Category Archives: Business

My thoughts on TMZ’s iPhone “Scoop” on CNBC [VIDEO]

Yesterday, I hopped on CNBC to talk about TMZ’s new iPhone on Closing Bell. Suffice it to say, I wasn’t buying it. Check out the video:

Why Are Google Glass Users Such Assholes?

Childish. Petty. Disrespectful. These were the only words I could muster after reading about how a group of Glass users destroyed the Yelp rating of a local NYC restaurant, all because they asked one person to take off her Google Glass in their restaurant. I’ve been asked to take off Glass before, and I’ve obliged without issue. After all, it’s their restaurant and their rules. If a restaurant asks me to put my cell phone away, I will. If somebody asks me to take off my shoes in their home, I respect their wishes. But Katy Kasmai didn’t take being asked to remove Glass so well. She refused to eat there because she couldn’t put the computer off her face. Instead she posted to Google+ and, for some reason, her Google+ followers and other Glass users decided to vote down the restaurant on Yelp, OpenTable and Google/Zagat. (Correction: From what I could find, Katy never rallied or asked her followers to downvote the restaurant. Google Glass users did that all on her own.) For those who don’t know, a single star in a Yelp rating can make or break a local restaurant. In fact, just an increase by a half-star increases the chance a restaurant can sell out its seats by 49%. A full-star drop is a big deal to a locally-owned restaurant like Feast, which was only started a year or two ago by two friends. Since then, Kasmai has defended the response, calling it “tech discrimination”:
I think I just vomited a little in my mouth. You can’t control being black, gay or a woman; you can control whether you wear a $1500 piece of hardware. To me, this kind of behavior reeks of entitlement. Just because I own a piece of technology instantly means that I should get my way. This kind of behavior is the reason why I rarely put on Glass anymore — I don’t want to be associated with Glassholes. Unfortunately for Google, this isn’t an isolated case. Search the term “Glasshole” and you’ll get plenty of news stories about Sarah Slocum. (who shouldn’t have brought Glass into a bar like Molotov in the first place, but reacted badly by escalating the situation.) One Glass user in Shanghai was taking creepy photos of women in the subway. It’s gotten so bad that Google even had to release a guide on how not to be an asshole. Seriously, why does Google Glass seem to attract so many assholes? Yes, there are plenty of great people using it for interesting and legitimate reasons — this story of a double amputee in Vegas is one the most compelling. But these legitimate uses are being drowned out by asinine behavior.
I have a simple theory as to why Glass seems to attract more assholes: unlike other technologies, Glass is also a status symbol. Smartphones aren’t great status symbols — they stay in your pocket most of the time. Neither are smart watches, which aren’t always visible, either. But Glass? It’s the only piece of technology I can think of that’s impossible to miss. It’s in your face. If you walk in somewhere, everyone will know you have Glass. And in the early days, when only a few people could obtain Google Glass, it meant that you had been “chosen” in some way by Google. Some people can handle that, but others aren’t so adept at handling the idea that they were chosen. To some, being chosen means that they were, in some way, better than those who weren’t chosen. And that goes straight to the ego. It leads to entitlement, which leads to glasshole-ish behavior. You see this kind of behavior with middle class who buy Porsches, Mustangs and Jaguars. It’s a flashy symbol of wealth and power that can make people act entitled assholes. I doubt this mindset will go away anytime soon, despite the fact anyone can buy Glass now. “We were the original Glass explorers,” is a phrase that we will unfortunately hear over and over again. By inadvertently making Google Glass a status symbol, Google attracted not just developers and tech enthusiasts, but a-holes into its Glass Explorers program. This has led to months of headache-inducing headlines that aren’t because Google built a bad product or had a bad idea. It just inadvertently found the wrong people to become its evangelists. So I implore the Glass enthusiasts out there — please stop acting like the victim. Stop acting like you’re entitled to wear Glass around. And most of all, stop acting like Glassholes. If you truly love the product, you’ll respect the wishes of others and focus on sharing the use cases of Glass that make it stand out as a quality product with a positive impact.

