
WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative blog post about it - minimaxir
http://qz.com/739685/wework-evicted-a-startup-after-it-published-a-negative-blog-post-about-the-co-working-space/
======
cocktailpeanuts
It's sad that nowadays people do whatever they can to get attention and one of
the best ways is to capitalize on other people's misfortunes.

I just read through the original Medium post, and I can't really sympathize
with any of you guys in this thread saying WeWork is the evil.

This guy hacked into their private API (legal or not doesn't matter), and used
that information to write a blog post, and at the bottom writes:

"About Thinknum Thinknum indexes alternative web data for thousands of
companies, capturing relevant information for financial analysts to use in
their investment process. Thinknum has hundreds of institutional clients
across hedge funds, investment banks and corporations."

Basically here's how I see it: this guy wanted attention, so betrayed their
business partner (WeWork) and used the private information to get traffic to
his product. I can't imagine myself ever doing something like this. What did
WeWork do to this guy that harmed him? Every company has difficult times. I'm
sure WeWork guys wanted nothing more than to build an organization that helps
these little guys, but if I were in their position I would feel extremely sad.
They don't deserve to be thrown under the bus by someone they're in
partnership with, whom they did nothing bad to.

~~~
angryasian
> hacked into their private API

an unpublished api is not the same thing. I think there needs to be more
clarification on this, but if its just an unpublished api they've done nothing
wrong.

~~~
minimaxir
> its just an unpublished api they've done nothing wrong.

Not correct. A published, documented API comes with instructions on how the
API can use used, and how the data can be used. Do not assume that an
unpublished/undocumented API is the same, _especially_ when republishing the
data.

~~~
angryasian
>A published, documented API comes with instructions on how the API

Agree and since it was undocumented there more than likely were no terms as to
how it should be used.

------
paulsutter
Misleading title: these guys weren't kicked out for publishing a negative blog
post, they were kicked out for sharing WeWork internal data publicly, which
violates the terms under which they got the data.

Here's the blog post:

[https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-dive-into-weworks-
user-...](https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-dive-into-weworks-user-base-as-
hundreds-of-members-cancel-6b17d3be1d8b#.3xlld2phy)

(I flagged the article because the title is a lie at present)

~~~
pm90
Archived version [0] as it seems like it was taken down.

[0]:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160722222224/https://medium.co...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160722222224/https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-
dive-into-weworks-user-base-as-hundreds-of-members-cancel-6b17d3be1d8b)

~~~
cmdrfred
Loads briefly and then redirects to medium.com for me.

~~~
joshstrange
Yeah, medium posts do that when using the wayback machine. I normally just hit
the browser stop button as soon as the text loads. You miss out on images but
you can still read it.

~~~
pm90
The way I got around it is by disabling javascript.

------
Animats
Until WeWork pulled this, few people knew WeWork was in trouble. Now everyone
on HN does, which includes many WeWork investors and customers. Expect press
coverage in a few days.

Streisand effect, people. The coverup is worse than the problem.

~~~
danpalmer
Are they definitely in trouble? There seems to be a lot of bias on both sides,
and no clear indication either way?

~~~
deedub
I haven't dug through their data or financials, but I work across the street
from a wework and occasionally I go over and play some ping pong with friends.
Their rent seems a little pricey, but it is ALWAYS packed with people in
offices and at tables. I have multiple friends (3 or 4 different companies)
that are all happily renting there. If other cities are anything like Portland
I don't see how they are in trouble at all. Im actually glad wework has terms
of service like this and gave them an 30 minute eviction notice.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Density does not equal profitability.

~~~
deedub
Umm it does if you know what the rates are to be there? Check back in 6 months
and see how they do after their first round of churn?

------
Disruptive_Dave
I'm in NYC and we negotiated a ridiculously low monthly rate as an
introductory offer into one of their newer buildings (I'm talking more than
half off what their initial offer was). It certainly made us question how well
they are doing, particularly as they expand so rapidly. I'm also assuming they
gave similar breaks to get other folks in the door, which I can only imagine
increases churn when that initial 3-6 month deal concludes.

------
nxc18
There's a really disturbing trend/pattern in the hacking/tech community here
that's worth pointing out: people are way too interested in laws and policies
and testing the limits of each.

Laws and policies don't define your success in interacting with others -
people do. Laws and policies are just a guide to _limit_ (not allow for) other
people's reactions to you being a nuisance.

You have no right claiming to be a victim if your only justification for what
you've done is that it technically wasn't illegal and it was sort of allowed
under policy that you've taken a very (conveniently) narrow interpretation of.

