Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Friended is a new social network that wants to get real (techcrunch.com)
94 points by nevaben 5 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 110 comments

I like the idea, but 2 things.

1) where did they get the prices of $4.99 a week? Facebook's average revenue per user per quarter is ~$25. That's approximately $1.50 a week, for their most profitable section. Elsewhere, FB makes $6 ARPU per quarter, or around 37¢ a week. I'd be willing to pay $1 a month for a social network if it manages to get around the network effects etc. but ~$20(!) for something Facebook enables at no monetary cost? Yikes. But, I suppose that may just be the patreon effect.

2. Why is this iOS only? Limited resources excuses can be answered with 'do a mobile web so all mobiles can'. Is it the 'sometimes iPhone users tend to pay more for the same things Android users are too cheap to'?

I know the above can come off as somewhat harsh, but I do really like the business idea overall, I just want to discuss the implementation challenges.

$4.99 a week has to be a joke, right? $20 a month is about double what I pay for Netflix and half of my phone bill. Just to send messages to people? I'm sure the article is leaving things out but as of right now I don't get this at all.

I'm actually not sure its enough. It looks like the only play this service has is the "country club" model. You're not paying $5/week to get in, you're paying it to keep the people who can't/won't pay that much out.

The question I'd really like to find out the answer to is will average net trolls pay real money to troll?

I bet this turns into a casual sex hookup app. Put out there you're interested and see what you get back.

I had the same reaction. Not trying be a jerk, but this article sounds like a sponsored post, or something on the company's blog. I know it's not, but I've noticed this a lot in regular journalism these days, and as you mention it feels like the article is leaving a lot out. As is I can't figure out what problem this solves or, even if it is a good idea, how the features couldn't just be copied by Facebook.

> Just to send messages to people?

That's not what they're selling people. They're selling people a solution to loneliness.

>They're selling people a solution to loneliness.

I'll one up you, they are selling hope. Odds are this will be seeded with a bunch of bots, and these lonely people may or maynot get some sense of temporary relief thinking they are interacting privately with someone else, when its really just a bot.

That business model already exists, in the form of online dating sites:


Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. I don't think they can deliver on what they're promising.

I know its unfair and maybe even disparaging, especially my suggestion they would seed their own thing with bots...but the reality is the social network/SV startup well has been poisoned and so it would be my (our) own fault not to approach these things with a ton of skepticism.

>Today, a new social app is launching. Called Friended...Friended has raised a $500K seed round from investors...

That is what it is all about.

I'll agree it's a lot, but I wouldn't compare it to Netflix, Tinder is probably a closer comparable. Our pricing is also quite high, justification to employees who felt our price was too high is that content creation platforms, or platforms where users engage with the content are able to charge more than content consumption platforms where the content is a commodity for the most part.

High price doesn't necessarily indicate a Veblen good. The best case for it not being a Veblen good is that its difficult to showcase status to the people who aren't subscribers, unlike a an expensive iPhone/purse/etc.

Half your phone bill? Wow. Granted I have 3 people one the plan bit I'm more like 7x the monthly fee

I spend $10 on my phone (prepaid) which is usually enough for 3-4 months :)

Yeah, I don't make many calls, usually I just ring someone that I'm there or schedule a meeting.

I really don't get the pricing of many many online services. I think if you did something like 1 or 2 bucks a month you'd win a lot of customers on a site like this. and they'd probably stay as well. I'm not saying 5 or 10 or 20 a month is expensive. But it is not as cheap as a beer or a bread. and having multiple of these 5 or 10 dollar services eventually does add up, and people eventually will cull the ones they deem too expensive or unnecessary. on the contrary if they just cost a buck or two (which in my opinion is probably more the actual value) I'd probably wouldn't go on a cull-cruise at least every halfyear

I love the outrage about $20/month. It's clear that social networks create almost no individual utility at all, and that the reason we have privacy violating ones in the first place is that people "really want it" but also really don't want to pay for it. Facebook will clearly win, based on the comments about pricing. People don't value privacy, they value free stuff.

> It's clear that social networks create almost no individual utility at all...

That's a broad statement. I find a lot of utility in social networks like FB to keep me in close contact with my family on the other side of the country.

