Some things need to change(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Some things need to change
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/28/some-things-need-to-change/
208 comments
I see nothing at all morally wrong with speculating over Steve's health (though it's often not very useful). Remember that every AAPL owner is a part owner of the company. It's not at all untoward for an investor in the company to want to know what health the CEO is in, especially one thought to be as influential as him, and Jobs has been opaque about it since the beginning. A lot of people have, collectively, over $80b tied up in the company, and they have no idea if the guy running it will live another year or two.
When your company goes public, a decision Steve himself made long ago, you know that from then on, what you disclose to owners of the company you effectively disclose to everyone. He knew what he was getting.
Speculating as to his health doesn't worsen it or harm him in any way. If anything is immoral, it's Steve's purposely hiding it and even, this year, lying about it.
When your company goes public, a decision Steve himself made long ago, you know that from then on, what you disclose to owners of the company you effectively disclose to everyone. He knew what he was getting.
Speculating as to his health doesn't worsen it or harm him in any way. If anything is immoral, it's Steve's purposely hiding it and even, this year, lying about it.
Yeah. Health speculation doesn't even really fit on this list:
0) speculation that isn't mean
1) insults and mean rumors
2) spitting
3) death threatsWorrying about his health if you own stock in AAPL is understandable. But there was just something tabloid-like about _how_ people approached it; just didn't feel right.
How they approached it was due to his blatantly lying about it, in the rare instances in which he addressed it at all. He chose to make it tabloid-like. He could have ended it at any point by simply being upfront. Remember when John McCain had a team of Mayo Clinic doctors examine him and publicly announce the results? It was because he knew that if he were elected, his health was our business. People may have joked about his health, but there wasn't the tabloid-like obsession with digging up dirt.
Instead he treated AAPL owners largely with contempt (pretty much the way he treats everyone from the sound of it) by not speaking about it, or saying one day that he's well and a week later that he's not, while 10s of billions of dollars are on the line.
Instead he treated AAPL owners largely with contempt (pretty much the way he treats everyone from the sound of it) by not speaking about it, or saying one day that he's well and a week later that he's not, while 10s of billions of dollars are on the line.
Not only that. Think about those who have MSFT stock. Where will MSFT copy stuff from if APPL ceases to innovate due to the health of its main driving force ;-) ?
an example of how low folks in our industry can go
There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere.
It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals.
Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous.
Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arrington, but I'm guessing not by much. Crazy people by definition do not behave rationally.
I'm not sure there is a solution to that beyond, make sure you keep as much of your life as you can secret.
The name of the young actress who was killed by her stalker some years ago escapes me, but I think he was able to get her address form the DMV.
Arrington can either quit, or keep paying for security, or find a way to keep his office and his home secret.
There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere.
It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals.
Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous.
Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arrington, but I'm guessing not by much. Crazy people by definition do not behave rationally.
I'm not sure there is a solution to that beyond, make sure you keep as much of your life as you can secret.
The name of the young actress who was killed by her stalker some years ago escapes me, but I think he was able to get her address form the DMV.
Arrington can either quit, or keep paying for security, or find a way to keep his office and his home secret.
The actress you're thinking of is probably Rebecca Schaeffer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer
I read about her in Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear, which incidentally is a pretty good book about such things. (de Becker is apparently the guy you call if you're a Hollywood star who gets a death threat -- protecting famous people is his company's business. And his published opinion is pretty much the same as yours: All famous people will get threats once they become famous enough, and the most famous people you can name have probably got dozens of stalkers of one sort or another.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer
I read about her in Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear, which incidentally is a pretty good book about such things. (de Becker is apparently the guy you call if you're a Hollywood star who gets a death threat -- protecting famous people is his company's business. And his published opinion is pretty much the same as yours: All famous people will get threats once they become famous enough, and the most famous people you can name have probably got dozens of stalkers of one sort or another.)
I don't see why police couldn't do anything about the dangerous guy intimidating and threatening him. Is serious intimidation really not a crime of any sort?
They could issue a restraining order but he chose not to do that because it would give the guy specifics about the places he regularly visits and where he lives.
I meant why couldn't the police do something effective that would make him safe? isn't that their job?
No, it's not their job. Police respond to things, but they are basically not allowed to be proactive, barring a riot. There's a ton of reasons for this, including that without an actual law broken tailing this guy could be construed as police harassment, would likely involve a violation of some Constitutional right or other, and, of course, the real reason, that they simply don't have time for that sort of thing.
When you set policy for things like police, you get tradeoffs. Protect one person's rights, and you'll block actions the police could have taken to stop another. This isn't intended as political commentary and I don't have any particular thing in mind; think of it as an engineering view of law enforcement. You Can't Have It All. (And Certainly Not For Free.)
When you set policy for things like police, you get tradeoffs. Protect one person's rights, and you'll block actions the police could have taken to stop another. This isn't intended as political commentary and I don't have any particular thing in mind; think of it as an engineering view of law enforcement. You Can't Have It All. (And Certainly Not For Free.)
But making death threats is not a right. It's a crime.
I really don't understand all the apologizing for law enforcement that refuses to enforce the law in this case. The victim was harmed a lot, and still no one wants to see the crook stopped?
I really don't understand all the apologizing for law enforcement that refuses to enforce the law in this case. The victim was harmed a lot, and still no one wants to see the crook stopped?
If they were made over the internet, it might take a Federal Law Enforcement Officer (FBI or U.S. Marshal) to make the arrest or get the arrest warrant. I believe interstate death treats become a federal manner.
And with all due respect to TC and Mike, it often takes "pull" to get Federal law enforcement involved. They handle all the "big fish". For example, if your start up was hacked, they would be the ones to call, but they won't move on anything less than $50,000 or $500,0000 worth of damages.
Disclaimer: IANAL and IANALEO.
And with all due respect to TC and Mike, it often takes "pull" to get Federal law enforcement involved. They handle all the "big fish". For example, if your start up was hacked, they would be the ones to call, but they won't move on anything less than $50,000 or $500,0000 worth of damages.
Disclaimer: IANAL and IANALEO.
What would the police do? Break his legs?
(Honestly, it seems the kind of circumstance where I can't really think of anything the police should be able to do to anyone who seems dangerous or "suspicious", because both are very much judgement calls.)
(Honestly, it seems the kind of circumstance where I can't really think of anything the police should be able to do to anyone who seems dangerous or "suspicious", because both are very much judgement calls.)
OK I looked up "assault". He is blatantly guilty of assault, as far as I can tell, so why not just put him in jail?
Assault: (Law) an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done
Assault: (Law) an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done
So suppose the cops arrest him. He is unlikely (statistically speaking) to be held without bail, so he's out in a day or two. Then you have a trial. Suppose you have people like me on the jury -- I know that morons threaten to kill each other all the time on the internet, in person, and on CB radio and via snail mail and every other means of communication man has invented. I would likely acquit unless you can present some serious evidence of actual intent, and owning a gun having a previous a felony would not cut it.
So now what ? Is the situation better or worse ? It better be LOT better, because society is collectively out of quite a bit of money by the time all that is said and done.
I don't think Arrington is necessarily over reacting to the threat, either. Without knowing the details it's impossible to tell, and even if you knew the details you might be uncertain. There is a very wide zone between something that will justify society's all-out response and what makes you feel creepy.
There is probably no way for society to make everyone feel warm and comfy about all their interactions with each other. Think about if we had a general policy of jailing people based on a definition of "threatens physical harm" that was that lose. Think back over every bad relationship you ever had . . . are you absolutely sure that some disasterous former manager or former employee could not have gotten you jailed ? Absolutely sure ?
So now what ? Is the situation better or worse ? It better be LOT better, because society is collectively out of quite a bit of money by the time all that is said and done.
I don't think Arrington is necessarily over reacting to the threat, either. Without knowing the details it's impossible to tell, and even if you knew the details you might be uncertain. There is a very wide zone between something that will justify society's all-out response and what makes you feel creepy.
There is probably no way for society to make everyone feel warm and comfy about all their interactions with each other. Think about if we had a general policy of jailing people based on a definition of "threatens physical harm" that was that lose. Think back over every bad relationship you ever had . . . are you absolutely sure that some disasterous former manager or former employee could not have gotten you jailed ? Absolutely sure ?
Why can't you have a very brief trial where you explain the definition of assault and present the uncontroversial evidence of the assault, and that's that?
Not trying to argue. Just don't see why that wouldn't work. the jury should just be like "well, it's a crime, and he did it" instead of saying it's common so we'll ignore it.
Not trying to argue. Just don't see why that wouldn't work. the jury should just be like "well, it's a crime, and he did it" instead of saying it's common so we'll ignore it.
> Why can't you have a very brief trial where you explain the definition of assault and present the uncontroversial evidence of the assault, and that's that?
The reason I've heard that assault charges aren't always filed is that there has to be, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact wording, "sufficient reason " to believe that the accuser can and will carry out his/her thread in order to make it assault.
The situation often cited for this is a 90 lb weakling gets drunk and threatens to beat up someone who fights in MMA for a living. Since the thread isn't credible this technically isn't assault.
On the other hand, if I shove a gun in your face and threaten to kill you then that very much is assault as my threat is very credible.
Some where in between is the line between assault and just being a dick, which isn't a crime.
This is often why many verbal assault cases aren't tried.
The other, unfortunate, reason is that court time is very finite. Prosecutors can only take so many cases to court and prosecutors know that people will often make these types of threats for a short period of time and then just leave that person's life.
If that's the case then the situation often resolves itself and they don't have to take up their valuable court space with this case.
It sucks but that's the way things are:(.
The reason I've heard that assault charges aren't always filed is that there has to be, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact wording, "sufficient reason " to believe that the accuser can and will carry out his/her thread in order to make it assault.
The situation often cited for this is a 90 lb weakling gets drunk and threatens to beat up someone who fights in MMA for a living. Since the thread isn't credible this technically isn't assault.
On the other hand, if I shove a gun in your face and threaten to kill you then that very much is assault as my threat is very credible.
