Connect with us

Culture

You are the Sum of your Network

Published

on

The greatest barrier to first-generation wealth is being shut out of the network efforts of established players.

Elite colleges aren’t expensive because of the education. I’ve met and competed against the most highly educated in the world. Most of them don’t read books. The value is in the network.

Network effects have been mathematically modeled, revealing what it now called Metcalfe’s law: “Metcalfe’s law states the effect of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system.”

With a network, 10 people isn’t only 10 people. Ten people in a network is equivalent 100 people (N-squared), as each person within the network has other connections outside of the network.

In other words, if you “know a guy,” then your guy knows another guy….

Take for example an event I co-hosted with Mike Bolen of Mindset Squared. Mike is a successful real estate developer, and his business partner manages and invests in outside properties. We walked around as they showed me a house they are preparing to flip.

A real estate investor (one guy, Mike) would know

  • mortgage broker
  • real estate agent (seller side and buyer side)
  • accountant
  • lawyer
  • handy man

People who attended the event included start-up founders, an entrepreneur who began as a mechanic who expanded into franchising his methods, and many others. Each person knows someone who knows someone, and on and on….

There are two types of networks – information networks and personal networks.

You are inside an information network right now. When you learn from someone you wouldn’t have access to, you’re networking your mind with other minds.

Maybe you’ve never thought about networking that way, and now you should, for two important reasons: Your mind is open to new possibilities as you’re able to expand your network into the living and the deal. And also because what you’re reading becomes who you are.

“You can put distance between yourself and the center of your nation or your family, but you can never totally cut your lines of connectivity. Even when we turn inward, an army of invisible others speaks through our thoughts, twists our emotions, and populates our privacy.” – Howard Bloom, the Lucifer Principle.

How can you create personal networks?

The single best way to form a network is to attend events. I really have no patience for people who say they have trouble meeting people if they aren’t attending events.

The best events are transformative and mindset based, and the best mindset training I’ve ever gone through is Mastery In Transformational Training. (Listen to my podcast review here.) If you want to meet people like [x], then attend an event where people are [x].

Sure, people have social anxiety or whatever, but you need to fix that, and there are thousands of resources on that. Generally speaking, dress to impress.

Compounding Networks and What this Means.

“Compound interest. Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn’t … pays it.” – Albert Einstein.

Wealth doubles every 7 years, and the doubled wealth doubles again in 7 years, and on and on. (Read, The Rule of 72.) Compounding interest is why the rich get richer.

The same principles apply to personal networks.

Play iterated games. All the returns in life, whether in wealth, relationships, or knowledge, come from compound interest. – Naval Ravinkant

Negative Network Effects.

The upsides of networks include downsides. For example the enemies you make will shut you out of their networks.

Why do you think even very rich and “alpha” men are afraid to admit they voted for Trump?

In Silicon Valley or Wall Street, people who voted for Trump will be shut out of networks. Even one or two noisy haters can shut down a deal, under the principle of The Most Intolerant Wins.

If you make enemies over the years, you’ll lose out on network effects.

Those networks may also conspire against you, as Peter Thiel did against Gawker. Gawker made a lot of enemies, and it appears that its legacy lives on, as many in the fake news media continue to lie about, stalk, and harass people.

It only takes one person to ruin a network. (Trust.)

Successful networks are high-trust, because it only takes one person to destroy a network.

In my own personal network, a person who was indulged by far too many (against my wishes) for far too long wreaked havoc on the personal and professional lives of many by gossiping, back-biting, lying, and overall thinking he was a Secret King destined to rule us all.

You must purge any low-trust person immediately, and if you want to remain in networks, you must exemplify high-trust at all times.

You are your network.

Literally.

It’s been shown, for example, that having network effects extend to weight management and obesity:

As described in the July 26, 2007, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers found that friendships can have a crucial influence on a person’s weight. The likelihood of becoming obese increased by nearly 57% if a close friend had become obese. In same-sex friendships, a close friend becoming obese increased a person’s chance of becoming obese by 71%. The effect was strongest among mutual friends, with the risk of obesity rising by 171% if a close mutual friend had became obese.