Yes I value the fact that it's free - there's a low barrier for folks in my family to join. There's no way in hell I'm going to convince my grandmother to pay for a social network; she has no interest in yet another subscription that offers no marginal value over the free services like FB or even Twitter.

Well...she _might_ if that was the _only_ way to contact me, but I personally wouldn't put her through the hassle of memorizing yet another account/password login.

The comment your replying to said they would be willing to pay $1 a month for a social network, so there’s definitely appetite for paid social networks, but $20 a month is understandably a crazy price.

It's market failure because you'd have to find a way to basically compete with Facebook while your TAM/potential is 5x smaller.

idk if people are downvoting me because they think $20 a month for a social network isn't crazy, or if they think that someone willing to pay $1 a month isn't a sign of appetite for paid social networks...

>Limited resources excuses can be answered with 'do a mobile web so all mobiles can'

There's always a delta of capabilities between HTML5+Javascript mobile web app vs native iOS/Android. (E.g. native app has more API access to device hardware like camera video, GPS, accelerometer, multi-touch pinch zoom, etc.) Even if HTML5+Javascript standards get the new capabilities in 2019's iOS 13 and Android 10, both Apple and Google are still adding new features to the native APIs (iOS 14+, Android 11+) which means that standard web apps will always lag behind in some way.

The question is if that delta of capability between web vs native matters for an app like Friended.

I think they just want artificial exclusivity, similar to how Facebook was university only in the early stages.

You are not limited to browser technologies. There's React native, Flutter and some other cross platform frameworks. What super new OS level features a social messaging app needs?

> 2. Why is this iOS only? Limited resources excuses can be answered with 'do a mobile web so all mobiles can'. Is it the 'sometimes iPhone users tend to pay more for the same things Android users are too cheap to'?

Even simpler... Progressive Web Apps will install on both and I believe you can have a PWA in either app store... Code once. Run anywhere...

PWAs still feel very janky in real life. They’re slow, you can’t do any complex animations, weird bugs always show up, etc. Most importantly, they still feel like websites, which isn’t a good thing.

Reimplementing something of the complexity of Snapchat as a PWA would be impossible: seamless camera usage, real-time AR filters, smooth animations, swipe gestures, usable built-in maps, video without buffering, and it’s fast for their target audience (recent iPhone users).

Depends. Which app does need complex animations? And you could very well build Twitter as a PWA (and probably FB). Maybe not Snapchat. Most apps aren't heavy on filters, camera and video.

That’s valid, I guess. I think that if a social network wants to take off today (especially amongst people under the age of 25), it’s going to need to be a little fancier than Twitter. But PWAs could replace a lot of the more basic applications that exist today.

Not true, PWA-s has nothing to do with CSS/JS performance.

Check out: https://proxx.app/

> ~$20(!) for something Facebook enables at no monetary cost?

These costs are not something that Facebook does not suffer - all these infrastructure, development, maintenance and other expenses exist for every online service.

In case of Facebook, though, these expenses are paid by you being not also the user, but also its main product. And, as much as I would like to think otherwise, Friended - as a VC-backed service - will also go in the same direction once it finishes its "growth" stage and enters the "milking" stage.

Wow. I hadn't realised that Facebook's ARPU was so high - or that it varied so much between regions!


$35 in US/Canada, $11 in Europe seems like a startling difference! I wonder if advertising and privacy restrictions are the cause, or something else...

I could see GDPR easily making monetization of users more difficult.

> 2. Why is this iOS only? Limited resources excuses can be answered with 'do a mobile web so all mobiles can'. Is it the 'sometimes iPhone users tend to pay more for the same things Android users are too cheap to'?

Generally the answer is that the founders / designers use iPhones, so it's what they prioritize.

> Generally the answer is that the founders / designers use iPhones, so it's what they prioritize

My understanding is that people willing to pay for apps use iPhones

>>Limited resources excuses can be answered with 'do a mobile web so all mobiles can'.

Nope, it really can't. It takes a lot of effort, and can be a major pain in the ass, to develop a web app UI to look good and work well on both mobile and desktop. Every single time I do it, I end up regretting it.

> where did they get the prices of $4.99 a week?

The TC article says this is the cost if you want to post a conversation starter more frequently than once every 8 hours, or for other advanced features. That sounds like a power-user feature to me (I post very infrequently on social media).

