...which is the last paragraph of the article. Your comment reads like it's a secret that he's a founder of the company when that is laid out pretty clearly.

>Ervine says his reputation was damaged and it hurt his career. Today, he is building a tech company called Bridg-it, to protect people like him who have been attacked online. He doesn't want anyone else to pay like he did. All told, Ervine spent about $100,000 in legal fees. In Europe, he would have just filled out a form.

Honestly I thought it added to the story. Yes, he's founding a company that seems to be aimed at cyber-bullying in schools, which sounds (1) good for society, and (2) not super-profitable.

It seems more like activism-entrepreneurship than self-promotion.

One thing that didn't really connect for me was the article seeming to indicate that he created a business to help others deal with the difficult process of getting information removed from the likes of Google, but then the business website seems to be about school issues.

Good point. My only thought was—maybe they pivoted? The law doesn't really back up right-to-be-forgotten in the US. Cyber-bullying is a significant problem where I live, so I can believe there's a business opportunity (shudder at the phrasing) there.

Yes, the article does point to the fact that he's the founder of a company selling a service. But, this is not a submarine.

You can look at the example quoted by Paul Graham:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/14/fashion/thursdaystyles/th...

The difference is that the submarine pieces are subtle PR pieces.

That's a good point. Thank you.

I don't see how this disqualifies the issues presented in the article

Still, in the US it seems to be a theme "companies solving problems created by other companies being stupid", see """identity theft"""

I would guess most people on HN know about this PR technique, no need to point it out every time you see it.

For myself I enjoyed the article. I didn't know the right to be forgotten wasn't in place in the US.

I disagree: it is very helpful to point it out every time it's seen so that the readers will get educated, or reminded to remain critical.

It should be pointed out every time to the point where HN should even include a tag on articles that are confirmed PR.

Allowing these "advertisement as a story" posts to stand may already be normalized but it doesn't have to continue to be.

I agree that you have a point.

But on the other hand, the cynical in me says that in a sense all articles are like that. Part of these articles are a plug for some startup's PR, part are a techie writing about his hobby because that builds his name and maybe lands him a client, part are big newspapers that need the traffic to sell advertising, some authors write because they want to push their ideological point of view, firms write about the latest bug because they sell security services and expect to win a contract, etc. In a sense no one writes articles expecting nothing in return.

> Surprise surprise, he's the founder of a company selling a service to help people erase shit from google.

Surely that makes complete sense? The bloke spent 100k on the effort, from that they can infer:

1. there's need for a middleman able to handle that for people who don't have the time or money

2. if you can do it for significantly below 100k there's lots of money to be made

I thought this was an article advertising for the European Union.

NPR does this sort of thing all the time. Their reputation model is built around direct public sponsorship, so they can't just run regular ads. But they also need the money, and ads are a seductive source of revenue.

They are subtle enough about it that I still occasionally hear people mention that NPR or PBS doesn't have ads. Sometimes I am able to obnoxiously interject and explain what natives and submarines are, but most of the time I have to leave them to their ignorance.

I am particularly annoyed whenever they are pushing music or books, because they often have this "tote bag" and "kaffeeklatsch" demographic target that doesn't always align with me. So the "cultural reporting" ads fall flat.

The article makes the case that he was inspired to create the business after suffering the problem himself. Not exactly a secret or unusual.

great point.

one wonders, though, if it's selection bias, because how could anybody who isn't an expert in this area possibly succeed in this to the point where the story becomes interesting?

"normal citizen is slandered on internet and shows up in youtube" is a completely non-viable story, unfortunately.

Because there's a difference between how I read an ad versus an article.

The point of submarines is to get the reader to drop parts of the defense one has against ads and be more open to the content.

Sounds like a service Rick Santorum needed.

Thank you for this link, it really opens one's eyes!