Here's a simple test for whether you should post something online: * Does it
enrich the world that I share (gasp) with other people? * Does it enrich or at
least have a neutral effect on my 'business' partners (including business,
government, the mail man, and every other person who can make my life
painful)? * Does it enrich me enough to be worth my time?

If the answer to any one of those things is 'no', step away from the keyboard
and don't post. There are rare exceptions, but if you take the time to reflect
and observe, you'll notice that a) the happy, successful people around you
follow this rule and b) the dramatic, moody, perpetual victims of the world
don't.

Make your choice.

~~~
civilian
I disagree? It's just data man. WeWork tested the limits too, when they wrote
that overly limiting terms of service.

~~~
dandelany
Nothing sums up the naivete described by the OP as nicely as "It's just data,
man". Publishing data has _meaning_ and _consequences_ , both to others and to
your own life and future career. Data is power.

------
kitanata
Yep. I was blacklisted from several tech events, for writing a mildly negative
Facebook post about a local consulting company. This is becoming a real
problem. Companies in the tech space are using blacklisting to silence any
kind criticism or critique.

~~~
Twirrim
It's completely their prerogative to do so.

~~~
unethical_ban
And as usual, that doesn't make it right.

    
    
      - x is doing something bad
      - x is allowed to do that
      - that doesn't make it right
    
     The HN comment circle of life

~~~
wpietri
Agreed. This patterns makes me crazy.

If I say, "This use of power is immoral," I read the response of "but they
have that power" one of two ways: Obvious tautology, and therefore useless. Or
contradiction of my claim of immorality, which basically is an assertion that
might makes right.

------
minimaxir
The referenced blog post was submitted to HN
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12124731](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12124731))
and I asked where OP got the data. OP dodged the question.

~~~
zzleeper
Even if you got the data legally, you might not want to disclose it, because

i) It makes it seem more boring ("oh we just made an api call") ii) It opens
the door to the other party saying that you violated the TOS (although they
would still have done it; after all they are a 16bn firm that wants to defend
itself)

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
They already admitted to using an undocumented WeWork API without asking
permission, but simultaneously maintain that they somehow collected all the
stats without spidering, scraping, or doing anything else that violated the
ToS.

(from the reuters article - "Zhen said he does not believe he violated the
terms of his WeWork membership when he used an application programming
interface, or API, that he and his Thinknum colleagues found on the WeWork
network to locate and analyze WeWork membership data."

~~~
marcoperaza
Once potential legal wrongdoing is in the picture, and especially after
accusations have been thrown around, everyone is in CYA-mode (cover your ass).
Playing dumb is a great strategy. My favorite example is when Hillary was
repeatedly asked by reporters about wiping her email servers (implying she
destroyed evidence). She responded:

"Like with a cloth or something?"

~~~
trhway
>"Like with a cloth or something?"

10 Tesla ferromagnetic cloth may just do it.

------
japaw
To be fear, they did not just publish a negative blog post about WeWork as the
title may suggest, but somehow obtained proprietary data WeWork probably sees
as a trade secret.

Many companies will revoke your access then.

~~~
michaelbuckbee
It's still proprietary, but if you publish the data via your API is it
reasonable to expect people to not chart it and draw conclusions?

Where's the line between "scraping" (prohibited) and reading (allowed) of the
API data?

~~~
pm90
IANAL but you can be in trouble even if the data is openly available but the
party managing the data deems it restricted in any way. I believe this is the
reason security researchers get in trouble: they access data that is
considered restricted and get prosecuted for "stealing" it.

I think the logic to that is something akin to: its illegal for you to take my
car even if I leave it unlocked with the keys in it.

~~~
nostrademons
The company has to communicate that the data is restricted, they can't just
deem it restricted after the fact. Usually when companies or individuals (eg.
3Taps & Aaron Swartz) have gotten in trouble under the CFAA, it's been because
they've been served a C&D or IP-blocked and then persist in accessing the
data, which the courts have upheld as "knowingly and intentionally accessing a
computer without authorization".

In this case, WeWork is within their rights to terminate ThinkNum's membership
for the ToS violation, but there's no legal case unless ThinkNum persists in
scraping WeWork's data after the termination, or there's evidence that
ThinkNum knew that the API was restricted at the time they accessed it. Hence
the founder's repeated insistences that he did nothing wrong, and coyness in
discussing the source of the data.

------
us0r
Here is the post:

[https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-dive-into-weworks-
user-...](https://medium.com/@justin.zhen/deep-dive-into-weworks-user-base-as-
hundreds-of-members-cancel-6b17d3be1d8b#.v1coy1bo9)

[http://archive.is/ou72L](http://archive.is/ou72L)

Don't forget they are also suing an employee for talking to reporters:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-is-suing-an-ex-
employe...](http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-is-suing-an-ex-employee-for-
talking-to-reporters-2016-7)

I'd say this is a pretty clear case of where there's smoke.....