If dating sites are social networks to a degree, then compare this $4.99/week to what the major dating sites end up charging via their membership fees and tokens for things like seeing conversations, replying to conversations, seeing user photos, etc

> 2. Why is this iOS only?

Remember when IG was iOs only ?

> No pressure, no public commenting and no rejection

Adults need to learn how to handle rejection. It's so essential to learning how to be happy in the real world.

People who are lonely because they fear rejection need to fix the fear of rejection part before they will actually experience a real friendship. Being open with each other is essential to friendship, and being open risks rejection.

Friendship isn't a individualistic pursuit, it involves multiple personalities and is full of risk and rejection. No reward without risk, contrary to what you might be sold on to mask your social anxiety.

> Adults need to learn how to handle rejection. It's so essential to learning how to be happy in the real world.

There's a difference between someone rejecting you, and a bunch of anon/pseudonymous trolls piling on.

Fine, then adults need to learn how to handle a bunch of anon/pseudo-anonymous trolls piling on.

Myself probably included.

It's contrary to human nature to shrug off bullying. Even if you are strong, it changes and traumatizes you. Society should not rely on people growing unhealthy thick skin.

A lot of "ought" in what you're saying, but there's a stark reality that clashes with that ideology, and it's how little you can control others.

You shouldn't have to deal with people being assholes, so when they are you should let yourself get hurt? You shouldn't have to deal with drunk drivers, so you shouldn't wear your seatbelt?

> You shouldn't have to deal with drunk drivers, so you shouldn't wear your seatbelt?

No, but you're suggesting that we should all armor our cars. I'm suggesting that we should work to change the system so that instances drunk driving are dramatically decreased.

I would suggest armoring our cars if it were anything but absurdly impractical.

Getting to know yourself better, and understanding how bullying is a projection of others, and not related to who you are as a person is immensely practical.

> Fine, then adults need to learn how to handle a bunch of anon/pseudo-anonymous trolls piling on.

Why should we just accept this as a state of the world?

Because a) it is the state of the world, and dealing with reality is important to living a healthy life, and b) controlling how others effect you is a tried and true way of maintaining happiness when you're not in control, which you rarely are in life.

But we're pretty brainy apes, we change the world we live in for the better.

Not always.

I don't think humans are evolved for such stress

This is assuming that the fear of rejection is wrong. For some people, it's a valid concern.

The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is nearly old enough to vote. (source for the uninitiated: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo...)

I don't understand why the founders think "this time will be different". The disconnection of digital communication makes it easier to be abrasive, even if real names are used and the comments are private. We have ample evidence of this from other platforms with direct messaging and identifiable individuals.

The majority of the messages will still be "kill yourself, you [expletive, slur]". The rest will be spam.

It's more "impunity" than "anonymity" (compare Facebook) but implementing moderation well (1) is the biggest cost in the whole system, you need literally hundreds of full time humans, (2) is somewhat of an unsolved problem, your moderators are also liable to become fuckwads, and (3) this is because your moderators are drinking from the firehose of the internet's dark side constantly and losing SAN points like they were buddying up with Cthulhu. This has commonly been regarded as inhumane.

Why not just make it so that people that you don't interact with get auto-unfriended over time. If you just post, post, post and have no meaningful relationship beyond parasocial bullshit, then in no time, you'd be removed from the networking system. With something like this, the network would no longer be a personal marketing system, but would actually only keep you with people that you actually interact with in meaningful ways over time, perhaps through event scheduling, and perhaps through conversation.

If you left for a long time, you'd come back to a friendless universe, sure, but only on the network. I guess that the ultimate goal of a network like this would be to get people off of it, which would be healthy for the individual, and bad for the company.

Oh well, there goes that idea.

I really like this idea. Not sure how it would play out or what the long term consequences would be on people's psyche but it's really interesting and certainly worth thinking about further. Kudos.

> Friended wants to give users a deeper and more meaningful connection to one another, which the company believes they crave.

> The idea is to give people a chance to share how they really feel in a vulnerable, one-to-one setting. In playing around with the app, I had conversations with people about how to make friends in NYC and why it sometimes feel like others don’t care about us as much as we care about them.