On Twitter and Short-Term Stock Fluctuations

Twitter has had a rough few weeks, but does that mean it’s destined to spiral downward? Hell no. 18% stock price drops are great for headlines, but they certainly don’t tell the story of a company’s long-term trajectory. So let’s get the obvious out of the way: Twitter’s getting punched in the gut at the moment:
After a steady rise to over $45, shares in Twitter have plummeted to just a hair under $32. Ouch. It stings just a bit more when you read the news stories about today’s 18% drop particularly, thanks to the end of the IPO lockout for insiders at the company. Here’s one quote from USA Today:
“Even without a secondary offering, millions more Twitter shares will be coming onto the market now that lock-up expirations have begun. That additional dilution may mean even more pain for Twitter shareholders in the weeks or months ahead.”
That’s fair. That’s potentially accurate. But the key phrase here is “weeks or months” — not “months or years”. Everyone seems to forget a couple of key facts about tech companies just after their IPOs:
  1. Stocks go through massive fluctuations during their first year on the public market as employees, management and investors adjust.
  2. It takes time — a lot of time — for a company to start realizing returns from the money it raises during its IPO, whether that’s in the form of revenue, users or stock price.
  3. One day and one week drops are horrendous predictors of a company’s success.
I remember the headlines about Facebook after it started tumbling after its IPO. Today, everyone’s raving about how it’ll be on the most valuable companies around by 2020. Do you remember how long it took Facebook to really hit its stride in the stock market? The answer is over a year:
Facebook needed time to adjust to the market, and the market needed time to adjust to Facebook. And since then, Facebook has blossomed (as has LinkedIn and many other large social networking offerings). With that IPO money, Facebook was able to pull the trigger on Instagram, which has turned out to be one of the best acquisitions of the last decade. Twitter just made a big acquisition itself, MoPub, which needs time to develop before we can render a verdict. So while we breathlessly panic about Twitter’s stock drop, don’t forget about the big picture. Twitter’s fundamental revenue numbers are growing and the company has plenty of time to make its core product appeal to a wider audience and monetize that audiences (or monetize audiences everywhere with MoPub). So while the next few weeks and months may continue to be choppy, I’m long on Twitter, because I believe in its leadership (particularly Dick Costolo) and I believe that it has the fundamentals to succeed. All it takes is one positive quarterly report to turn a downslide into an upswing. Image of a Mountain Bluebird courtesy of Wikipedia.

When Two Apps Are Simpler Than One

If there’s one entrepreneurial mantra that Steve Jobs taught us, it’s this: Simplify! Complex products fail. The complex MySpace lost to the simple Facebook. The simplicity of Snapchat, Instagram and Dropbox transformed them into world-class products. Tumblr famously cut a feature when it added a new one, always keeping the interface clean as hell. Foursquare, in its current iteration, isn’t simple. It has multiple functions. Is it a social check-in app? Is it a restaurant search app? Is it a location discovery app? Frankly, I didn’t know, and it turned me off from using it as much as I could have. I haven’t used its discovery features as much as I should have. I keep being told its discovery mechanisms are amazing. That’s why I love the move Dennis Crowley and the Foursquare team made yesterday. They split Foursquare into two apps: Foursquare and Swarm. Foursquare is the discovery portion, while Swarm focuses entirely on the social check-in aspect. It even has a feature I’ve wanted for a while, which is the ability to check into a general location, like a neighborhood. More importantly though, Foursquare’s core app is now all about local discovery and search. It won’t be hindered by the complexities of having users go through two, three or even four different flows. It makes Foursquare more directly competitive with Yelp. And while I have lots of great friends at Yelp, and I quite love the product and how useful it’s been in my life, competition is always a good thing for sparking new innovation. Splitting the apps into two makes the user experience far simpler for both sets of users. I suspect Silicon Valley will quickly be swarming, while Foursquare will make faster inroads in cities and with local businesses. If Swarm succeeds, Foursquare can spin it off or set up two teams. If it fails, it won’t kill Foursquare. Sometimes simplifying means taking out lots of features. And sometimes two apps are simpler than one.
P.S. — While we are at it, can I just say I love how The Verge tells stories? It’s absolutely one of my favorite news sites. Screenshot via The Verge.