~~~
kafkaesq
They're suing an employee for (alleged) theft of proprietary documents,
obtained through using the credentials of another employee. Not for "talking
to reporters."

 _This is a pretty clear case of where there 's smoke..._

There's innuendo and hyperbole.

~~~
wpietri
You're confusing motivation with legal cause of action. Yes, the suit talks
about alleged document theft. But Us0r is talking about their intent in
pursuing the suit.

If WeWork decided to look for a reason to sue a former employee who made them
look bad in the press, they would hardly be the first. But exactly none of
those suits will say so, because that suit won't get far at all.

~~~
kafkaesq
_But Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit._

Yeah, I got the part about WeWork's "intent" already and wasn't "confused" by
it, as you so kindly suggest. My point is he's using manipulative language to
get his point across, which I find distasteful.

~~~
wpietri
I'm not saying you misunderstood; I couldn't know that. I'm saying that in
your reply you muddled them. When you say "it is A, not B", you're suggesting
that one excludes the other. That's not the case; they're different things.

If you don't like his language, I'd suggest you critique the language instead
of contradicting him on a point of analysis.

~~~
kafkaesq
Look, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language
in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was
more critique-worth is beside the point.

~~~
wpietri
I wasn't confused by it. The lawsuit was mentioned as "for document theft" in
the article. I thought he was clearly adding his interpretation of motive.
Maybe it's just you?

~~~
kafkaesq
To me it reads as spin, not simply "interpretation."

------
brianbreslin
I am not sure how good they are at scouting locations or predicting market
demand. The one I'm in on Miami Beach (why they picked this location to start
is beyond my imagination) is maybe 50% full, and 2 more locations are either
just opened or coming open soon as well.

~~~
skyrw
Part of what they are doing is using their funding and power to make a massive
real estate land grab at very low rates for long lease terms. I believe they
are gambling that in 5-10 years the market demand will swell to accommodate
some of their lower value areas.

------
zekevermillion
Even if the post is totally accurate, a 6 % churn would not be that bad
compared with corporate suites. The wework social network app is not that
great either, so I don't think it is representative of anything if you have no
followers there. Some people are social and make friends with their ww
neighbors, some don't. More about personality. If ww wanted to they could
introduce locations with different features or lower price to reduce churn at
any time. They can basically dial-a-churn rate in this market.

~~~
aurizon
Corrected 6% per year = a bit bigger than avaeage

~~~
plorkyeran
The article says 6% per year, not per month.

~~~
aurizon
I corrected it

------
drunken-serval
And this is news because...? If I wrote bad things about my landlord, there's
a good chance I'm going to be kicked out as quickly as legally allowed.
(Sooner, if the landlord doesn't care about legality.)

~~~
delinka
Well, they also contend that the "lease" was violated. So there's that. If you
continually poke about in doors around the apartment building that the
landlord says you're not allowed to, there'a also a good chance you'll be
asked to leave the premises.

~~~
tptacek
What "lease"? WeWork is month-to-month.

~~~
peterbonney
The claim is that the tenant violated the WeWork terms of service (very much
akin to a lease, albeit a short-term one) by scraping member data through the
WeWork API.

~~~
tptacek
Yes, I understand that. I'm going further and saying that anyone working here
should expect to lose their spot for any reason or no reason on a monthly ---
meaning, effectively, instantaneous --- basis.

I have a lot of negative things to say about WeWork as a business, and some
netting-out-positive things to say about the particular West Loop WeWork space
I'm working out of right now. But most of all: I'm here with my eyes open.
There's also the concern of "is WeWork even going to exist in 6 months"?

~~~
michaelmrose
Not even monthly they were given 30 minutes to vacate.

------
swingbridge
Classic Streisand effect.

It also wasn't terribly smart to take "proprietary" customer data and make it
available to others via an API. If you say everything is sugar and roses but
your own published data says there's trouble brewing, don't be surprised if
people call you out!

------
davebowker
There's offices on Bishopsgate in London. I walk past there every now and
again and it's been getting emptier and emptier.

------
walrus01
If you're on a month to month lease and do anything to piss off your landlord
(commercial real estate, not residential) they have no obligation to continue
accepting your money. I don't see why they're surprised.

~~~
rhizome
It's not a generic landlord-tenant relationship, and the "eviction," such as
it is, is not based on tenant law.

~~~
walrus01
What does a template wework lease look like?

~~~
rhizome
I don't know, but the word "lease" doesn't appear in the story, only something
about membership terms.