I'm a moderator for a city-specific subreddit, and we get _a lot_ of posts by people bemoaning the lack of personal connections, and seeking _deep friendships_. And I always tell them the same thing: It. Takes. Time.

That's it. There's no shortcut. There is no short conversation you can have that'll turn a stranger into the kind of friend they're seeking. You can pay your five dollars a week to bare your soul to anonymous or pseudonymous users, but you need repeated human contact to form the basis for a friendship.

I'm glad they're trying to solve a real problem, but I don't think that "penpals - but with money" is it.

> There is no short conversation you can have that'll turn a stranger into the kind of friend they're seeking.

I'm actually not sure this is true. And I say that because I'm actually not sure this is true:

> It. Takes. Time.

And I say that because of things like [0], which seems to say that connection is more about vulnerability and depth of understanding than anything else, and achieving that depth can be accelerated.

[0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014616729723400...

Real world relationships, those that are truly meaningful, take a lot of investment from both sides.

Outside of the lab being vulnerable carries significant risk. For one, you risk being taken advantage of. This happens all the time, people are manipulated for sex, financial gain, and sometimes just for social status gains (clique shunning etc.).

It's pretty common for vulnerable bonding to be misused by one or both parties. This can be in the form of using inside knowledge for blackmail or negative gossip/social shaming of some form.

People can be horrible. Finding good friends takes time because you have to learn to trust each other. Fast friends in my experience do not last.

I am not sure where you can draw a clear line on what is a meaningful relationship.

Some people decide to get married after knowing each other for a few weeks. Some of those marriages even end up healthy and lasting long term. If anything I think it’s maintaining a real relationship that takes time not forming it.

> Some people decide to get married after knowing each other for a few weeks.

This is a high risk scenario. Being vulnerable early demonstrably can accelerate a relationship, but as I mentioned this is a high risk approach that most people would not recommend as the norm.

It's a definitional problem. Building lasting relationships takes time because it's only after a long time that it will be considered "lasting."

The question is: how quickly and how can you tell if a relationship will be lasting?

What are the signs?

What if its just a numbers game? Meet enough people. Some of them will last.

That said I'm "too trusting." I get burned all the time. Taken advantage of. I have a scarcity of natural love in my life and thus an abundance to give. Makes me a target for the narcissists.

Those who do love me think I'm brave for loving so freely -- everyone. Even those who hurt me. They know it's driven by a deeply personal isolation within my soul that waters my eyes in this moment. But they can never empathize and am happy for that.

> Some of those marriages even end up healthy and lasting long term.

Survival bias.

Most of those "relationships" don't even get past the first date.

I will say that it's probably possible to min-max or speedrun a relationship, but I don't think it's easy, and I don't think we're at the stage where a phone app can do it for you.

I also don't think it would feel very fun, and is probably not good for you.

As though the normal means of forming relationships is fun or good for you? How many people commit suicide over failed relationships? How many people are committed to bad relationships due to sunk cost fallacy?

Forming relationships is a pain in the ass no matter how you slice it.

> As though the normal means of forming relationships is fun or good for you?

I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience, but for the most part, I've enjoyed making friends.

Find things in common so you can stay busy together without talking constantly. It gives your mind time to consider what and how to say things without being too vulnerable too fast. Ponder what was said. Go slower. Silence is OK.

Friend dates. My gf and I have started double dating those we like. You can listen while the other two talk. Being quiet with someone can be very comfortable or unnerving.

I have friends I've made through the conscious repetition of time spent together. But I've also made friends another way: we went to a festival together one weekend on Molly and LSD. Afterwards, I ended up hanging out with them practically every week and I really value that friendship too.

So there's clearly multiple paths.

"Time" : https://www.futurity.org/friends-time-1718952-2/

It's actually pretty fast actually. 200 hours is nothing.

What really happens is that grown up don't invest the required hours because their days are already filled to the brink.

200 hours would be 1 hour drink 4 time a week during a whole year. Once you word it that way, for sure, you got a friendship running !

Or as someone said below being in deep shit. First, while in deep shit, you spend many consecutive hours with your partner(s) adding toward the 200 hours theoretical threshold. Second, helping each others is a very fundamental dynamic in friendship, I suspect it's happening at reverse here : rather than becoming friends, thus helping each other, people who starts by helping each other then are friends (monkey brain power).