The Floodgates Have Opened

temp..yaidgitb The floodgates have just burst open, not just in the world of technology, but in the entire free market. In the very way we view capitalism. I am, of course, talking about Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp for $16 billion ($19 billion when you count the restricted stock units). It is the largest acquisition of a private, venture-backed company in history. This deal is worth more than the GDP of nearly half of the countries on earth. Let that sink in for a moment. We haven’t had an event this high on the Richter scale since AOL-Time Warner and the 2000 bubble. Of course, the market then isn’t the market now. As my old colleague Chris Taylor intelligently points out, the Facebooks, Googles, Apples and Amazons of the world have grown up. They have billions in cash. They are profitable. They aren’t going anywhere, even if it means acquiring their future threats for $19 billion. Or acquiring one of the world’s most advanced robotics companies. Anything it takes. Zuckerberg is a rare breed. He’s willing to do anything to make sure Facebook is at the forefront of its mission of connecting people, even if it means giving up 9.5% of his company to do it. He doesn’t care — he thinks about the next 30 years, not the next three. And he has the complete control to make deals like this one. But so does Larry Page. And the same will be true of more and more founders who reach the IPO pinnacle. As Zuckerberg has shown, control is good. Two years ago, everybody stood shell-shocked when Instagram sold to Facebook for $1 billion. Now we don’t even bat an eye to that number. And with the WhatsApp acquisition, that number is going to continue to look smaller and smaller. Facebook has opened the floodgates. Nobody knows what’s going to happen next. Don’t believe anybody that tells you otherwise. ~ Ben

Announcing “Captivology”, My Book on the Science of Attention (HarperCollins/2015)

Dear friends, family, colleagues, and supporters, I’m thrilled to announce my first non-fiction book, working title “Captivology: The Science of Capturing People’s Attention“, due in early 2015 from HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins. I hope you will sign up for updates on Captivology through my book’s website. You can follow @Captivology on Twitter or like Captivology on Facebook. You can also follow @BenParr for regular updates. And finally, here’s a link for sharing this announcement. Or you can just click this lovely button for updates:
Captivology is about the science and psychology of attention; why we pay attention to certain people, products, companies and ideas; and how to capture, maintain and grow attention. My book pairs the research of the world’s greatest scientists and psychologists in attention theory with the stories from the world’s Masters of Attention. The book dives into topics such as:
  • The role scarcity and working memory play on our attention.
  • How Nintendo’s Shigeru Miyamoto created one of the world’s most iconic characters.
  • The power that framing and salience have in directing our attention.
  • The secret sauce of disruptive campaigns and viral products.
  • Sheryl Sandberg on the power of motivation when it comes to capturing attention.
During the course of my research, I have had the opportunity to interview more than 50 scientists, researchers, experts and Masters of Attention. I’m grateful to thought leaders such as Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook), Dr. Alan Baddeley (leading researcher in working memory), Steven Soderbergh (famed director), Alexis Ohanian (founder of Reddit), Dr. Michael Posner (leading cognitive psychologist), Jeff Weiner (CEO, LinkedIn), Adrian Grenier (actor, producer and director), Dr. Eli Finkel (expert on attraction), Grant Imahara (Discovery’s Mythbusters), Susan Cain (NYT bestselling author, Quiet), Jon Armstrong (Magician, Chairman of the Academy of Magical Arts), Dr. John Sweller (leading expert on cognitive load), Alexia Tsostis (Co-Editor, TechCrunch), Shigeru Miyamoto (Nintendo), Josh Elman (Partner, Greylock), Dr. Dietram Scheufele (Expert on Communications, Framing), Michael Stevens (creator, Vsauce), and many more who have taken time our of their days to chat with me for this book.
Above: A screenshot from my interview with Adrian Grenier and Dr. Thomas De Zengotita. A special thanks to NASDAQ for letting me use their studios for the interview.
If you have suggestions for my book, please email me at ben@captivology.com with your ideas! I’m especially looking for interesting people to interview and unique stories about how you or somebody you know captured the attention of an individual, an audience or the entire world. A major reason we’re announcing the book now is to gather great stories for the book that I might have otherwise missed. I hope to complete this research-heavy book in the next few months, so please forgive me if I’m much slower than usual responding to your emails, texts and tweets until then.