------
Yhippa
I'm not a startup founder but my take is that companies will grow to a certain
size as they progress from (hopefully) smaller space to bigger space at a co-
lo space. Once they hit a certain size they either fold or end up moving to a
bigger space as it no longer makes sense to pay the high price of co-lo spaces
if you are in high growth mode. Am I way off the mark?

------
aurizon
They are hypersesensitive because the churns rate is up. As it sits, the
current churn rate is higher than the new intake rate = decline is in
progress. To stop it = lower rents and or sales commissions but their rents
are already high, how high are their commissions to space sellers (if any??)

In any event, the Streisand effect is now well in force, as Animats suggested.

------
troncheadle
The only thing I take away from this is that now this asshole who gained
unauthorized access to an API to get an incomplete set of data to use as a
basis for publishing slander is getting all this free marketing from his
'content marketing strategy' aka dumb personal blog. The Trump effect at it's
finest.

~~~
deedub
BAM. +1

------
brooklyndude
WeWork was "Ok." Have moved on. Staff seems to turn over lots.

Had some dealings with them over a deposit, thought it could have gone much
better. Had a hard time finding basic account info. They just did not seem
like a "mature" organization. But that was a year ago. Maybe things have
changed. Overall, give them a "B."

Now in a Non Profit space, WOW, totally different vibe for sure. A+ here. :-)

------
jgalt212
If Regus did this, they'd have zero total tenants. And I'm only kidding a
little.

------
ddddbbbb
Have you ever known thinknum? Do you know how they treat employees? like
wework treats them

------
phonon
Ummm... "30 minutes to vacate"? Are they crazy? That's a 100% illegal
eviction. RPAPL § 853 -- treble damages NYCAC § 26-521 - 529 -- misdemeanor,
civil penalties

~~~
tptacek
That's housing law. These aren't standard residential leases. They're very
clear about this when you sign up.

~~~
phonon
They might be very clear about it, but it doesn't mean anything. Just because
you call a lease a "member agreement" or somesuch, doesn't mean it supersedes
state and local laws meant to protect tenants.

~~~
tptacek
None of the list of remedies you provided upthread appear to apply to
commercial leases, even if terminated unlawfully, so I'm not sure what we're
still debating.

We appear to be pretty far from the "100%" confidence level you originally
provided.

~~~
phonon
See my other replies below.

~~~
tptacek
I did. They aren't responsive to this comment. If you disagree, can you
explain how?

~~~
phonon
Even if this would be considered a commercial license (and not a commercial
lease) RPAPL § 853 (treble damages for unlawful eviction) and RPAPL § 713 (7)
(10 day eviction notice required for a commercial license) apply.

[https://commercialobserver.com/2013/11/the-dirt-
dictionary-l...](https://commercialobserver.com/2013/11/the-dirt-dictionary-l-
is-for-lease-or-maybe-its-a-license/)

[https://www.blumberglegalforms.com/html/05508103080008AdamL....](https://www.blumberglegalforms.com/html/05508103080008AdamL.pdf)

~~~
tptacek
First, the hot-desk WeWork subscription contract is worded to avoid "exclusive
use". If that's what they --- like most WeWork users --- had, it's unlikely
they had a lease at all.

Second, even if they did have a lease, statutory notice and penalties are
nowhere nearly as strict as they are for residential lockouts (where statutory
civil punitive damages untethered to actual damage do in fact apply).

In any case, if they want to claim damages, they're going to have to (a)
document actual damages from WeWork's action and then (b) take it to court and
wait a year or two to have a chance at recovering, in what will, due to their
own actions, be a complicated case.

Nothing is going to happen here. Everyone is simply going to move on.

~~~
phonon
I mostly agree. If it was a hot-desk user, that would almost certainly be
construed as a license by a court. When I was at WeWork, the vast majority
were glass-walled permanent offices. Other locations could differ I suppose.

But, as I showed above, even commercial licensors have protections too...with
notice needed and treble damages applying. Punitive damages could apply as
well. In the end though, kicking some people with laptops (probably) out of
their offices would, I would guess, result in a 5-figure award if it went to
court...which would make it a somewhat marginal case (even if they were
awarded legal costs as well).

Small claims court would probably be a guaranteed $5,000 though.

Does WeWork care about a few thousand dollars vs. stanching the flow of
someone spreading bad PR about them? Probably not.

OTOH, now people know WeWork management have no compunction in telling you to
GTFO ASAP (legal or not), and for the more risk averse larger tenants, that
might be quite a concern...particularly given how much more WeWork charges per
square foot (2x++), compared to just an ordinary 1 year sublet in the same
area.

So in the end, I would still not do what they did. I would have a) Sent them a
legal nastygram b) booted them off the internal network c) given them 10 days
notice

but I'm the law abiding type :-)