Some where in between is the line between assault and just being a dick, which isn't a crime.
This is often why many verbal assault cases aren't tried.
The other, unfortunate, reason is that court time is very finite. Prosecutors can only take so many cases to court and prosecutors know that people will often make these types of threats for a short period of time and then just leave that person's life.
If that's the case then the situation often resolves itself and they don't have to take up their valuable court space with this case.
It sucks but that's the way things are:(.
Honestly, I don't want trials to ever be quick. If you're talking about putting someone in jail, you better be really freaking sure the guy is a threat to society and not just having a really bad week.
I have threatened bloody murder to many a bad library author, and the last thing I need is to get jailed because of that ;)
I have threatened bloody murder to many a bad library author, and the last thing I need is to get jailed because of that ;)
I don't see why police couldn't do anything
You must be new here...
You must be new here...
Actresses, singers and presidents are a little different though. Actresses/singers want much of the popularity, but struggle to maintain the right balance. And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead. I can't see the logic behind wanting Michael Arrington dead though, and I don't think he wants to be popular himself (as much as to make his blog/events popular).
And somehow I hope our industry is special, that we're less likely to do crazy things in general. We're trained in science and reasoning after all. How many techies do you know that are rabid fans of celebrities?
And somehow I hope our industry is special, that we're less likely to do crazy things in general. We're trained in science and reasoning after all. How many techies do you know that are rabid fans of celebrities?
"And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead."
Ironically, many of the successful assassins either did not, or had nothing like a logical reason.
* Booth's assassination of Lincoln is... complicated but had to do with the Civil War. Call it rational-ish.
* Garfield was assassinated by a nutcase who thought Garfield owed him after the assassin's few hundred printed pamphlets putatively got him elected. Not rational.
* McKinley's assassin had a head full of anarchism. Call it rational if you like, but it certainly wasn't because of anything about McKinley himself.
* Kennedy's assassin's motives are unclear, but it looks like he generally just hated the US and wanted to take down Kennedy and thereby become a "great man".
I'm not arguing with anything you said, just find it interesting that of all the people who, like you say, may have some reason to want to pull this off, it's the crazies who succeed. Call it HN's goal of "interesting things".
Ironically, many of the successful assassins either did not, or had nothing like a logical reason.
* Booth's assassination of Lincoln is... complicated but had to do with the Civil War. Call it rational-ish.
* Garfield was assassinated by a nutcase who thought Garfield owed him after the assassin's few hundred printed pamphlets putatively got him elected. Not rational.
* McKinley's assassin had a head full of anarchism. Call it rational if you like, but it certainly wasn't because of anything about McKinley himself.
* Kennedy's assassin's motives are unclear, but it looks like he generally just hated the US and wanted to take down Kennedy and thereby become a "great man".
I'm not arguing with anything you said, just find it interesting that of all the people who, like you say, may have some reason to want to pull this off, it's the crazies who succeed. Call it HN's goal of "interesting things".
>And somehow I hope our industry is special, that we're less likely to do crazy things in general. We're trained in science and reasoning after all.
As an astronaut, I have the same hope for my industry. Puts on diaper
As an astronaut, I have the same hope for my industry. Puts on diaper
He is an entertainer in that he leverages popularity to make money.
What company doesn't require popularity to make money? That's an exceedingly broad use of "entertainer."
I meant that as a complement. I think an "entertainer" is not just a random actor, singer, or blogger, but someone who does those things and makes real money from it. To do that generally takes leveraging popularity. Granted you can make a living as a backup dancer, but I think he has separated himself from the herd.
How can wanting someone dead ever be logical? I understand not liking someone, or disagreeing with their policies, but wanting them dead seems a bit extreme.
I don't think "logical" means what you think it does. Are you sure you don't mean "moral", or "acceptable"?
Do you believe there are any cases where one could justifiably kill in self-defense, or are you a pure pacifist?
Do you believe there are any cases where one could justifiably kill in self-defense, or are you a pure pacifist?
I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but
"I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well"
I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day.
Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely false.
I think they do a great job in the main though.
"I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well"
I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day.
Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely false.
I think they do a great job in the main though.
I've had three things I've worked on get posted to TC, and it was totally useless. Traffic had minimal stickiness (lots of clicks to the frontpage and nothing else), and when I think about my behavior when I read TC, it definitely makes sense.
And yet, for all of those startups, getting the TC story was a milestone of sorts.
Its like getting your first hundred users, it doesn't define your success or failure outright, but its a big psychological hurdle I think.
And yet, for all of those startups, getting the TC story was a milestone of sorts.
Its like getting your first hundred users, it doesn't define your success or failure outright, but its a big psychological hurdle I think.
Our experience has been contrary to what others have said about minimal stickiness -- Techcrunch coverage has precipitated blog coverage and attention that each time has resulted in a new bar for traffic and retention. -- YMMV
Regardless of how valuable TechCrunch is to us or any other startup, the fact remains that violence and threats of violence against bloggers is utterly unjustifiable. People act like Michael Arrington owes them something, and that's the fundamental problem underpinning the latest attacks.
Regardless of how valuable TechCrunch is to us or any other startup, the fact remains that violence and threats of violence against bloggers is utterly unjustifiable. People act like Michael Arrington owes them something, and that's the fundamental problem underpinning the latest attacks.
I think that's just luck of the draw. If your startup is good enough for TC to precipitate mass blog coverage, than I imagine it would have worked the other way around had TC not covered it early.
In any case, I think fighting for press coverage is stupid. Press coverage is not going to make people use your product, and if enough people use your product you are guaranteed coverage. On the other hand, if you want to break into the public consciousness, traditional marketing will help, but there's no point doing that until you know you have a winner on your hands.
In any case, I think fighting for press coverage is stupid. Press coverage is not going to make people use your product, and if enough people use your product you are guaranteed coverage. On the other hand, if you want to break into the public consciousness, traditional marketing will help, but there's no point doing that until you know you have a winner on your hands.
If I had to guess, sites targeted at the early-adopter-techy crowd probably do far better after being reported on TechCrunch than things targeted at say recent parents (or your niche market of choice).
In any case, yes, threats and violence are not cool in any way. I was just commenting on the effect that TechCrunch has on the community as a whole, which I don't think is all that huge. Its more a place to read about startup news, and can be solved by simply subscribing to something else in your RSS reader of choice.
In any case, yes, threats and violence are not cool in any way. I was just commenting on the effect that TechCrunch has on the community as a whole, which I don't think is all that huge. Its more a place to read about startup news, and can be solved by simply subscribing to something else in your RSS reader of choice.
but its a big psychological hurdle I think.
Completely agree, something I was involved in was on wired last year (twice) and I must admit it was a good feeling, but thats about it.
If anyone sees getting on TechCrunch as the goal of their startup rather than using it as a tool that can help them reach your goal, they have probably already failed - they just don't know it yet.
Completely agree, something I was involved in was on wired last year (twice) and I must admit it was a good feeling, but thats about it.
If anyone sees getting on TechCrunch as the goal of their startup rather than using it as a tool that can help them reach your goal, they have probably already failed - they just don't know it yet.
if you want users, techcrunch is not much help. if you want adventurous corporate clients or investor awareness, it's top notch.
This is true. If you don't get far more traffic from other sources than TechCrunch, I think you're doing it wrong.
not for us. while TC coverage doesn't provide the "instant success" many hope for, it's been by far the largest traffic driver for us compared to any other online press sources, aside from newsweek.com and time.com
I don't think it's TC own doing. It might be a result of mismanaging TC's community, but I think it's largely disgruntled entrepreneurs that don't get press coverage.
If SEO is anywhere in your strategy, getting a link from TC and the dozens of secondary blogs that parrot their posts is golden. Bloggers read TC.
If fundraising is in your future, it's valuable.
If credibility is important, it probably helps a touch, too.
If fundraising is in your future, it's valuable.
If credibility is important, it probably helps a touch, too.
I think it has very little to do with the industry and a lot to do with human nature when provided with the Internet. It's a terrible thing, though completely heard of and quite predictable once someone reaches a certain level of fame.
Sure, TC just covers start-ups, but actors just make movies and musicians just make music and people have been spitting on them and giving death threats forever. You just need considerably less fame to attract crazy people online because there are so many more of them.
Sure, TC just covers start-ups, but actors just make movies and musicians just make music and people have been spitting on them and giving death threats forever. You just need considerably less fame to attract crazy people online because there are so many more of them.
I'm not a part of the startup community, and have no hatred of Arrington. I haven't heard any of the rumors and don't know any of the drama that wasn't in the linked article. I've been a casual reader of Techcrunch for 1-2 years.
I have found Techcrunch articles to be of inconsistent quality at best. My impression from reading Hacker News for the past two years is that TC articles are often poorly written, poorly researched, and sensationalistic. 'Integrity' isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Techcrunch. It is perhaps more candid than say, MSNBC, but that isn't saying much.
If I were Arrington, I'd try to stay focused on improving that image. Venting personal frustrations on the front page of the site doesn't strike me as helping all that much.
I have found Techcrunch articles to be of inconsistent quality at best. My impression from reading Hacker News for the past two years is that TC articles are often poorly written, poorly researched, and sensationalistic. 'Integrity' isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Techcrunch. It is perhaps more candid than say, MSNBC, but that isn't saying much.
If I were Arrington, I'd try to stay focused on improving that image. Venting personal frustrations on the front page of the site doesn't strike me as helping all that much.
For a while now I've been wondering about the industry and the people in it, and this story just makes me question it all so much more.
It seems that the majority of people who work in IT (or at least, those that contribute to the various sites) are acting like they are still in high school. You've got to be associated with this person or that site to be 'cool' and a 'guru' and if you're not you're nothing. It's getting beyond a joke.
Congratulation, you got a mention on TC or HN, or you've been 'dugg' by lots of people. It doesn't mean your startup or product is actually good or useful you know. If that is all the marketing you are relying on then you've only got a 50% chance of success.