So maybe you should advice people wanting to make friends to join charities and other helping works : several time a week, selfless environment.

> Or as someone said below being in deep shit.

Yeah. There's ways to force or speed up the process. I think a lot of corporate team-building activities are basically this; "let's go do something miserable to simulate closeness."

A funny outcome, possibly intentional, is a cheesy activity may force the common bond just because they are all going thru the miserable activity.

Unfortunately if you're in deep shit you'll (or at least I did) discover most of your friends give you a whole lot of "space". I get it. My kid almost died, it was a major bummer. She's doing okay now, can we hang out again?

> It. Takes. Time. That's it. There's no shortcut

There is - being in deep shit together for a brief time. The deeper the shit the shorter the time needed for a true friendship.

Announcing my new app: Shittr.

You pay me $1000, and I will put you, alongside two other people, through a miserable grind of an experience. One of you will not survive; the other two will form a long-lasting bond.

One step further – all that miserable work can be productive! Match prospective couples/friends with someone who has a grueling job they need completed (e.g. help me move this refrigerator). It's like Tinder x TaskRabbit – couples fulfilling your Instacart order as a first date.

People pay a lot less for that, see https://www.goruck.com/find-an-event/

(minus the death part)

Absolutely agree. This is why my closest friends today are those I met in primary and secondary school: we were all there, though we didn't always want to be; we all had homework that we didn't want to do; we all had teachers we didn't like; and we were forced to a full 5 days per week together.

In a way — strange though it seems — one of the things I miss most about school is just being in a group of people forced to do things that we really don't want to do and that give us no pleasure, because one of the magnificent side effects of this rather masochistic endeavor is that it forms bonds with your peers.

Regardless, that's inherently also going to involve a good deal of investment. Maybe not an investment of time, but emotions or some other factor.

yeah but it also takes someone willing to make time for it. It's difficult to find. I had a reasonably close acquaintance tell me "between work and family I'm booked until the end of the year" which sounds like bullshit to me (I also have a job and family).

Usually I take that as "you annoy me" and just refocus on other relationships. Then he comes out of nowhere and invites me to a BBQ six months down the line, or to hang out with him at his place.


I'm one of these people that is bad at hanging out with others. I want to hang out with people, but life can be exhausting and sometimes you just want to cancel (or not even make plans) so you can just stay home and rest.

I think one of the things about modern life, especially urban life, that makes things most complicated is that it is increasingly harder to mix friends so instead of some stable group you hang out with when you're feeling like it, you end up having to juggle multiple individual friendships and your own personal time.

This might not be about establishing "real" friendships. What is it that we lack when we're lonely? What helps? These aren't easy questions to answer, in my opinion.

The obvious unsympathetic suggestion "go do some social stuff" ignores that lonely people often experience a non-negligible inertia that keeps them from doing exactly that. Sometimes it's better to say "now what" than "stop doing that".

I don't dismiss the possibility of a technological solution to the problem. Even if you don't get a real friendship out of some platform, maybe you get something that's good for you anyway. I personally like the idea of "cold call" one-on-one talks.

To me it seems the better ones are the ones where there isn’t a symbiosis (that’s kinda transactional but with friendship), I think the better ones are the ones without expectations other than having a disinterested bond.

Perhaps I may be very wrong, but the name of this network, "Friended", comes from a term that Facebook turned into common vernacular. "Friend me on Facebook" or "I friended you on Facebook". If you're starting point is a term coined by your goliath competitor, I'd be concerned.

Not only that but "I'm on Friended" sounds like I'm unfriended. That's a terrible name in my book of aesthetics.

> Right now, users can only post a conversation starter every eight hours. The premium tier, which costs $4.99/week, allows users to post as frequently as they want, and also includes a few other premium features, like the ability to talk to people in your location.

Woah.. That's really expensive...

It might be a useful method of pre-selecting only people who care at least a little bit. And rich people.


uploaded a picture.

made a mistake of putting email instead of name.

Tried to change it - can't

contacted support

got a notification: "people think you might be bot"


Ages ago I ran a phpbb site that initially followed this concept, but being community driven (I may have been a bit too friction-less), it quickly evolved into a community driven fetish/porn site. Every time I am tempted to create such a thing, I reflect back on how much work it was and lessons learned (about moderation requirements).