A Few Other Announcements

I’m working on Captivology on top of my day job as Co-founder and Managing Partner of DominateFund, the early-stage venture capital firm I started last year with Matt Schlicht and Mazy Kazerooni. We’ve expanded the fund from its original focus on connecting Hollywood with tech, though that is still a component of what we do. Our focus now is on helping startups capture attention for their products and accelerate their growth through our expertise in five key areas: Strategic Celebrity Partnerships, Press, Marketing, Customer and User Acquisition, and Building Viral Products. The fund is the reason I decided to write this book. We will be making more announcements about DominateFund in the near future, including several new additions to our team and updates on our amazing portfolio companies. Because I had all of this on my plate, CNET and I decided to retire The Social Analyst, my column at CNET, last year. I want to thank CNET, and especially Jim Lanzone, Mark Larkin and Jim Kerstetter, for being so supportive of me and my column, for being amazing bosses, and for putting up with me and my hectic schedule. I won’t be bringing The Social Analyst back. At least, not in its current form. The column, which I started at Mashable in 2009, has been my place to opine on the most pertinent issues in tech. CNET was kind enough to let me continue my column. I will eventually be back writing columns and thought pieces on a regular basis, but ones that are about more than just technology. There is a mountain of research from my book I want to discuss and advice I want to dispense for every entrepreneur who struggles to get the attention of users or artist who wants to be heard. I also have a lot of other insights in media, entrepreneurship, investing and science I hope to eventually share. One final announcement — I’m proud to announce that I have signed with the Worldwide Speakers Group, which now represents me for all my speaking engagements. You can check out my speaking topics or book me by sending a message to Keith Lambert at KLambert@wwsg.com or calling WWSG at 703-373-9806. I primarily speak about attention, attention for brands, innovation, technology and entrepreneurship. I want to thank a few people right now for all of their help the last few months. Thank you to everybody I’ve interviewed for the book so far. A special thanks to the best agent in all of publishing, David Vigliano, for always having my back. The same is true of Will LoTurco, who works with Vig. Thank you Marcy Simon and Melinda Mullin, for going above and beyond the call of duty for me. Thank you to my editor, Genoveva Llosa, for being just sensational. Thank you to my partners Matt Schlicht and Mazy Kazerooni for being my unofficial brothers (Nat, you too). A thank you to Hallie, my badass EA. Thank you to my family (love you mom & dad!), and finally a special thank you to my girlfriend Julie, for being my rock. Onward and upward! Thank you for kindness, ~ Ben

Please follow me and Captivology on social media!

(p.s. — Happy birthday, sis!)

Snapchat and the Logic of Turning Down $3 Billion

In July 2006, a two-year-old company received the offer of a lifetime: a $1 billion acquisition offer from Yahoo. While its board was ready to accept the offer, its founder and CEO instantly dismissed the offer. “I don’t know what I could do with the money,” the CEO said. “I’d just start another social networking site. I kind of like the one I already have.” That company, of course, is Facebook, and the CEO is Mark Zuckerberg. Today, that decision seems wise, considering the company’s current $118 billion market cap. Zuckerberg has cemented his place among the greatest entrepreneurs of all time as a result. But nobody would have blamed Zuckerberg if he had sold to Yahoo in 2006, just as nobody can blame Kevin Systrom for selling Instagram for $1B. While Instagram has thrived since its acquisition, it’s easy to see how it could have become a Groupon, whose decision to spurn Google’s $6B acquisition offer seems flawed in hindsight. Today, the rumors are flying around Snapchat, the hot new mobile social networking startup with millions of users and hundreds of millions of “snaps” and growing. It reportedly spurned a $3B all-cash acquisition offer from Facebook recently. My Twitter stream is filled with commentary on the rumor that boils down to either “I’d take $3B” or “the founders of Snapchat have balls”. But let’s put the mindset of the founders into context, because while turning down a $3B acquisition offer is unfathomable to most of us, it makes logical sense for Snapchat. 1) Snapchat is still growing rapidly: If Snapchat’s growth were slowing down, the decision to sell would be significantly harder. But when you’re sitting on a fast-growing entity that should only increase in value, taking a $3B offer can look small in just a few months. 2) The founders will cash out regardless: From the last line of the WSJ report: “If Snapchat pursues an investment early next year, Spiegel has told investors he would like to sell a block of his own stock, according to people familiar with those conversations.” Spiegel and his team are going to make millions either way — more than enough to live a happy and comfortable life. It frees the team to “go the distance” because even if Snapchat totally collapses, they will never have to worry about money again. 3) The chance to become one of the greats: Q: How do you become the next Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs? A: You take your company all the way to IPO. Changing the world is certainly on the minds of the founders of Snapchat. So is legacy. While you can certainly change the world as part of a larger company, it’s easier to fulfill your vision when you’re CEO. These thoughts must certainly slide through the thoughts of the founders. They’re only human. — Turning down billions of dollars seems insane on the surface, but can have a payout far greater than money if you succeed. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg. Regardless of your opinion of Snapchat, it’s tough to blame the founders for wanting to hit the Grand Slam. They have a rare opportunity to build a legacy and change the way people communicate. I wish them the best of luck.