The whole thing even extends to people. I'm not going to name names but there seems to be some sort of god-worshipping to people just because they write a blog. Yes, I enjoy reading them, yes I pick up things from people who have done it before, but it doesn't mean they're some sort of superstar ... and I'm not even going to talk about the "we've just got a new CIO who used to work at Google brigade" (oh, he worked at Google, he must be a hero).
Thanks for reading.
It seems that the majority of people who work in IT (or at least, those that contribute to the various sites) are acting like they are still in high school. You've got to be associated with this person or that site to be 'cool' and a 'guru' and if you're not you're nothing. It's getting beyond a joke.
Congratulation, you got a mention on TC or HN, or you've been 'dugg' by lots of people. It doesn't mean your startup or product is actually good or useful you know. If that is all the marketing you are relying on then you've only got a 50% chance of success.
The whole thing even extends to people. I'm not going to name names but there seems to be some sort of god-worshipping to people just because they write a blog. Yes, I enjoy reading them, yes I pick up things from people who have done it before, but it doesn't mean they're some sort of superstar ... and I'm not even going to talk about the "we've just got a new CIO who used to work at Google brigade" (oh, he worked at Google, he must be a hero).
Thanks for reading.
Partly it's because this is an industry that acts like it's very geared towards youth. The emphasis is on the young millionaires: Zuckerberg comes to mind. (I'm 18 and applying to YCombinator, so I fall into this category too.)
The environment is much more geared towards the hotheaded youth. It's not that you have a few outliers that act immature that get kept in check: everybody is immature, and the outliers are the people who act mature. Beyond that: a lot of the people in this scene are the unpopular sorts. People like that often have a ramped up persecution complex: they feel like everybody's got to be against them. As a result, you get very ramped up fights over really stupid things.
I get this a lot whenever I take the time to read Gawker - I followed the big Jakob Lodwick fight when it happened. Every side was awful. Gawker took potshots at Lodwick to get hits, people online started threatening him because he was a public figure, Lodwick worked up, and in the end he denounced the masses for being "common", Gawker still takes every chance it can get to diss the guy, and people like Ted Dziuba go out of their way to denounce him as pathetic and meaningless. It's a shame, because Lodwick does incredible work and Dziuba doesn't, and so the one takes it out on the other.
(Then, of course, there's Connected Ventures, which makes a few good-but-overrated things and whose staff tries to act perpetually like they're frat kids. They're fun, but it doesn't help this attitude of people that it's okay to be over-the-top and conceited and loud about it.)
It's an attitude that I despise, and it hurts the community at large.
The environment is much more geared towards the hotheaded youth. It's not that you have a few outliers that act immature that get kept in check: everybody is immature, and the outliers are the people who act mature. Beyond that: a lot of the people in this scene are the unpopular sorts. People like that often have a ramped up persecution complex: they feel like everybody's got to be against them. As a result, you get very ramped up fights over really stupid things.
I get this a lot whenever I take the time to read Gawker - I followed the big Jakob Lodwick fight when it happened. Every side was awful. Gawker took potshots at Lodwick to get hits, people online started threatening him because he was a public figure, Lodwick worked up, and in the end he denounced the masses for being "common", Gawker still takes every chance it can get to diss the guy, and people like Ted Dziuba go out of their way to denounce him as pathetic and meaningless. It's a shame, because Lodwick does incredible work and Dziuba doesn't, and so the one takes it out on the other.
(Then, of course, there's Connected Ventures, which makes a few good-but-overrated things and whose staff tries to act perpetually like they're frat kids. They're fun, but it doesn't help this attitude of people that it's okay to be over-the-top and conceited and loud about it.)
It's an attitude that I despise, and it hurts the community at large.
"The environment is much more geared towards the hotheaded youth. It's not that you have a few outliers that act immature that get kept in check: everybody is immature, and the outliers are the people who act mature."
My experience being a part of Y Combinator is that everyone is precisely the opposite, though my experience is limited them the people I've met directly a indirectly because of Y Combinator.
My experience being a part of Y Combinator is that everyone is precisely the opposite, though my experience is limited them the people I've met directly a indirectly because of Y Combinator.
That's why I like YCombinator, and consequently why I like Hacker News: it avoids that level of immaturity. All the HN users who have YCombinator-funded companies tend to have great conversations. I can't think of a troll here who also was part of YC.
That said, this is the exception. I can't think of many more online groups that are this adult.
That said, this is the exception. I can't think of many more online groups that are this adult.
Arrington gets a lot of shit. I mean honestly he's a journalist. The core problem is that when someone's livelihood is on the line, people change. When someone is out of work looking for a job, there are usually two responses to a rejection: depression or anger.
TechCrunch (and Arrington to a lesser extent these days) get hundreds of tips or requests for coverage from companies and when TC passes them over, these people who are relying on press to get their name out there, can sometimes get angry. And when TC does cover a company in the same market, or sector, but not their company, it can be interpreted as an insult.
Arrington is the face of TechCrunch. As much as Erick and the others write for the site, Arrington is still seen as the embodiment of it.
I don't care for him, as he does come off as unlikable, and he is also prone to sensationalism for the sake of traffic I feel sometimes, but I hate to read this post. No one deserves that sort of treatment.
TechCrunch (and Arrington to a lesser extent these days) get hundreds of tips or requests for coverage from companies and when TC passes them over, these people who are relying on press to get their name out there, can sometimes get angry. And when TC does cover a company in the same market, or sector, but not their company, it can be interpreted as an insult.
Arrington is the face of TechCrunch. As much as Erick and the others write for the site, Arrington is still seen as the embodiment of it.
I don't care for him, as he does come off as unlikable, and he is also prone to sensationalism for the sake of traffic I feel sometimes, but I hate to read this post. No one deserves that sort of treatment.
Generally Arrington hasn't been respected by the journalists I've met. He covers companies and fields he has a direct financial interest in, he's OK with posting rumor and innuendo, and he can be sensationalist. The first one is a big problem, the others are mostly style things. Faking photos like http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/27/cal-to-offer-course-in-... is totally uncool.
(I'm not speaking here about my coworkers, or my employer, or my employer's content-sharing agreement with TC.)
(I'm not speaking here about my coworkers, or my employer, or my employer's content-sharing agreement with TC.)
Sounds like we might work for the same news organization with a content sharing agreement with TC. I was appalled/not surprised at all when that happened.
I wasn't trying to keep it secret; I've just already mentioned in other comments that I work at the Washington Post. Most of what I was relating I've heard from other journalists I've met, I just haven't really talked to any coworkers about Arrington/TC.
Are you in DC? I'm in the Arlington office for the time being.
I was hoping someone would mention this. It's not acceptable to spit or threaten someone with bodily harm, but I can understand how otherwise decent people can be driven to violence due to rejection. When someone or some company you look up to rejects you, it can make you feel like you're one of those "other" people, the untouchables who are bringing everyone else down and who aren't worth the air they breathe.
I think that what it comes down to is that a certain subset of the population has mental illness - some more severe than others - and when you come in contact with a lot of people, you are going to have to occasionally deal with those people. You can complain all you want, but even if the tone of the internet community as a whole changes, you're still going to get death threats and get spit on. It's a problem with the way that society handles mental illness, not a problem with the attitudes of the VC/startup community.
Michael Arrington is one of those people.
Come on... of course you could argue that all humans are mentally ill to some extent. But Arrington's behavior is easily within the realm of acceptable social behavior, even if he does like to cause minor controversy.
However, death threats and randomly spitting in someone's face are unambigiously crossing those social boundaries by a wide margin.
However, death threats and randomly spitting in someone's face are unambigiously crossing those social boundaries by a wide margin.
Arrington is a pathological narssicist.
I'm not remotely surprised that he's pissed off other crazy people enough for them to get retaliatory.
I'm not remotely surprised that he's pissed off other crazy people enough for them to get retaliatory.
I don't read TechCrunch, but I know exactly why some people hate Michael Arrington [1].
For various reasons [2], human beings tend to think about social groups in us-and-them terms. We're naturally suspicious of Them (whoever they are), while we tend to give Us (our own group) the benefit of the doubt.
Arrington's problem is that he wants to provide information to Us. That means he's One Of Us, because he's helping Us and because we don't listen to Them. A lot of the information he's providing is about a particular group of Them we'd like to join: successful Silicon Valley people. This is a valuable service, and on a rational level we know he has to work hard at it. Even so, when he describes TechCrunch as a startup, associates himself with other successful startups, and even takes credit for some of their success, our emotion-driven social circuitry hears: I am an insider describing to you outsiders what it's like to be inside.
If Mr. Arrington knew about this dynamic, I'm sure he'd spend less time talking about being "battered for three days straight with product pitches from entrepreneurs desperate for press."
[1] In case it's not clear, I'm ambivalent about him. It should go without saying that spitting in the man's face is too much, and threatening his family and business is beyond the pale.
[2] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/a-tale-of-two-tradeoff...
For various reasons [2], human beings tend to think about social groups in us-and-them terms. We're naturally suspicious of Them (whoever they are), while we tend to give Us (our own group) the benefit of the doubt.
Arrington's problem is that he wants to provide information to Us. That means he's One Of Us, because he's helping Us and because we don't listen to Them. A lot of the information he's providing is about a particular group of Them we'd like to join: successful Silicon Valley people. This is a valuable service, and on a rational level we know he has to work hard at it. Even so, when he describes TechCrunch as a startup, associates himself with other successful startups, and even takes credit for some of their success, our emotion-driven social circuitry hears: I am an insider describing to you outsiders what it's like to be inside.
If Mr. Arrington knew about this dynamic, I'm sure he'd spend less time talking about being "battered for three days straight with product pitches from entrepreneurs desperate for press."
[1] In case it's not clear, I'm ambivalent about him. It should go without saying that spitting in the man's face is too much, and threatening his family and business is beyond the pale.
[2] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/a-tale-of-two-tradeoff...
I guess the person who spat on Michael really showed his level of integrity.
I respect the guy (Arrington) professionally, I've never met him so I can't comment on him personally but this type of shit is totally not cool.
I know you occasionally read this site Mike, so please come back when you've taken time off, even if its to take a more backseat role in what you do.