Health gains compound over time. Eating dessert now and then isn’t going to hurt anyone, but if you’re out with people who chose clean food vs. appetizers and desserts, you’re going to be nudged into the direction of least resistance.

Your friends’ and confederates’ habits and interests will become your habits and interests.

Choose wisely.

P.S. If you enjoyed this article, sign up for free to receive more like it.


Comments

Culture

The Patreon Lawsuit Involving Owen Benjamin Explained by a Lawyer

Published

on

Patreon, a platform popular with podcasts, journalists, and comedian faces significant legal peril due a fascinating quirk of California law that no one seemed to have noticed.

  • Summary: Patreon banned Owen Benjamin. Owen Benjamin’s backers moved for arbitration, alleging various causes of action. Under the arbitration procedures spelled out in Patreon’s Terms of Service, Patreon must pay the filing fees, which could total millions of dollars. Patreon cannot collect those fees back, even if Patreon wins the arbitrations.

Tech companies face almost total protection from lawsuits due to a law created by Congress to encourage freedom of speech on the web. Because of this, companies have gotten sloppy with the Terms of Service.

Patreon’s Terms of Service, like nearly every other tech companies, provide that anyone who wants to use Patreon must do so in arbitration. Patreon’s TOS also ban class actions or any joint actions.

Patreon’s TOS mandate arbitration and ban class actions because individual consumers who suffer small harms aren’t able to find a lawyer to take their case. Again, all tech companies do this. Let’s not single out Patreon. Here is Amazon:

  • Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon Service, or to any products or services sold or distributed by Amazon or through Amazon.com will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify.

Here is PayPal:

  • By opening and using a PayPal account, you agree to comply with all of the terms and conditions in this user agreement. The terms include an agreement to resolve disputes by arbitration on an individual basis.

Owen Benjamin Gets Banned. Dozens of his backers individual claims for arbitration.

Patreon, by banning a Creator, disrupts the economic relationship between Creator and Backer. In legal terms this is called tortious interference with a business relationship.

Patreon, under California law, must pay the arbitration fees in advance. These fees can be upward of $10,000 per case.

If dozens of backers move for individual arbitration against Patreon, you can start doing the math.

Benjamins’ Backers Put Patreon on Notice; Patreon Unilaterally Amends its TOS to Bar the Claims the Parties were Going to Bring.

In early December, numerous defendants told Patreon that they intended to move for individual arbitration.

Patreon’s TOS suggest that contacting them before seeking arbitration is required, although this provision could be read as a request rather than a demand.

  • We encourage you to contact us if you have an issue. If a dispute does arise out of these terms or related to your use of Patreon, and it cannot be resolved after you talk with us, then it must be resolved by arbitration.

Because Patreon wrote the TOS, the terms will be resolved against Patreon. In law this is known as contra proferentem. Any ambiguous language will be read in favor of the party who did not draft it.

The TOS, to me and many others, looks like a pre-filing demand. Others may claim the terms read otherwise. Contra proferentem applies.

Two or three weeks later, Patreon unilaterally altered the Terms of Service by adding this clause:

  • You may not bring a claim against us for suspending or terminating another person’s account, and you agree you will not bring such a claim. If you try to bring such a claim, you are responsible for the damages caused, including attorneys fees and costs. These terms remain in effect even if you no longer have an account.

Patreon claimed that its unilateral change to the TOS “remain in effect even if you no longer have an account.”

Yes, Patreon literally changed its TOS after it was contacted by arbitration claimants, who were required to contact Patreon before moving for arbitration.

Patreon filed a Mass Action against the Arbitration Claimants.

Patreon lost several procedural motions before arbitrations. After losing these motions, they sued the arbitration claimants in California State Court.