Microsoft & Nokia Can Carve a Niche in Mobile, But Wearables Is the Next Battleground

Gates Watch Microsoft + Nokia still has room to grow in the smartphone market, but perhaps the software giant should focus on the future of mobile: wearables. Originally, I intended to write a thought piece bashing the Microsoft-Nokia deal. On the surface, Windows Phone feels much like BlackBerry, whose moves I correctly predicted were too little, too late. But as I did the research, I realized that the same isn’t true for Microsoft, at least abroad. While market share of the Windows Phone has stagnated between 3% and 4% in the U.S., Microsoft’s mobile OS is making positive gains abroad. In the UK, its market share has doubled to 9.2%. In France, it has tripled to 11%. There are still millions of people with feature phones looking to upgrade, and they still can be swayed away from choosing Android or iOS. It won’t be easy, of course, and it may ultimately be a futile effort on Microsoft’s part. You can also argue that Microsoft didn’t need to spend the money on Nokia, but it has so much cash to spare that a few billion to improve development speed and bring phone development in-house makes some amount of sense. I don’t believe Microsoft can triple its market share by 2018, but I do think it can grow a respectable niche. It’s not going to get any easier though, with great phones like Google’s MotoX and the upcoming iPhone still superior in terms of apps and core features. Microsoft will have to find a proprietary way to differentiate from the competition that it hasn’t found quite yet.

The Next Battleground


The battle for smartphone dominance may not matter in five to ten years though, because I believe a new battleground will soon emerge: wearable tech. Yes, I am talking about smart watches and Google Glass. While the technology today draws curious stares and makes you look like a cyborg, it will vastly improve to the point where we will wonder why we actually carried around bulky computing devices in our pockets. Will wearable tech look like Google Glass in a decade? Probably not. And that’s why Microsoft still has an opportunity to dominate by creating a compelling product that doesn’t look like anything else on the market. Microsoft can no longer dominate the smartphone market. The best it can hope for is a few percentage points of market share over the next decade. In fact, Microsoft risks missing the next big trend by focusing on a few percentage points of a market that, several decades from now, will probably not exist. That’s the beauty of technology — it changes so quickly that new opportunities present themselves often enough for a company like Microsoft to turn their fortunes around. Ballmer is being coy about Microsoft’s plan for wearables, but we can only hope the company is taking wearable tech seriously, because if it doesn’t, it will end up playing catchup once again. Image courtesy of IGN

