples of how Karma could be used and why we think there is tremendous value to be gained by making honest information about people more easily accessible:

Learning About A Person:
If you’ve ever Googled someones name because you needed to learn more about them. You probably found their Facebook and LinkedIn profiles, but how useful are those resources? The content on those pages is controlled entirely by the individual you’re trying to learn about. There’s a reason people read reviews on TripAdvisor rather than testimonials on a restaurant’s website. Social networks allow us to appear in the world as we want to be seen. But Karma is designed to reflect how the world really sees us.

The second value proposition is Thanking Someone:
I recently lost my wallet at the farmers market before it was handed in by a person who wouldn’t accept a reward, so I thanked them, and while that’s a nice thing to do it offers very little value to them. Imagine if I could write a short review saying: “John handed in my lost wallet and refused to take any reward…what a great guy” – then anyone wanting to learn about John can immediately know that he is the kind of person who will return a lost wallet – I’ve then offered John real value.

The third use case is Warning The Community:
Our friend, Mike, rented his apartment out…the tenants trashed the place. Legal recourse is one option to him but it’s time consuming, potentially expensive and there’s no guarantee that you’ll actually recoup losses. But Mike really wanted to warn others so they could avoid the same negative experience. So Karma is also about preventing the spread of harm.

The final use case is Mobilising Reputation:
I’m sure we can all think of times when it would have been extremely useful to make your reputation available to someone else.

In fact, in an online world we’re constantly experiencing this problem. Right now, I’m trying to convince you that there is real merit in what Karma is trying to do – and you’re trying to work out if there is any reason to pay attention to what I’ve got to say.

Just before you post a comment here a message reminds you of the following:

“Please read our guidelines on how to write constructive, thoughtful and positive comments. You will appear smarter, and are less likely to be moderated.”

Notice the worlds “appear smarter” – that’s reputation management being encouraged right here on the-riotact.com, and rightly so.

This problem that you and I are dealing with – right now – of not being able to easily learn about a person’s true character and competencies, is a problem we think Karma can solve.

Cheers,

Clyde

There have been surveys and research done that shows disgruntled people are at least twice as likely to tell someone about their experience.

Would be interesting to see what strategy the site owners have to avoid this turning into a whingefest, and encourage good reviews as well.

That said, I can’t see myself ever using a site like this.

I don’t get it. I really don’t.

So best case scenario you have a bunch of people sign up to say their friends are all nice. Then what? It would be extremely foolish to write anything about anyone else in a professional capacity.

Maybe let people share pictures of coffee and food. We’ll call it The Facebook.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.