Realizing that the arbitration fees would be in the millions of dollars range, Patreon filed a group action against all 72 arbitration claimants. Patreon sought an injunction, that is, they want the Court to order the arbitrations to be stopped.

Here is what Patreon’s TOS says about group actions:

  • Arbitrations may only take place on an individual basis. No class arbitrations or other grouping of parties is allowed. By agreeing to these terms you are waiving your right to trial by jury or to participate in a class action or representative proceeding; we are also waiving these rights.

To drop my lawyer’s latin again, contra proferentem. Patreon can’t claim that when they said that “other groupings of parties is allowed,” applies only to arbitrations. That provision is subject to an ambiguous reading at best.

How can Patreon file a group action against 72 defendants when Patreon barred group actions? They can’t.

The Patreon Hearing.

The 72 defendants were represented by well-known First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza.

The Court issued a tentative (not final) order denying the injunctions.

During the hearing, Patreon’s counsel brought up additional cases that it claimed applied to the lawsuit.

The Court suggested that Randazza file a supplemental motion addressing those new cases Patreon’s counsel cited.

Patreon will probably lose, and should lose, its State Court action.

Patreon’s TOS required parties to use arbitration. Group actions were banned. The parties complied with the TOS, first by putting Patreon on notice as to their claims.

Once the parties put Patreon on notice of their claim, Patreon was barred by well-established law from amending the TOS in a way that would foreclose those claims.

The Implications?

If a popular creator were banned from PayPal, could he or she have her backers move for arbitration as well?

That’s a specific question that many lawyers are looking at now.

Patreon, like Door Dash before it, banned class actions before decision that group actions are in fact an inefficient way of resolving cases.

Here is what a federal judge told one tech company who complained about a “loophole” being used by the parties:

DoorDash Ordered to Pay $9.5M to Arbitrate 5,000 Labor Disputes:

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Rejecting claims that the legal process it forced on workers is unfair, a federal judge Monday ordered food-delivery service DoorDash to pay $9.5 million in arbitration fees for 5,010 delivery drivers’ labor demands against the company.

“You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.”

Of course anything can happen in a court of law, and the judge will be issuing a final ruling in a few weeks from now.

Read my prior coverage here:

Patreon Faces New Legal Peril Under California Law

Continue Reading

Culture

CNN’s Brian Stelter Apologizes for Mistake (Good Man)

Published

on

UPDATE:

CNN’s Brian Stelter falsely accused a woman of spreading disinformation tonight, in a Tweet Stelte deleted without apology after it was revealed that Stelter lying.

The lie concerned a fire started by rioters in Washington D.C. Katrina B. Haydon reported that St. John’s church near the White House was on fire.

 

 

 

Stelter attacked the woman, baselessly accusing her of lying.

 

Brian Stelter has yet to apologize to spreading disinformation.

Did Brian Stelter lie to protect violent protesters?

Why did Stelter lie?

Is he trying to provide propaganda for violent protesters and domestic terrorists?

Continue Reading

Culture

“Burn It Down,” ESPN Writer Encourages Arson of Low Income Housing

Published

on

ESPN sportswriter Chris Palmer Martin Tweeted, “Burn that shit down. Burn it all down.” The burning building was a low-income housing area in Minneapolis. (Minneapolis vandalism targets include 189-unit affordable housing development.)

When rioters neared Martin’s home, he called them “animals.”

 

The media has a history of supporting ANTIFA.

 

 

Hoaxed Movie Uncovers the Media’s Relationship with ANTIFA

Watch the Hoaxed Movie Trailer

Where to Watch Hoaxed Movie

iTunes here

Vimeo here

YouTube here

VuDu here

DVDs here

Continue Reading

Trending

shares
Read previous post:
One of my Stalkers was Arrested for Soliciting Sex of a Child

UPDATE: Peter Bright has been convicted. In what can only be described as a pattern, yet another person who has...

Close