Hats off / kudos to anyone that can run something like this successfully at scale, as it is a lot of work and you can't make everyone happy. I hope it turns into something great.

This may seem like an unusual question, but why does it matter what the subject matter became if the community was accepting and safe?

Your question is quite valid and I agree. That said, at the time the subject matter; while safe and legal, was still a bit taboo. Not so much these days, but I may have been a bit ahead of the times.

If you take "the idea is to give people a chance to share how they really feel in a vulnerable, one-to-one setting" and replace "one-to-one" with "small group" then this feels very close to the way many people used LiveJournal at its peak. Maybe slightly different in that the one-to-one stuff wasn't automated: people would have public posts in which they'd share more generic stuff, then curate private friend groups from people who responded in ways that suggested they would have empathy. These private networks would be where the more vulnerable things got shared and discussed.

Of course as a community it was much derided - teens and young adults finding their way in the world looked naive and emotionally immature from the outside - but it's interesting seeing someone trying to bring that pre-Facebook sense of sharing with a small and sympathetic group back.

About time. I have been working on a similar problem ever since I found out about the Saudi agent that was uncovering twitter user identities to the royals (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/saudis-recruited-twitt...). The main idea is to have zero knowledge for social graphs (both the connectivity and communication). The product behaves like a newsgroup clone with subscriptions and threads featuring zero knowledge (for host i.e. me and any other parties not subscribed/authorized to the topic).

I wonder how much it costs to get a PR piece like this on TechCrunch. Does anyone know?

I wonder how much it cost to get this many upvotes on HN as well?

I like the enthusiasm. It's always a good idea to try and help solve the ever-present problem of "I don't have enough friends, I need more inter-personal connection."

Fundamentally, I believe we _can't_ solve this problem through technology. I think it can be used to initiate the friendship, but never sustain it. I feel the problem is you can't be vulnerable on a screen, it just never replicates the face-to-face interaction with someone else.

I've been there for many years looking for that online substitute, it just doesn't ever fully work. However - I wish you luck on your network.

From the TOS: "2. MEMBERSHIP. To become a Member, you must log-in through Facebook which provides your “Account Credentials”, which you may not transfer to or share with any third parties."

Did anyone else see this? They can't promise to not hand over info about you to interested 3rd parties if your account validation and login is based in Facebook. Right?

I feel like all the social network problem stems from posting only positive if we shared about overall we and everyone on the network will be much happier.

I thought about various mechanism to implements but nothing comes to mind that is good enough.

Example: Force user to maintain happy sharing vs sad sharing to at max 2:1 but now how do you figure out which ones are happy post and sad post.

The first-listed option in the account creation flow is to log in with Facebook. Since I'm trying this to get away from FB, I'm not going to do that. But then once I've created an account with email, there's no way to put in any information that would help me connect with my existing friends. Why is there no way to indicate your university, employers, or location?

Just what the world needs, another social network....

But the ones we have are so horrible. It's worth pursuing if there's a chance we can get one that's not horrible.

Of course, the corollary is the suggestion that any social medium starts out good, but inevitably becomes corrupted.

This is a pretty good idea but, it's monetization strategy probably isn't inclusive enough. I find that a lot people on social media aren't trying to make friends. They're mainly just there for themselves or content. But, putting the focus on developing proper kinship seems like a step in the right direction.

I just want to be reminded in a year if this still exists or has any real traction.

Can you search local and are these conversations encrypted? If so this is great for grey/black market sellers.

In addition to the inevitable harassment, this could be it's big money maker.

I wonder if regardless of the design of the platform, if simply having this be the idea behind the network will attract the right people, and build the right community to make it work.

What's the X of Y here? Facebook of the church confessional booth :D

It's like Tinder, but you get bullied instead of ignored.

My one gripe here is that it's only available as an iOS program. I think it would be much more accessible if it had a web interface, or if it also had an Android program.

I like the identification of a problem, the remaining problem is that its another social network

Would probably be better off Re-using Blind’s pitch

It's unfortunate they couldn't get the name/domain/trademark for Friendster

How do brand new social media platforms like this gather so many users so quickly?

The world needs less digital "social networking", not more of it.

I am your friend

slaps face for real?


slaps face again really for real?


Ok then

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact