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

151–160 of 210 posts

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

#151

Post by gooorack »

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.

Google+ HN circle has replaced techcrunch for tech news imo.

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

#152

Post by mbesto »

tucson wrote: post #147
mbesto wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nearly 1 or 2 stories a day on the front page of HN from TC. Please people. Stop. Upvoting. This. Crap.

I think the core of the problem is not TechCrunch or person X or Y. The core problem is advertising disguised as journalism. The solution is legislation against this. Famous direct marketer Dan Kennedy said that the most efficient marketing is always illegal, and for example infomercials on TV are now legally restricted because they were too "dangerous" for consumers.

I disagree. Content is a free market aimed at sourcing as many eyeballs as possible. Stop giving them your eyeballs and we won't deal with it.

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

#153

Post by dconway »

tucson wrote: post #147
mbesto wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nearly 1 or 2 stories a day on the front page of HN from TC. Please people. Stop. Upvoting. This. Crap.

I think the core of the problem is not TechCrunch or person X or Y. The core problem is advertising disguised as journalism. The solution is legislation against this. Famous direct marketer Dan Kennedy said that the most efficient marketing is always illegal, and for example infomercials on TV are now legally restricted because they were too "dangerous" for consumers.

More legislation is almost never a good solution. It'll just encourage the parasites to get more creative and hurt the legitimate journalists.

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

#156

Post by shrikant »

VonGuard wrote: post #132
glyph wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's the whole point of the article: the whole value of the CrunchFund (and its ilk) is that Arrington (and his ilk) will be a douche on your behalf. If it were just the money, it wouldn't be worth it for the companies they invest in: the amounts are too small. It's an alternative compensation scheme for a PR flack who masquerades as a journalist. There's no ethical way to run the fund, because it would be wort…

Yah, obviously that's the value he's adding. I think it's a zero sum game, however. Shilling isn't going to help a crappy product out in the long term, only the short term. And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism? Do influencers lose influence when they lose objectivity? What the fuck is an influencer, anyway? If a journalist is ever an influencer, he or she is doing it wrong... Buh,…

> And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism?

I believe the crux of the problem is that 'influential bloggers' want all the credibility of journalists ("we're writing and reporting on things!"), without any of the responsibility ("we're just blogging our opinions!").

This is what leads to situations like below:

Then there's the post in December where MG [...] thought he'd uncovered some kind of huge conspiracy when he accused Google's Android chief, Andy Rubin, of deleting a tweet. A few days later Siegler had to recant (sans apology, of course) when it turned out that, um, nope, Rubin hadn’t done that. Of course there’s a simple way to avoid bonehead moves like this — you do the reporting before you publish the accusation, not after.

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

#157

Post by tucson »

mbesto wrote: post #152
tucson wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the core of the problem is not TechCrunch or person X or Y. The core problem is advertising disguised as journalism. The solution is legislation against this. Famous direct marketer Dan Kennedy said that the most efficient marketing is always illegal, and for example infomercials on TV are now legally restricted because they were too "dangerous" for consumers.

I disagree. Content is a free market aimed at sourcing as many eyeballs as possible. Stop giving them your eyeballs and we won't deal with it.

I understand your point and I am a big supporter of the free market, but I think consumers need a minimum protection against infomercials.

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

#158

Post by tucson »

dconway wrote: post #153
tucson wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the core of the problem is not TechCrunch or person X or Y. The core problem is advertising disguised as journalism. The solution is legislation against this. Famous direct marketer Dan Kennedy said that the most efficient marketing is always illegal, and for example infomercials on TV are now legally restricted because they were too "dangerous" for consumers.

More legislation is almost never a good solution. It'll just encourage the parasites to get more creative and hurt the legitimate journalists.

"Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and Advertisements cannot be unfair.

Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state."

You think this consumer protection laws should be removed?

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

#159

Post by patrickk »

tucson wrote: post #157
mbesto wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Content is a free market aimed at sourcing as many eyeballs as possible. Stop giving them your eyeballs and we won't deal with it.

I understand your point and I am a big supporter of the free market, but I think consumers need a minimum protection against infomercials.

I think there would be something along the lines of would be what's required:

"Disclaimer: [$thisBlog] is an investor in [$company]"

...right underneath the story headline involving a company they were involved with. It would force "journalists" to at least pretend to be somewhat objective.

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

#160

Post by RyanMcGreal »

VonGuard wrote: post #132
glyph wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's the whole point of the article: the whole value of the CrunchFund (and its ilk) is that Arrington (and his ilk) will be a douche on your behalf. If it were just the money, it wouldn't be worth it for the companies they invest in: the amounts are too small. It's an alternative compensation scheme for a PR flack who masquerades as a journalist. There's no ethical way to run the fund, because it would be wort…

Yah, obviously that's the value he's adding. I think it's a zero sum game, however. Shilling isn't going to help a crappy product out in the long term, only the short term. And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism? Do influencers lose influence when they lose objectivity? What the fuck is an influencer, anyway? If a journalist is ever an influencer, he or she is doing it wrong... Buh,…

> And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism?

There's nothing "grey" about it: it's a straightforward conflict of interest. Unethical practices that were mostly stamped out of more mature industries with professional codes of conduct and industry best practices are rife in the tech startup sector.

That's as true of collusive, interested tech journalists as it is of startups collecting sensitive personal information without disclosing it or providing a clear opt-out (or preferably opt-in) provision.

Post reply on HN