The Tech Community Must Invest More In San Francisco

Several years ago, when Square was just eight people, I was invited by Jack Dorsey to his loft in SOMA to meet the team and get a sneak peek at the Square device. After I interviewed Dorsey, he took me up to his roof and showed me his neighborhood. He specifically pointed out the outdoor tables and chairs, which he helped get placed in his neighborhood. It was just phase one of a bigger plan he had to help his neighborhood. You see, Dorsey’s always been active in his community, whether it’s his neighborhood or San Francisco at large. Dorsey and other Square employees picking up trash in San Francisco on Fridays is an extension of his values and his long-held sense of civic duty. Unfortunately, Dorsey’s the minority here. The stereotype — and the tension — has been, for as long as I have lived here, that the techies who fill the ranks of Facebook, Google and the startup community’s rosters jump on their air-conditioned shuttles, drive up housing prices and don’t respect San Francisco’s unique, quirky and downright amazing culture. A blog post by a tech founder and recent SF transplant only helped to confirm this stereotype in the eyes of many. And who can blame long-time San Franciscans for thinking that techies are ruining their city, with unfortunate blog posts like these? It’s clear that the city is changing and that unlike the tech bubble of the late 1990s the techies are likely here to stay, along with the higher rents that come with it. In some ways, this is a good thing — it means that San Francisco and the bay area are economically booming in an era of stagnant job growth, although it’s also clear that not everybody is sharing in the wealth or the benefits. From the LA Times:
“Unlike in previous booms, the tech industry isn’t creating as many middle-class jobs or as much goodwill. The gap between Silicon Valley’s high and low earners is widening, with average per-capita incomes going up while median household incomes have fallen for the third consecutive year, according to Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a private group that publishes an annual report card on the region. In a region that lays claim to some of the world’s wealthiest companies, food stamp participation has hit a 10-year high, and homelessness has increased 20% in the last two years, the group found.”
We can do better than this. This is not a (complete) indictment of SF’s tech community. There are some that have gone above and beyond the call of duty to help San Francisco (Dorsey, Conway), and others who volunteer with a favorite charity or keep active with their neighborhood. I suspect, though, that the vast majority of us techies aren’t doing the things that we, as civic-minded individuals, should be doing. Simple things like volunteering, attending neighborhood meetings, manning the polling booths, meeting our neighbors. Oh, and did I mention volunteering? But we need to do more. No matter if you’ve been here for three months or thirty years, this place is now your home. Our home. And while you may be overwhelmed by your startup, it isn’t an excuse to ignore the state of your home and the plight of others. Make it a company activity if you have to. Every little bit helps. I love this city. I love being able to walk from my apartment in Russian Hill and dance away at a blues and jazz street fair. I love being able to hike through Lands End to the beach and relaxing with friends. I love the city’s secret pop-up art gatherings. I don’t want these things to go away. I also love the tech community, and its idealism and its innovation. I don’t think that the tech industry and San Francisco are incompatible in any way. I simply think we, as a tech community, need to make a greater individual effort to be part of the community at large. So if you haven’t been very civic thanks to your startup or your long-ass ride on the Google bus, ok, I understand. But let’s start something now. I’m committing to volunteering in San Francisco — something I haven’t done enough of since my Eagle Scout days — and I hope you’ll join me in embracing San Francisco as well. Go to the Opera and donate if you love music. Go check out VolunteerMatch or the Bay Area’s volunteer information center. Even just going to a local show does a lot to support the community. Grab some friends while you’re at it. Start small to get started and you’ll find that it’s incredibly rewarding and fun. I’m also calling on the startups and tech companies of San Francisco to do more as well. Give your employees opportunities to give back to the community. San Franciscans — if you have a great cause or charity, tell me about it by posting in the comments or tweeting at me. I will add it to this post and to a new post I’ll write with more ways people can get involved in their city. And if your company is already giving back, I want to hear about it so we have more examples of how companies and startups can be more involved. Start with one small act, and others will follow. Let’s be good citizens to our neighbors and our community. Badass image by Ubeam’s Meredith Perry. Seriously, she’s amazing.

NSA’s PRISM: This Isn’t Over, So Can We Please Breathe Before We Jump to Conclusions?

dark-prism
The dropped a bombshell last night — the government is spying on you! And it’s in cahoots with the world’s most popular Internet companies to do it! If that isn’t a recipe for a shitstorm, I don’t know what is. But are Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook and the other tech giants willingly sending the NSA user data, or are they not? If you ask the companies named in the PowerPoint presentation, they don’t know what the hell you’re talking about:
  • Google: “We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.”
  • Facebook: “Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers.”
  • AOL: “We do not have any knowledge of the Prism program.”
  • Microsoft: “If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”
Okay, those are pretty blanket denials, but their statements could be carefully crafted to not be lying, but not be telling the whole truth. At least, that’s what Arrington believes. Or maybe Palantir is behind the whole thing? (nope.) Or maybe these companies aren’t actively involved in the program? Well, The Washington Post just stepped back from the accusation that these tech companies were directly involved. So basically, we have a scandal with no actual answers and lots of accusations flying around. It’s a field day for the press, but users should wait before they start boycotting companies, and the press should do its job — investigate into PRISM until it finds the truth. Until then, I’m going to sit out the blame game. Photo Credit: wonker via Compfight cc