Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool

realdanlyons.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 210 posts

Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool

#81

Post by snowwrestler »

xradionut wrote: post #72
sumukh1 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As a rule, the only thing that can kill a good startup is the startup itself" - http://www.paulgraham.com/superangels.html As a rule, the only thing that can kill a good _ecosystem_ is the _ecosystem_ itself Edit: We live in a democracy. If there is something that stands to significantly harm us, then we should (and can) do something about it. A recent example would be SOPA. The biggest threat we face is not from Wa…

"We live in a democracy." We don't live in anything close to democracy. It's hard for a populous to change a corrupt system when all the cards are stacked against the greater public.

Silicon Valley is not the greater public, it is a collection of very talented, motivated, rich people. It could be very influential in Washington, but until recently has chosen to avoid it instead.

Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool

#82

Post by javajosh »

The key question that arises in my mind is simply this: why is perception so important in Silicon Valley? It seems clear that money influences tech reporting to a fairly high degree, but what is the economic incentive? In a universe of makers, shouldn't the things made speak for themselves?

Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool

#86

Post by jfarmer »

I agree with the overall argument and sentiment of Dan's article.

My ideal blog about technology startups would be about Silicon Valley as it is. It would be hard to run this blog. I'm not even sure it could be profitable, because most interesting information about what's happening in Silicon Valley is not written about. It's shared directly between people working here, and there's very little reason for those conversations to go public.

You see the same problems with journalists covering Washington and national politics. The journalists are willing to be used by politicians because it furthers their careers. It's so tempting to just give in. It's certainly more profitable.

On the other hand, if you take TechCrunch for what it is, I don't think it's unethical per se. You just have to know how to read between the lines.

Dan's article would be better if he didn't confuse angel and VC investment, though. Michael Arrington is certainly an angel investor, and he was one long before he started CrunchFund. He's probably an investor in CrunchFund's first fund, but as a General Partner he's acting as a VC, not an angel investor.

The key distinction being whether he's investing his own money (an angel investor) or LPs' money (a VC).

Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool

#87

Post by rjdagost »

jwwest wrote: post #13

I've never understood the enormous popularity of M.G. Siegler. His articles are often published without any attributions or even basic spell checking. Yet somehow he's ridden on the coattails of Apple's ascent by positioning himself among the fandom as a "champion of good taste". In interviews he doesn't even come off as particularly pleasant.

Siegler falls into the category of "irritainment", entertainment via irritation. He's the type of guy you love to hate and I believe a lot of his popularity stems from that. I can't stand the guy and I think he's completely full of shit. And yet I read almost all of his blog posts.

The only other TechCrunch writer that I regularly read is Devin Coldewey and that's because he has interesting articles and actually seems knowledgeable about technology. In other words I have learned things from his blog posts.

Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool

#88

Post by taf2 »

beedogs wrote: post #75
martythemaniak wrote: post #17

It's tempting to dismiss this as just e-lebrity gossip, but I think that this kind of rottenness is probably more dangerous to the Valley than threats from Washington or talk of bubbles. If who you know and how well you can politic overshadows what you did and the results you got, then you're in trouble. If somebody is an unscrupulous douchebag, don't to business with them, don't read their blogs, don't upvote their…

In other words, stop visiting TechCrunch. I'm way ahead of you.

or be bother with blogs that write about it... yeah, i want to turn a blind eye... yep - i'll do that until we hit 100K in revenue.

Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool

#89

Post by ericflo »

I'm surprised by the amount of cheering going on over this article. I found it in very poor taste, resorting to ad hominem attacks and slander. Even if it were in good taste, I don't agree with the general idea behind the post.

I don't understand this pent up hatred for Arrington, M.G. Siegler, and the other TechCrunch writers who, despite what people continually say, do genuinely seem to care about startups. Is this a case of wanting to knock successful people down a peg? Is it jealousy? What is it?

Sure, they are biased, but everyone is. At least they make it clear where their biases lie.

Please help me to understand this anger.

Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool

#90

Post by nikcub »

snowwrestler wrote: post #78

Dan Lyons is afflicted with the combination of being a very talented writer, but a terrible journalist. He's late to a lot of stories--I mean, he's JUST NOW writing about Arrington's conflicts?? And, he's frequently 180 degrees wrong about the stories he does cover--see his coverage of SCO for the most infamous example. I remember my reaction when it was revealed that Dan was behind the Fake Steve Jobs blog. It was a…

> I mean, he's JUST NOW writing about Arrington's conflicts??

That is because he wanted to work at Techcrunch (there was a perennial discussion within TC on hiring him, and his wage demands were massive). now that Arrington can't give that to him any longer, he can speak out against him. Speaking of conflicts.

Post reply on HN