I respect the guy (Arrington) professionally, I've never met him so I can't comment on him personally but this type of shit is totally not cool.
I know you occasionally read this site Mike, so please come back when you've taken time off, even if its to take a more backseat role in what you do.
Wow. He shouldn't have to put up with that crap. The whole death threat thing is freaking scary. Hopefully Michael doesn't shutter Techcrunch, but he's right. Something has to change.
I don't like techcrunch, and i don't like Arrington, but i can't understand why all the hate? Spitting on people is not cool, and threatening their lives is even not cooler. The worst i ever did was just ignore all the techcrunch links here, i think that was enough.
Internet fame is like "rock star" fame but without the rock star security entourage.
People begin to treat folks like Arrington as an object and not a person but by the nature of the job they do they are inevitably in closer contact with those that would treat them that way - than (say) a Hollywood film star.
I suspect that we will see more such incidents affecting key technology writers and pundits - fame is dangerous in so may ways.
People begin to treat folks like Arrington as an object and not a person but by the nature of the job they do they are inevitably in closer contact with those that would treat them that way - than (say) a Hollywood film star.
I suspect that we will see more such incidents affecting key technology writers and pundits - fame is dangerous in so may ways.
This kind of reminds me of the T-Shirt Hell guy's entry a couple of days ago. Basically, everybody is just tired of the crap and they are taking time off or quitting. You shouldn't be assaulted for your opinion (and spitting is assault in the US AFAIK).
This is unacceptable. I'll venture to guess that it's coming from a european entrepreneur who didn't get the bad jokes that Mike was putting out in his fake fight with Loic.
But (you know there's a "but" coming). But actually, no, it's unexcusable, no matter what.
To you the spitter: no matter your issues, you made the wrong choice and deserver zero respect.
But (you know there's a "but" coming). But actually, no, it's unexcusable, no matter what.
To you the spitter: no matter your issues, you made the wrong choice and deserver zero respect.
Disgusting as it clearly is, I feel the spitting incident is a bit of a red herring.
If this had happened 2 years ago during the rapid growth in Web 2.0 investment, I think Mike would have soldiered on.
Instead, he has a nasty experience while his business and kingdom are shrinking. Deep down, I suspect he wanted out already.
In his situation I would.
If this had happened 2 years ago during the rapid growth in Web 2.0 investment, I think Mike would have soldiered on.
Instead, he has a nasty experience while his business and kingdom are shrinking. Deep down, I suspect he wanted out already.
In his situation I would.
I completely disagree with what you're saying. I'm not sure if you've stood back and had a look at just how much flack Michael actually cops from day to day.
Sure, he may simply ignore a lot of it - but eventually if you're getting attacked from all sides, there will be a point that you break.
This was his.
Sure, he may simply ignore a lot of it - but eventually if you're getting attacked from all sides, there will be a point that you break.
This was his.
It's impossible to know the answer, since it's hidden somewhere deep inside Mike's subconscious. My intuition says that he'd be more willing to put up with something like that if his company was still growing rapidly.
I disagree, it is more than possible - it was the likely outcome.
As Shakespeare once wrote "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"
I think the problem is that people are blurring the lines between the professional Arrington and the personal Arrington.
Let me highlight it using a hypothetical but extreme case.
You start up a new web app. For every 100 user signups, I get to kick you in the groin (literally, not metaphorically) - How would that make you feel?
I think if people want to attack his professional life - great, compete hard with TC, refuse to do business with him, boycott his blog - whatever... but when you start blurring (or crossing) the lines between a personal and professional attack is when situations like these arise.
As Shakespeare once wrote "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"
I think the problem is that people are blurring the lines between the professional Arrington and the personal Arrington.
Let me highlight it using a hypothetical but extreme case.
You start up a new web app. For every 100 user signups, I get to kick you in the groin (literally, not metaphorically) - How would that make you feel?
I think if people want to attack his professional life - great, compete hard with TC, refuse to do business with him, boycott his blog - whatever... but when you start blurring (or crossing) the lines between a personal and professional attack is when situations like these arise.
If it was my main life project, and the number of users signing up between each groin kick was increasing exponentially, my entrepreneurial fire would keep me going.
But when the ratio between groin kicks and sign ups started going in the wrong direction, I'd want out.
Hey, it was your metaphor, not mine... :)
But when the ratio between groin kicks and sign ups started going in the wrong direction, I'd want out.
Hey, it was your metaphor, not mine... :)
It's times like this that make you feel a bit better about living your life out of the spotlight. I wonder how people like David Pogue, or Walt Mossberg deal with this type of attention. Come to think of it, they cover higher profile companies, and probably don't have to deal this this kind of crap. Most of the time.
The only equivalent I can think of would be the reporters at papers who cover the shady-side of the business world. David Baines (Vancouver Sun) was the target of a lot of threats and innuendo during his coverage of stock-scams in Vancouver, to the point at which he just stopped working in that space for a while.
Sounds like Arrington has come to that place. Let's hope he comes back from it.
The only equivalent I can think of would be the reporters at papers who cover the shady-side of the business world. David Baines (Vancouver Sun) was the target of a lot of threats and innuendo during his coverage of stock-scams in Vancouver, to the point at which he just stopped working in that space for a while.
Sounds like Arrington has come to that place. Let's hope he comes back from it.
I always assumed that our work and integrity would speak for itself.
It does.
Unfortunately, in your business, just like ours, you have to account for outliers. When we miss them, computers mess up. When you do, ever worse things can happen. Sorry to hear about it.
Have a nice month off, Michael. Looking forward to having you back in March for the 99% of us who really do care about your (and your family's) well being.
It does.
Unfortunately, in your business, just like ours, you have to account for outliers. When we miss them, computers mess up. When you do, ever worse things can happen. Sorry to hear about it.
Have a nice month off, Michael. Looking forward to having you back in March for the 99% of us who really do care about your (and your family's) well being.
And I hope that my peers who tend to sit on the sideline while others attack will start to take a stand against it.
And I hope people take this literally. IE, grab the jerk and call the police. Don't just let him walk away.
And I hope people take this literally. IE, grab the jerk and call the police. Don't just let him walk away.
I do agree that this is over the line.
But I'm also slightly conflicted - why did I laugh when the Arabic reporter threw his shoe at Bush a few months ago? In retrospect, that event should have been just as inexcusable. What if Georgey wrote up a similar blog post about his experience? How would I have felt then?
But I'm also slightly conflicted - why did I laugh when the Arabic reporter threw his shoe at Bush a few months ago? In retrospect, that event should have been just as inexcusable. What if Georgey wrote up a similar blog post about his experience? How would I have felt then?
Universally across human cultures, throwing a shoe is considered hilarious whereas spitting is considered is rude and gross.
I always thought people attending a conference like this are civilized but no matter if you like MA or not, this is below all standards
"That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3".
Spitting is a long way past that point. Not cool.
Spitting is a long way past that point. Not cool.
Spitting to me is pretty violent behavior, and while Michael suggests that it's borderline with something "far more violent" I personally can't imagine what could be worse. I'll take a good punch attempt over a spit any day.
"Before TechCrunch I assumed most people were essentially good, and assumed that an individual was trustworthy until proven otherwise. Today, its exactly the opposite."
I think any history buff would disagree with this assumption. People tend to be "essentially good" when there are plenty of resources and nothing to fight about. Numerous societies collapsed and some even resorted to cannibalism when resources became scarce.
Also I don't really get people who hate Arrington or love Angelina Jolie or want to kick Brad Pitt's ass. They don't know these people personally, they only can see an artificially engineered media-projection of them. Arrington didn't cover our startup, but hey - we haven't done anything for him either so I never felt bad about it. However, I had a chance to chat with the guy once and even though he looked tired and overwhelmed with attention, he still managed to give me a few very useful suggestions, far better than an average "wow that's nice" doublespeak you'd hear from people who aren't interested but just trying to be polite.
"Before TechCrunch I assumed most people were essentially good, and assumed that an individual was trustworthy until proven otherwise. Today, its exactly the opposite."
I think any history buff would disagree with this assumption. People tend to be "essentially good" when there are plenty of resources and nothing to fight about. Numerous societies collapsed and some even resorted to cannibalism when resources became scarce.
Also I don't really get people who hate Arrington or love Angelina Jolie or want to kick Brad Pitt's ass. They don't know these people personally, they only can see an artificially engineered media-projection of them. Arrington didn't cover our startup, but hey - we haven't done anything for him either so I never felt bad about it. However, I had a chance to chat with the guy once and even though he looked tired and overwhelmed with attention, he still managed to give me a few very useful suggestions, far better than an average "wow that's nice" doublespeak you'd hear from people who aren't interested but just trying to be polite.
Spitter was probably from a PR firm. Remember this post?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/
A little spit never killed anyone, and I would say any controversial figure is going to encounter that every once in a while. But the death threat stuff goes way over the line. The police needs to find that guy and put him in jail immediately.
A little spit never killed anyone, and I would say any controversial figure is going to encounter that every once in a while. But the death threat stuff goes way over the line. The police needs to find that guy and put him in jail immediately.
Or a disgruntled European entrepreneur who didn't like the opinions he expressed at Le Web... http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/961885
Ok. Here comes another opinion.
Maybe Arrington should not work from his home to save money. He can't secure it. It's unsafe.
Maybe it's ok if Arrington has to hire security for his workplace. Every newspaper in the country does this because they publish things that would get people shot, maimed, kidnapped or worse. Arrington's stuff runs in the Washington Post and is very influential in a major industry sector. Why is he surprised that people would come after him? He's got money and can make or break people's careers.
Is the spitting lame? Sure. But welcome to the big leagues dude. If you want to call yourself a news organization and play hardball, there's a price that comes with it.
Perhaps this is more about bloggers coming up against the problems that face traditional news organizations rather than a new problem in the industry.
Maybe Arrington should not work from his home to save money. He can't secure it. It's unsafe.
Maybe it's ok if Arrington has to hire security for his workplace. Every newspaper in the country does this because they publish things that would get people shot, maimed, kidnapped or worse. Arrington's stuff runs in the Washington Post and is very influential in a major industry sector. Why is he surprised that people would come after him? He's got money and can make or break people's careers.
Is the spitting lame? Sure. But welcome to the big leagues dude. If you want to call yourself a news organization and play hardball, there's a price that comes with it.
Perhaps this is more about bloggers coming up against the problems that face traditional news organizations rather than a new problem in the industry.
This is a complete dishonor. Yes things have to change. Startups and people involved should show basic respect and honor for others even if they are competitors or so-believed goal makers - TC and other blogs, VCs or anyone who pump some fuel. At the same time bloggers, VCs and angels should show some respect and humility to ppl in startups who are slogging day and night to build something dedicating their personal lives and lot more.
Getting listed on very popular blogs as someone rightly commented have manifested themselves as a milestone, a psychological hurdle. Not just these but the arrogance of people in this circle is definitely making the startups disgruntled. A little amount of humility and humbleness (Mike if you are hearing) will make them so much more big and fond of.
Getting listed on very popular blogs as someone rightly commented have manifested themselves as a milestone, a psychological hurdle. Not just these but the arrogance of people in this circle is definitely making the startups disgruntled. A little amount of humility and humbleness (Mike if you are hearing) will make them so much more big and fond of.
stuff like this is why you need to keep your personal life and your business life separate.
Sure its nice to save the few grand and work from home...but is that really worth putting your family at risk?
Hell, the least Arrington should have done is get a P.O. Box and used that as his address for techcrunch whois.
Sure its nice to save the few grand and work from home...but is that really worth putting your family at risk?
Hell, the least Arrington should have done is get a P.O. Box and used that as his address for techcrunch whois.
Maybe there wouldn't be so much Arrington animus if TechCrunch would stop doing things like republishing the Twitter streams of disgruntled data entry employees as retaliation for a management team that refused to comment about that employee.
Maybe there wouldn't have been so much animus if Arrington hadn't done things like single out the lead dev for his favorite web service and run story after story about his purported incompetance.
Nobody should spit on Arrington --- at least, nonconsensually --- but it's not like this is Bill Moyers we're talking about here.
Maybe there wouldn't have been so much animus if Arrington hadn't done things like single out the lead dev for his favorite web service and run story after story about his purported incompetance.
Nobody should spit on Arrington --- at least, nonconsensually --- but it's not like this is Bill Moyers we're talking about here.
Personally, I commend Micheal on not punching the guy that spit upon him in the face. I;m certain it took a great deal of self restraint. I would have likely taken it as an immediate threat of harm, and beat the tar out of the guy. (I have learned to control my temper much better over the years, but there are some things that are intolerable.)
I would also recommend he go to Front Sight and get the training to protect himself and his family (from the death threats, not the spitter).
I would also recommend he go to Front Sight and get the training to protect himself and his family (from the death threats, not the spitter).
"Before TechCrunch I assumed most people were essentially good, and assumed that an individual was trustworthy until proven otherwise. Today, its exactly the opposite."
Most people are trustworthy until there's a large amount of money on the line, as in startups. Then you really never know who is. You think "oh, we've been friends/coworkers/brothers for years, he'd never screw me". Then 6 or 7 figures become and you find out what people are really made of.
Most people are trustworthy until there's a large amount of money on the line, as in startups. Then you really never know who is. You think "oh, we've been friends/coworkers/brothers for years, he'd never screw me". Then 6 or 7 figures become and you find out what people are really made of.
> Then 6 or 7 figures become and you find out what people are really made of.
Like alcohol can sometimes do temporarily, extreme money will magnify your personality and who you really are.
Like alcohol can sometimes do temporarily, extreme money will magnify your personality and who you really are.
I'm an Arrington fan, so just wanted to get that out of the way.. but.. petty assault is really, really common in Europe. Well, at least here in the UK.
Only Michael can really know what the score was on the day, but I wouldn't be surprised if random Americans get petty attacks quite often while they're in Europe. What with all the chavs and all nowadays..
Anyway, shame on whoever did it. Showing the disturbing old European spirit yet again.
Only Michael can really know what the score was on the day, but I wouldn't be surprised if random Americans get petty attacks quite often while they're in Europe. What with all the chavs and all nowadays..
Anyway, shame on whoever did it. Showing the disturbing old European spirit yet again.
Isn't this becoming the norm now? Whether related to technology or anything otherwise, expressing opinions is becoming increasingly dangerous.
This is ridiculous. A lot of the rumors about him covering only recommended or friends of friends startups are just plain untrue. He does cover startups he invest in, but in the end, it doesn't help them that much (just look at Edgeio). I think people have an exaggeration on him being a king maker for startups.
Wow!
I think that this indicates an incredibly cut-throat feeling in the startup world.
The state of the economy in general can't be helping.
How could this be different?
I think that this indicates an incredibly cut-throat feeling in the startup world.
The state of the economy in general can't be helping.
How could this be different?
I don't like TechCrunch, and I don't like Michael Arrington. I can write a book on why, but this is not place.
Death threats and spitting are way over the top!!! It's a shameful behaviour that needs to be outcast. TechCrunch help lots of businesses and in the process killed some. That's life, suck it mate!!!
Death threats and spitting are way over the top!!! It's a shameful behaviour that needs to be outcast. TechCrunch help lots of businesses and in the process killed some. That's life, suck it mate!!!
Why not fight back? If people are saying negative things about him, spreading rumors then he should be countering them. Maybe start a personal blog. Rebut them. Make your point be heard loud and clear. Not tough for a person who's in media already.
I think any violent action is condemned! If you do not like what he writes, then do not read it!
You can discuss it here on seesmic. http://seesmic.com/videos/gEfLwq4pqG
Doing something like TechCrunch in an ever-growing Internet startup world, Arrington is (wrongly) perceived as a deciding factor to success, as a God to some, maybe even. Although it's wrong, I'm not surprised this happened.
Mike, If you ever read this, may be it's time to shutdown TC!. As you mentioned, you've got a template for farewell letter from T-Shirt Hell ;)
No, don't. Just kidding. Be careful out there.
No, don't. Just kidding. Be careful out there.
This reminds me of "kenneth whats the frequency"
Spitting on someone is wrong and cowardice. However, I would not lose sleep over it.
Spitting on someone is wrong and cowardice. However, I would not lose sleep over it.
a lesson in civility from MA? The guy's an asshole. If you can't take the consequences for talking shit about people, stop talking shit. He's done real damage to people with the crap he puts up. If he said the shit he publishes in a bar, he'd get his ass kicked. And he's surprised he got spit on?
[deleted]
The spitting sounds more like a lack of social skills than anything else...
For all we know it could have just been someone from Wales...
"Never ask for place-names in Wales, Baldric. You'll be washing the spit out of your hair for weeks". (Blackadder)
"Never ask for place-names in Wales, Baldric. You'll be washing the spit out of your hair for weeks". (Blackadder)
I feel bad about the fact that I liked whatever happened....
Spitting in his face is going a bit far, but it's pretty difficult for me to feel sympathy for the guy. I struggle to think of a more dislikable, arrogant jerk. This belated plea for human-to-human sympathy falls on deaf ears, for me at least.
In my group, Arrington symbolises everything we hate about the "Web 2.0" greed culture. He's relentlessly promoted himself as the gatekeeper to this bullshit world of easy VC money, now crashing down around him. Good riddance.
If it hadn't been something as revolting as spitting, and instead say a nice cream pie to the face, I'd be delighted.
In my group, Arrington symbolises everything we hate about the "Web 2.0" greed culture. He's relentlessly promoted himself as the gatekeeper to this bullshit world of easy VC money, now crashing down around him. Good riddance.
If it hadn't been something as revolting as spitting, and instead say a nice cream pie to the face, I'd be delighted.
Why do you have so much animosity toward him? You say he represents everything you hate about Web 2.0 greed culture, but is that a valid reason to delight in someone receiving a nice cream pie in the face?
I think you need to stop and reconsider whether this is the appropriate attitude to take toward someone who really does nothing more than write articles and speak at conferences.
I'd also argue that a culture of tolerance, civility and diversity of views does far more to foster the open exchange of ideas than the silencing of those with whom we disagree.
I do agree somewhat with some of the criticisms that you and others have put forth about Techcrunch as a publication, in particular that it was prone to hype. But otherwise I think he performed a valuable service to our industry, and I think his willingness to speak his mind is both rare and laudable.
It saddens me that the animosity and intolerance that have shadowed Techcrunch have boiled over to something as despicable as this.
I think you need to stop and reconsider whether this is the appropriate attitude to take toward someone who really does nothing more than write articles and speak at conferences.
I'd also argue that a culture of tolerance, civility and diversity of views does far more to foster the open exchange of ideas than the silencing of those with whom we disagree.
I do agree somewhat with some of the criticisms that you and others have put forth about Techcrunch as a publication, in particular that it was prone to hype. But otherwise I think he performed a valuable service to our industry, and I think his willingness to speak his mind is both rare and laudable.
It saddens me that the animosity and intolerance that have shadowed Techcrunch have boiled over to something as despicable as this.
At least in the french-speaking world, celebrities have gotten used to this.
Pieing is the act of throwing a pie at an authority figure, as a means of protesting against a perceived flaw (arrogance, hubris) in the target's character.
and also:
Godard was very pleased at being pied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieing
Pieing is the act of throwing a pie at an authority figure, as a means of protesting against a perceived flaw (arrogance, hubris) in the target's character.
and also:
Godard was very pleased at being pied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieing
Ok, that's definitely something we need to inherit from the French. How awesome would it be to regularly see a pie fight break out during a movie opening? That would be totally sweet!
I'm worried about exactly how that person received so many upvotes. This person does not seem to have much basis to his/her hate other than some blog posts. More importantly, there seems to be a sizeable number of people who agree with the idea of "I disagree with you and don't like what you write about, so you must be an asshole."
"More importantly, there seems to be a sizeable number of people who agree with the idea of "I disagree with you and don't like what you write about, so you must be an asshole."
