At Talkspace, Startup Culture Collides With Mental Health Concerns (nytimes.com) 19
The therapy-by-text company Talkspace -- which has raised more than $100 million from investors -- made burner phones available for fake reviews and doesn't adequately respect client privacy, former employees say. From a report: The app launched in 2014 to positive press but lukewarm customer reviews, with ratings of about three stars out of five on both the Google and Apple app stores, according to a Times analysis. Users complained about glitchy software and unresponsive therapists. In 2015 and 2016, according to four former employees, the company sought to improve its ratings: It asked workers to write positive reviews. One employee said that Talkspace's head of marketing at the time asked him to compile 100 fake reviews in a Google spreadsheet, so that employees could submit them to app stores. Mr. Lori (an ex-employee) said that Talkspace gave employees "burner" phones to help evade the app stores' techniques for detecting false reviews. "They said, 'Don't do it here. Do it at home. Give us five-star ratings because we have too many bad reviews,'" Mr. Lori said.
Mr. Reilly, the Talkspace lawyer, disputed this account, saying that employees were free to write reviews any way they liked. "We alerted employees if they were to leave a review, to do it from their personal phones -- not from the Talkspace office network, as that would cause issues with the app store," Mr. Reilly said in an emailed statement. "To be clear: We have never used fake identities or encouraged anybody to do so; there is no event involving 'burner' phones, and the idea in and of itself is nonsensical relative to the large number of reviews outstanding."
Mr. Reilly, the Talkspace lawyer, disputed this account, saying that employees were free to write reviews any way they liked. "We alerted employees if they were to leave a review, to do it from their personal phones -- not from the Talkspace office network, as that would cause issues with the app store," Mr. Reilly said in an emailed statement. "To be clear: We have never used fake identities or encouraged anybody to do so; there is no event involving 'burner' phones, and the idea in and of itself is nonsensical relative to the large number of reviews outstanding."
There was no event involving burner phones? (Score:3)
Better hope that's true, because it's trivial for a forensic accountant and IT person to sort out in discovery.
Lying about it only makes it worse.
Re: (Score:3)
You're going to suggest to a marketing person to not lie? You should patent that because it's new and novel.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm suggesting their lawyer not lie, and avoid being disbarred.
Mr. Reilly, the Talkspace lawyer, disputed this account,
Re: (Score:2)
There are degrees to lying and it may be more of a mistruth than anything.
After all, "There was no event involving burner phones" can be true - if you take it apart skillfully.
Right now, that sentence is only a lie if there was an event and it involved burner phones. Which means it's a true statement if there was no event, OR it did not involve burner phones.
Which can work if employees were given company phones to say, do company work on. And maybe encouraged to leave a review at the same time. Maybe even a
Re: There was no event involving burner phones? (Score:2)
No, there really aren't.
Either what you say, and whan you remember, is the same, or it isn't.
Sure, there are false memories, lapses in memory, and of course the brain's whole point is to bias all input based on all previous input... where perceived reality is relative anyway due to basic physics ...
But it really does not matter, if you say something untrue, don't say something true that you should, say it in a lawyery/spinning/wrong way, or whatever.
if (abs(statement - truth) > 0) print("liar!");
Re: (Score:1)
I don't believe you can patent things that are impossible (so far), like FTL travel, perpetual motion, you get the idea...
Re: There was no event involving burner phones? (Score:2)
What if your patent makes them possible?
Re: (Score:2)
Better hope that's true, because it's trivial for a forensic accountant and IT person to sort out in discovery.
Discovery happens during a lawsuit. Who has the standing to sue? Not the employees. Individual customers don't have the resources. The companies pockets may be too shallow to make a class action worthwhile.
Lying about it only makes it worse.
The company isn't lying. Their lawyer is. They can plausibly deny they told him to say it.
It was stupid of them to use their own employees to do review astroturfing. They should have outsourced to one of the companies that offer fake reviews as a service.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly the FTC, AGs, FDA, maybe a class action... a whole lot of people are potentially affected and have legal authority to turn up the heat.
Re: (Score:1)
Terapy by text? (Score:2)
Some things cannot be good if done on the cheap. This is one of those. Some minimal insight required though.
Of course, expensive things do not need to be good (and more often that not are bad just the same), but going cheap on therapy assures the absence of good results. Doing this right requires a smart person on the other side, not a chat-bot and you cannot get these people on the cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
When I saw "therapy by text", the very first thought that came to my mind was - they're totally banking on moving to AI "therapists" as soon as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.
An unethical therapist. Not new news (Score:2)
Fraudspace hiding behind lawyer (Score:2)
"But they didn't do it, really they didn't!"
I'm more inclined to believe the former employees
than the hired dick sucker.
Security Alert! For your eyes only (Score:1)
Never give out your mantra to strangers
Eliza did it first (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Startups? Mental health concerns? (Score:2)
What's the difference?
. . .
No, seriously ...