Because of course it couldn't possibly be that people object to the way in which he spouts those disagreeable opinions. Or the ex-cathedra pontificating on technical matters he has no understanding of whatsoever. Or the use of his extremely loud megaphone to bully individuals.
The bulk of the antipathy towards Arrington, I believe, has very little to do with what he says and almost everything to do with how he says it. When TC was new, none of the most obnoxious behaviour was yet apparent. As time's gone on it's been on a continual slide into egomania and vindictiveness.
[And, fwiw, no: I have never been covered, or asked to be covered, or had a project which was relevant to be covered, by Techcrunch.]
[edit: In case anybody's unclear, nothing here should be misinterpreted as support or defence of gobbing in his face.]
Because of course it couldn't possibly be that people object to the way in which he spouts those disagreeable opinions. Or the ex-cathedra pontificating on technical matters he has no understanding of whatsoever. Or the use of his extremely loud megaphone to bully individuals.
The bulk of the antipathy towards Arrington, I believe, has very little to do with what he says and almost everything to do with how he says it. When TC was new, none of the most obnoxious behaviour was yet apparent. As time's gone on it's been on a continual slide into egomania and vindictiveness.
[And, fwiw, no: I have never been covered, or asked to be covered, or had a project which was relevant to be covered, by Techcrunch.]
[edit: In case anybody's unclear, nothing here should be misinterpreted as support or defence of gobbing in his face.]
I had the same reaction as you. And to add to what you wrote, I interpreted it as, "I disagree with you and don't like what you write about, so you must be an asshole, and my only problem with what happened is that it was a bit over the top."
I might be in the minority on this, but I was unhappy with the whole discussion from the past about banning/censoring Valleywag and Techcrunch. Though the arguments against Valleywag had slightly more merit, the whole thing smacked of intolerance toward people and ideas we disagree with, which see its logical culmination in acts like this spitting incident.
Makes me think John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" should be required reading here.
I might be in the minority on this, but I was unhappy with the whole discussion from the past about banning/censoring Valleywag and Techcrunch. Though the arguments against Valleywag had slightly more merit, the whole thing smacked of intolerance toward people and ideas we disagree with, which see its logical culmination in acts like this spitting incident.
Makes me think John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" should be required reading here.
Presidents do nothing more than say and write things. Why are they so hated?
That's not true, except in a reductio ad adsurdum sense. Presidents administer laws, hire and fire staff, spend money, withhold money, declare wars, veto laws, etc. In the absurdly literal sense they do execute these actions by exercising their vocal chords to speak and triggering their fingers to write, but this is totally different from being a journalist writer and speaker.
It is also true that not all speech is equally tolerable, in both the moral and legal sense. The Supreme Court ruled long ago, for example, that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not an instance of protected speech.
It is also true that not all speech is equally tolerable, in both the moral and legal sense. The Supreme Court ruled long ago, for example, that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not an instance of protected speech.
So how is that different from saying "Arrington just speaks at conferences and writes blog posts. Why do people hate him?"
Speaking and writing as a journalist is what Michael Arrington does. That's a very specific type of speech -- so specific in fact that it's actually explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution. There is simply no relationship whatsoever between an article Michael writes and, for example, a President's order to bomb another country, except that the two are in some way shape or form molded out of words.
It's a knee-jerk comparison, and certainly not one that I believe, but when you said "I think you need to stop and reconsider whether this is the appropriate attitude to take toward someone who really does nothing more than write articles and speak at conferences," the retort that came to my mind was "All Hitler did was sign papers and speak at a podium."
The point is that despite just writing articles and speaking at conferences, the content of his messages have far more meat than his enactment of them.
The point is that despite just writing articles and speaking at conferences, the content of his messages have far more meat than his enactment of them.
I know Arrington, and he's much nicer than you sound. Can you give an example where he's said anything even half as nasty about anyone as you've just said about him?
From the way you describe your beef with him, it sounds as if you're making up a personality for him-- that you're projecting onto him your bitterness about "Web 2.0 greed culture." You're wrong about that too, incidentally.
From the way you describe your beef with him, it sounds as if you're making up a personality for him-- that you're projecting onto him your bitterness about "Web 2.0 greed culture." You're wrong about that too, incidentally.
Having had one personal interaction with him, I'd have to agree - he's a nice enough guy. It seems some people prefer the unthinking cheerleaders that are as thick as flies in Norcal. Techcrunch's articles might be uninformed sometimes, but they are generally fair.
Also, "Web 2.0 Greed Culture"...really?
There are a lot of faster, easier ways to make money if you're greedy. Before the crash, I'd say go into finance and become an i-banker.
Web 2.0 start ups -- especially one seeking seed money and boot strapping -- are seeking more responsibility than they are wealth. It still has that "selling t-shirts on the internet" feeling: a) Everyone is doing it. b)It feels like a good idea. c) Its not really known if people can make money from doing it.
There are a lot of faster, easier ways to make money if you're greedy. Before the crash, I'd say go into finance and become an i-banker.
Web 2.0 start ups -- especially one seeking seed money and boot strapping -- are seeking more responsibility than they are wealth. It still has that "selling t-shirts on the internet" feeling: a) Everyone is doing it. b)It feels like a good idea. c) Its not really known if people can make money from doing it.
holy crap well said
Because you seem to be new here, I will resist the urge to down-mod you without explanation. I don't think the down-mods are for the logic of your arguments. They're for the attitude reflected in your comments (except the top level comment, which seemed to be in good spirit, but 'good-riddance' is a bit negative to me personally). Unlike most other web communities, 'fuck you'-flavored comments are not well tolerated at HN. That, I think, is the most appealing part of this community. If you do intend to stay here and prosper, it would be a good idea to disagree in a more civil fashion. No personal attacks, no arrogance, no being a jerk. Maybe a little sarcasm, but sprinkled with humor. Also, most HN readers can identify disguised attacks fairly well. So, lighten up my friend!
In the interest of full-disclosure, I did down-mod the comment that you just deleted.
In the interest of full-disclosure, I did down-mod the comment that you just deleted.
I dislike techcrunch and I dislike his writing, but I'm full of sympathy for the man. He should take the matter to the police and with any luck the contemptible coward who spat in his face will get a criminal record for their trouble.
Huh? You think that spitting on someone should be illegal!?
I don't understand what you mean, anyway. You don't like his business, you don't like his writing, but you have all sorts of cares for him? Er .. why? What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy?
In my book, a man is but the sum of his actions. I can't stand Arrington's actions, therefore I can't stand him, ergo I have no sympathy for the hatred his actions have engendered amongst sum.
And one more thing - the man who spat in his face may be contemptible, but it doesn't doesn't fit my model of how "cowards" behave either. The coward would be writing spiteful comments anonymously on blogs. Walking up to someone and spitting in their face takes balls, IMO. Not exactly my preferred means of communication but it certainly got the point across.
I don't understand what you mean, anyway. You don't like his business, you don't like his writing, but you have all sorts of cares for him? Er .. why? What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy?
In my book, a man is but the sum of his actions. I can't stand Arrington's actions, therefore I can't stand him, ergo I have no sympathy for the hatred his actions have engendered amongst sum.
And one more thing - the man who spat in his face may be contemptible, but it doesn't doesn't fit my model of how "cowards" behave either. The coward would be writing spiteful comments anonymously on blogs. Walking up to someone and spitting in their face takes balls, IMO. Not exactly my preferred means of communication but it certainly got the point across.
You think that spitting on someone should be illegal!?
Yes, spitting on someone is illegal.
Fun game: stand on a busy street corner and spit on everyone who walks by. If you're arrested before you're crippled, you win.
Yes, spitting on someone is illegal.
Fun game: stand on a busy street corner and spit on everyone who walks by. If you're arrested before you're crippled, you win.
How about that, it is illegal, at least in the US and some other places. I had no idea. I disagree, too; it's highly distasteful but shouldn't actually be criminal - but that's getting off topic.
Anyway I stand corrected.
Anyway I stand corrected.
It's assault, plain and simple. --How can you justify doing that to someone?
Assault is punished by law according to physical consequence. If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't.
There are no physical consequences to being spat on by a healthy person (if they are sick and do so knowingly to infect you, that is completely different). It is an insult, a grotesque one, but an insult none the less, and should be treated as such by law.
There are no physical consequences to being spat on by a healthy person (if they are sick and do so knowingly to infect you, that is completely different). It is an insult, a grotesque one, but an insult none the less, and should be treated as such by law.
If you break someone's jaw, you go to jail. If you break their heart by verbal assault, you don't.
That is not necessarily true. Commission of verbal assault can land a person in jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words_doctrine#United_...
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
That is not necessarily true. Commission of verbal assault can land a person in jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words_doctrine#United_...
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
I am not a lawyer, but I believe this doctrine has essentially not been enforced in recent memory. The subsequent paragraph to the one you quoted steadily showed it being rejected by those who attempted to bring it before the court in the US.
There are fresh fighting-words arrest-reports, here: http://news.google.com/news?q=%22fighting+words%22+arrested
the test for assault is that a reasonable person would fear for their safety or life
the test for battery is that you harmfully or offensively touched someone or something on them
i think spitting would fall under both for most juries..
the test for battery is that you harmfully or offensively touched someone or something on them
i think spitting would fall under both for most juries..
And if the spitter has, say, hepatitis?
If someone with an infectious disease knowingly infects another, whether it be by unprotected sex without disclosure or by spitting, then that is malicious intent to harm and is already well covered by law.
And what if they didn't know they had a disease? It doesn't matter - forcing someone to share your bodily fluids in such an aggressive manner should be a crime. And of course the punishment should fit the crime, but at a minimum, spitting is equal to minor physical assault.
I've started some dumb comment threads here, but I'm humbled by this one.
[deleted](2)
Spitting in someone's face and then standing your ground to accept the consequences takes balls. Running away is, almost by definition, cowardice.
"You think that spitting on someone should be illegal!?"
As noted it is illegal in most countries.
"I don't understand what you mean, anyway. [...] What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy?"
Something a great deal worse than writing articles that do not much interest me. I find it incomprehensible that someone could find a matter of mere taste to be sufficient justification for a crime.
"And one more thing - the man who spat in his face may be contemptible, but it doesn't doesn't fit my model of how "cowards" behave either."
Your definition of bravery is not one I have any respect for then.
As noted it is illegal in most countries.
"I don't understand what you mean, anyway. [...] What would he have to do to make you finally relinquish your sympathy?"
Something a great deal worse than writing articles that do not much interest me. I find it incomprehensible that someone could find a matter of mere taste to be sufficient justification for a crime.
"And one more thing - the man who spat in his face may be contemptible, but it doesn't doesn't fit my model of how "cowards" behave either."
Your definition of bravery is not one I have any respect for then.
Not "most" countries. I am not sure it is even "many" countries. And whether something is illegal is not an argument for whether it should be illegal - see Saudi Arabia.
I don't remember defining bravery anywhere? I simply said that in my opinion, most "cowards" don't consummate their cowardice by walking up to big guys (Arrington is a big guy) and spitting on them.
I don't remember defining bravery anywhere? I simply said that in my opinion, most "cowards" don't consummate their cowardice by walking up to big guys (Arrington is a big guy) and spitting on them.
I don't think that's necessarily right.
Anyone motivated enough to take an "extreme" action against someone else (eg spitting on them) could be argued that they are not necessarily in a right frame of mind and more or less going to do it regardless of circumstances.
Exhibit A - the guy who threw shoes at then President Bush.. there were secret service all over that place.
Without knowing who did it, or for what reason, I'd be fairly confident in betting that at no point did Michael's size come into the equation.
Anyone motivated enough to take an "extreme" action against someone else (eg spitting on them) could be argued that they are not necessarily in a right frame of mind and more or less going to do it regardless of circumstances.
Exhibit A - the guy who threw shoes at then President Bush.. there were secret service all over that place.
Without knowing who did it, or for what reason, I'd be fairly confident in betting that at no point did Michael's size come into the equation.
I think technically that spitting in someone's face would be considered assault. Not 100% sure on that, though.
Violence is not a matter of sympathy.
Attacking someone because you don't like what they say is wrong. If you disagree with what they say then you should try to convince them logically, not through intimidation/harrasment. If you pie someone that is your friend in a jovial way then of course that is different, but attacking someone because you disagree with them any in sort of physical way is wrong and should not be encouraged.
Yuck! No matter how much you abhor a person, you don’t have a right to harm or intimidate the person. Intolerance seemingly is at it’s peak. I just hope the frustrated, overworked yet underperforming, and morally debauched ‘European entrepreneur’ doesn’t typifies our usual web entrepreneur. To me he seems like just another desperate chap who was hoping to be another run-away hit in the web without a lot of hard work. The declining economy, tighter markets, fierce competition, and resulting desperation could be blamed for the depravity.
easy VC money
i expect you've never tried to raise vc?
i expect you've never tried to raise vc?
"He's relentlessly promoted himself..."
How is that?
How is that?
Surely that's not a bad thing. Humility isn't a bad thing in a person but in business it's not a helpful attribute. At least when TC started he was the business, so self-promotion was a must.
I don't really know how to respond to that in less than a thousand words, so let's just say:
1. because he obviously has 2. I consider this to be generally accepted as truthful 3. if you don't agree then we are probably not going to agree on anything, ever
and leave it at that. This is probably breaching some law of argument ("Fallacy of Call to Common Sense" or something?) but hey, who has the time.
1. because he obviously has 2. I consider this to be generally accepted as truthful 3. if you don't agree then we are probably not going to agree on anything, ever
and leave it at that. This is probably breaching some law of argument ("Fallacy of Call to Common Sense" or something?) but hey, who has the time.
He is a blogger who obsessively writes about startups. He never promoted himself for anything else. People (used to) break into his home to pitch their startups and he actually listens to them. How is this arrogance? Would you listen to someone breaking into your home?
I don't know Arrington, but to me he always sounded like a humble, down-to-earth guy, very passionate about his job.
I don't know Arrington, but to me he always sounded like a humble, down-to-earth guy, very passionate about his job.
He's just a journalist, dude, doing what journalists do.
Would you still be delighted if the person had spit into the cream pie before throwing it?
I remember a thread on HN where PG asked us whether articles from TC should be banned.
Maybe we should re-evaluate that.
Many, if not most of the TC articles posted here do seem to be sensationalist in nature, so it's easy to believe Arrington's just after ad-money (as some people say).
Maybe we should re-evaluate that.
Many, if not most of the TC articles posted here do seem to be sensationalist in nature, so it's easy to believe Arrington's just after ad-money (as some people say).
pg asked about valleywag.com. Some other user asked about banning techcrunch.
From a business standpoint, it would be silly for pg to ban a site that helps promote YC startups, not to mention TC is nowhere near as wonky/gossipy as valleywag.
From a business standpoint, it would be silly for pg to ban a site that helps promote YC startups, not to mention TC is nowhere near as wonky/gossipy as valleywag.
> it would be silly for pg to ban a site that helps promote YC startups, not to mention TC is nowhere near as wonky/gossipy as valleywag.
Right. PG banning it would be different from people just not posting any TC stories though. No need for PG to incur Arrington's wrath.
From what I've seen, TC contains so much gossip and mildly nauseating posts that we'd be better off without it.
Right. PG banning it would be different from people just not posting any TC stories though. No need for PG to incur Arrington's wrath.
From what I've seen, TC contains so much gossip and mildly nauseating posts that we'd be better off without it.
It's funny, I think Arrington totally deserves to get punched in the face. But reading about him being spit on had me disgusted on his behalf.
Why does he deserve to be punched?
Being punched in the face is a more honest action than spitting. Remember the kids at school that used to bite people - little weasels then, little assholes now.
I think the commentator is making a point about the difference in thinking he deserves a punch and actually punching (well spitting on) him.
A lot of people dislike the guy (I dont care for his attitude myslef but I respect his influence) and probably waould say "he deserves a punch" without meaning it literally :)
A lot of people dislike the guy (I dont care for his attitude myslef but I respect his influence) and probably waould say "he deserves a punch" without meaning it literally :)
I'm not disagreeing with the commentator, just taking his point as a cue for a statement about how cowardly and nasty I think spitting is.
I know :)
I was taking your comment as a cue too :D
(alsio known as hitting the wrong reply button)
I was taking your comment as a cue too :D
(alsio known as hitting the wrong reply button)
here's the fucked up thing about Arrington. I'm not surprised this happened to him; I think everybody should pay attention to the fact that this happened; and I think it will happen again, because when he speculated about the spitter, he assumed it was some entrepreneur. it never occurred to the guy that anybody but a slighted entrepreneur would want to spit on him, when in reality many more people do. but that's not the fucked up thing. the fucked up thing is that with all of that information, I was AFRAID to post my opinion about this, because what if Arrington discovers who I work for and takes revenge by ignoring our products. think about how fucked up that is. the guy doesn't know very much. his posts often have huge technical inaccuracies and other bad information. and I'm scared to OFFEND him in a random comment on Hacker News, because he might retaliate for me expressing my honest opinion, and my company might get fucked because of his whims. so he has all this influence, and pretty much every time he discusses tech that I know details of, he gets shit wrong. that's what's fucked up about Arrington. I guarantee you there are people reading this whose opinions on the subject we will never know. and that's probably why he got spat in the face. somebody who could normally have just said what was on their mind didn't have that option, got wound up all tight, and went a little bit crazy.
but Kathy Sierra, some misogynists went a little bit crazy. we can't tolerate this kind of thing, no matter how much this particular target deserved it, because it creates a dangerous atmosphere. so although I think anybody who is upset that this happened is a fucking idiot, and anybody who was surprised is probably too stupid to spell their own name, we need a way to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and part of it involves tuning out idiots like Arrington instead of letting them amass all this ridiculous inappropriate influence in the tech world.
but Kathy Sierra, some misogynists went a little bit crazy. we can't tolerate this kind of thing, no matter how much this particular target deserved it, because it creates a dangerous atmosphere. so although I think anybody who is upset that this happened is a fucking idiot, and anybody who was surprised is probably too stupid to spell their own name, we need a way to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and part of it involves tuning out idiots like Arrington instead of letting them amass all this ridiculous inappropriate influence in the tech world.
I think anybody who is upset that this happened is a fucking idiot, and anybody who was surprised is probably too stupid to spell their own name
You sound like a delightful person to be around.
The gist of your entire tirade is that Michael Arrington doesn't deserve the influence he has because he often gets technical details wrong, ergo he deserves people spitting in his face.
Are you kidding me? It's his blog, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it. If he doesn't want to cover your company because he judges that you're an asshole, how does that give you the right to assault him?
You sound like a delightful person to be around.
The gist of your entire tirade is that Michael Arrington doesn't deserve the influence he has because he often gets technical details wrong, ergo he deserves people spitting in his face.
Are you kidding me? It's his blog, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it. If he doesn't want to cover your company because he judges that you're an asshole, how does that give you the right to assault him?
In Australia, we have a phrase for this kind of attitude.
It's called "Tall Poppy Syndrome"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
It's called "Tall Poppy Syndrome"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
Using lies and manipulation to attack some companies you dislike (or get paid to do so) is not the same as reporting on startups, once you threaten others' way of life, yours will be threatened back too.
Focus on startups as you say, and stop mudslinging with a hidden agenda.
Focus on startups as you say, and stop mudslinging with a hidden agenda.
Oh come on! Very few of his posts are negative and mostly those are when the company closes up shop. Paid to do so, you have any poof of that?
let this be a reminder that actions have consequences, and none of us lives in our own isolated bubble.
treat others as you'd like to be treated - and that applies both to Arrington and to the spitter.
treat others as you'd like to be treated - and that applies both to Arrington and to the spitter.
woah, this karma thing is worse than I thought. downmodding my opinion, I hope you all die.
anyway, for what it's worth, because I'm thinking out loud, the thing w/both Arrington and Sierra is it's live by the sword, die by the sword. especially with Arrington. you can't set up a system where your income depends on fame and then be surprised by the fact that people project things onto you. that's what fame is. it's not the only thing fame is, but it's a huge part of what fame is. there's a whole lot of people who don't need to know who Arrington is, but know who he is anyway. Arrington created that deliberately, because building your fame builds your ad revenue.
interesting thing about neurology, if you hear about a celebrity often enough, you actually end up with a neuron dedicated to that specific individual. so he literally invaded our brains because it would make him money. that's fine; wasting our time for his selfish purposes isn't a problem in his book. but when it bites him in the ass, it's not fine?
I'm not saying this is how fame should work, but it's how fame does work, and if he's not realistic about that, that's nobody's problem but his. you can't help yourself to all the upsides of fame and then literally go running home to Mommy (as he himself says he did) when the downsides enter the picture. that's just not going to work.
anyway, for what it's worth, because I'm thinking out loud, the thing w/both Arrington and Sierra is it's live by the sword, die by the sword. especially with Arrington. you can't set up a system where your income depends on fame and then be surprised by the fact that people project things onto you. that's what fame is. it's not the only thing fame is, but it's a huge part of what fame is. there's a whole lot of people who don't need to know who Arrington is, but know who he is anyway. Arrington created that deliberately, because building your fame builds your ad revenue.
interesting thing about neurology, if you hear about a celebrity often enough, you actually end up with a neuron dedicated to that specific individual. so he literally invaded our brains because it would make him money. that's fine; wasting our time for his selfish purposes isn't a problem in his book. but when it bites him in the ass, it's not fine?
I'm not saying this is how fame should work, but it's how fame does work, and if he's not realistic about that, that's nobody's problem but his. you can't help yourself to all the upsides of fame and then literally go running home to Mommy (as he himself says he did) when the downsides enter the picture. that's just not going to work.
I think this is awesome and terrible at the same time. Awesome because I wanted to do it myself, and you knew it was only just a matter of time. Terrible because even though Arrington deserved it, Kathy Sierra didn't. Attacking people because you disagree with them, that's a really awful trend.
For Arrington to be surprised that this happened, though, jesus. That's ridiculous. Go to my blog and google "Arrington." Got at least five links to him spitting in people's faces online. Probably many more than five. And that's not even going anywhere near the politics, power-playing, manipulation, or his claim that promoting his own companies means "journalism is evolving." He's a horrible human being.
I'm against the idea of randomly attacking bloggers, but if you had to pick a blogger to randomly attack, you couldn't find somebody who deserved it more. And if this incident shuts down TechCrunch, we should find the spitter and give him a medal for helping the tech community scrape that thing off our shoes.
For Arrington to be surprised that this happened, though, jesus. That's ridiculous. Go to my blog and google "Arrington." Got at least five links to him spitting in people's faces online. Probably many more than five. And that's not even going anywhere near the politics, power-playing, manipulation, or his claim that promoting his own companies means "journalism is evolving." He's a horrible human being.
I'm against the idea of randomly attacking bloggers, but if you had to pick a blogger to randomly attack, you couldn't find somebody who deserved it more. And if this incident shuts down TechCrunch, we should find the spitter and give him a medal for helping the tech community scrape that thing off our shoes.
I believe he just made that up to grab attention and a few more pageviews
Pics or it didn't happen.
Arrington has spat in the face of many startups and blogs, metaphorically speaking, and the most successful business people in general are ruthless. This doesn't excuse the literal spitting behaviour, but Techcrunch is a blog with way too much power, for better or worse depending on the way you look at it.
why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review?
There's a perfect example of this THIS WEEK! Arrington has been ripping into Cha Cha for years, and they just got a massive funding round.
There's a perfect example of this THIS WEEK! Arrington has been ripping into Cha Cha for years, and they just got a massive funding round.
Just because ChaCha got funding, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.
I've never used it before, so I decided to give both it, Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Ask.com the same search phrase in response to this comment and see what the results are.
What is the speed of light? - I felt a simple enough question.
EDIT - it's now 4:25pm, still no SMS on my mobile phone from ChaCha.. I think its fair to say that comparing 10 minutes to 0.11 seconds is a pretty clear indicator why human search isn't a good idea.
Even if you take out the signup stage, human reaction time can't even compete with 0.11 seconds and that doesn't begin to factor in things like time it takes to read the question.
EDIT #2 - 5:06pm, still no SMS...
I've never used it before, so I decided to give both it, Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Ask.com the same search phrase in response to this comment and see what the results are.
What is the speed of light? - I felt a simple enough question.
Google took just 0.11 seconds to give me an exact answer.
Yahoo took 0.28 seconds
Live Search has no timer, but it was much less than 1 second, I assume around the same speed as Yahoo
Ask.com no timer, but same perceived speed as both Yahoo and Live Search
EDIT - it's now 4:25pm, still no SMS on my mobile phone from ChaCha.. I think its fair to say that comparing 10 minutes to 0.11 seconds is a pretty clear indicator why human search isn't a good idea.
Even if you take out the signup stage, human reaction time can't even compete with 0.11 seconds and that doesn't begin to factor in things like time it takes to read the question.
EDIT #2 - 5:06pm, still no SMS...
What is the speed of light? - I felt a simple enough question.
Why didn't you try a non-simple question? Google is basically an almanac. When I have an almanac question, I don't hire a professional researcher. I consult an almanac.
Why didn't you try a non-simple question? Google is basically an almanac. When I have an almanac question, I don't hire a professional researcher. I consult an almanac.
I wasn't planning to ask it too difficult a question as I really don't feel like waiting hours for a response... although given the circumstances I don't think it matters.
Its now 1:30am, I'm just about to head to bed and still have been unable to sign up for chacha (even though I've attempted to do so again with a different email address/username since I last updated my comment) I feel that I can quite comfortably say that I wont use them for my searching requirements anytime soon.
Its now 1:30am, I'm just about to head to bed and still have been unable to sign up for chacha (even though I've attempted to do so again with a different email address/username since I last updated my comment) I feel that I can quite comfortably say that I wont use them for my searching requirements anytime soon.
it's a bad idea, it's poorly executed, TC gave it a bad review, and it still got funding.
It's so weird for people to base VC investments purely on "the team" -- I've always figured (as I gradully ramp my startup to my full time job) -- its great to have a great team -- and you know what else helps? having a fucking awesome idea.
It's so weird for people to base VC investments purely on "the team" -- I've always figured (as I gradully ramp my startup to my full time job) -- its great to have a great team -- and you know what else helps? having a fucking awesome idea.
I respectfully disagree in the detail of what you say. It's essential to have a great team. It's good to have an awesome idea, but if you have a great team then the ideas will come, and even if this one won't work, the next one probably will.
VCs need to work with the team, need to have faith in the team, and need to have a sense that the ideas will come. The current idea is a good start, and an indication, but in the grander scheme of things, it's the team that reall counts. They're the ones that will make things work.
A good team with an awesome idea is not investable.
An awesome team with a good idea, is.
VCs need to work with the team, need to have faith in the team, and need to have a sense that the ideas will come. The current idea is a good start, and an indication, but in the grander scheme of things, it's the team that reall counts. They're the ones that will make things work.
A good team with an awesome idea is not investable.
An awesome team with a good idea, is.
It's good to have an awesome idea, but if you have a great team then the ideas will come
David Hornik (August Capital; Ventureblog) basically says this also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwY0ac5XI_0
And, the truth is, A teams usually don't have B or C ideas, because they recognize, "Gee. We're looking at this thing. It's an interesting market. We have an idea. A particular approach." And, maybe it's an A-minus idea. Maybe you say, "Well, I'm not sure how that's going to evolve, but it'll probably evolve in an interesting way with this team," then I'm happy to invest and see how it goes, because, historically what's happened is they've figured out that there was some other twist, or there was a better market, or there was a better way to get to a group of people.
And so I would always start with the people, first.
David Hornik (August Capital; Ventureblog) basically says this also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwY0ac5XI_0
And, the truth is, A teams usually don't have B or C ideas, because they recognize, "Gee. We're looking at this thing. It's an interesting market. We have an idea. A particular approach." And, maybe it's an A-minus idea. Maybe you say, "Well, I'm not sure how that's going to evolve, but it'll probably evolve in an interesting way with this team," then I'm happy to invest and see how it goes, because, historically what's happened is they've figured out that there was some other twist, or there was a better market, or there was a better way to get to a group of people.
And so I would always start with the people, first.
of course, sorry - by great I meant "mind blowingly great" :)
Maybe I'm biased because I have no previous ventures and VC mildly interests me :)
Maybe I'm biased because I have no previous ventures and VC mildly interests me :)
"why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review?"
Who says they're not!
When's the last time TC linked to another blog in a post. Hat tips etc.?
Who says they're not!
When's the last time TC linked to another blog in a post. Hat tips etc.?
I hope he stops writing. I really do. If you're reading this, Michael Arrington, please go away and never touch the Internet again.
Like him or not, Techcrunch has helped tons of startups out.
It has destroyed a whole lot too; depending of what side of the fence you are you should be able to recognize this too. They rush to say something nasty about a startup but most of the time will say something nice about startups in their friend circle.
I don't like Michael Arrington because of the way he acts. His latest post backs up my dislike. He needs to grow a backbone and not cower behind security. If you are in California its much harder to have a gun to protect yourself. You could always move to Texas (Austin is nice). :)
Also, if this guy is a felon how does he have a gun and Arrington knows this is a fact? When you buy a gun they do a FBI check to make sure you don't have such a conviction.
Your startup will succeed regardless of its inclusion in TC. Worry about the product not some silly blog.
Also, if this guy is a felon how does he have a gun and Arrington knows this is a fact? When you buy a gun they do a FBI check to make sure you don't have such a conviction.
Your startup will succeed regardless of its inclusion in TC. Worry about the product not some silly blog.
I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well, but I still can't understand those that threatened or spat on him. Michael, I hope you return to regular writing after Feb, but if you don't, thanks for all the great work so far.