Can anyone explain why this post got buried on reddit? I thought they live for controversial stories like this. Is Arrington a reddit investor too?
Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
191–200 of 210 posts
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#192Earlier 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,…
Don't be afraid to be an influencer+blogger. I like Jay Rosen's guide for modern reporting: don't hold to false objectivity. Telling us the motivations you have in reporting gives you the freedom to report on others motivations and not simply parrot what they are saying.
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#193The interesting thing to me here is how the story is no longer about Path and whether their actions were right or wrong. In the course of attempting to defend their portfolio company, Arrington and Co. have created a new debate about the role of journalism in the tech world, pitting the VC-backed insiders and their well-oiled hype machine vs the hordes of unconnected outsiders seeking to break down the gates. This dy…
As Lyons notes, the debate around pay-to-play or other more subtle conflicts of interest in tech journalism has been around for a while, and is probably here to stay. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that anyone publicly sided with Path after their app behavior was exposed. There just is no spin spinny enough for that job. That it was Arrington and MG giving it the old college try just adds some extra…
People spin things that actually kill thousands of people every year. Why do you think your privacy is going to be more respected than your life?
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#194The interesting thing to me here is how the story is no longer about Path and whether their actions were right or wrong. In the course of attempting to defend their portfolio company, Arrington and Co. have created a new debate about the role of journalism in the tech world, pitting the VC-backed insiders and their well-oiled hype machine vs the hordes of unconnected outsiders seeking to break down the gates. This dy…
As Lyons notes, the debate around pay-to-play or other more subtle conflicts of interest in tech journalism has been around for a while, and is probably here to stay. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that anyone publicly sided with Path after their app behavior was exposed. There just is no spin spinny enough for that job. That it was Arrington and MG giving it the old college try just adds some extra…
People spin things that actually kill thousands of people every year. Why do you think your privacy is going to be more respected than your life?
EX: Clean Coal
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it, there's no greater opportunity in the US right now than there is here
Why do you say that? (I'm just interested. It would be nice to hear more.)
Well, I can't back this up with hard numbers at this point, but I'm pretty sure that the SF Bay Area has lead the nation in hiring since 2008. Also, where else in the US are you hearing about people becoming rich beyond their wildest dreams? Or about how a new company IPOing will bring about 1000 millionaires? I dont see it anywhere else
Granted, I think it's more accurate to say that "tech" is the one doing the hiring and making people rich, not the SF Bay Area itself. But since this is the nexus of the (consumer internet) tech industry worldwide, I think its safe to say that a lot of that opportunity is found here
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
If who you know and how well you can politic overshadows what you did and the results you got, then you're in trouble. For me its just another sign that 'tech' is growing up. Pretty much any industry creates an economic flow, and the flow is a source of power (some would argue the only real source in peace time), and one can harness that power by having influence over the flow. Back when the Homebrew Computer Club wa…
I'm not sure. Sleaze tends to correlate with easy money. Before 1997 or so most of the people I knew that were in tech were in it primarily for love but when all the easy capital started flowing in suddenly the quick buck hucksters started coming out of the woodwork. Very few of the latter stuck around after the first dotcom crash. Right now a lot of dumb money is pouring into tech because there's nowhere else for it…
I believe you are thinking about the rent-seekers. About that time when someone in business school realized 'hey, these guys are defining new fundamental concepts, if we could patent those we could just sit back and roll in the cash!' There was a tremendous shift from open disclosure of all the technology to 'just the necessary bits to operate' around that time. Comparing the PC/AT technical manual (with BIOS listings!) to the PS/2 manual? DEC went from publishing system schematics to just 'diagnostic notes'.
I had hoped that the open source wave that hit after the dot com crash would have reminded people about why openness leads to growth not stagnation but I don't think it has.
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There already are bloggers with the credibility of journalists (and more) who assume all of the responsibility (and more). We all know this and read these people all day every day.
Dan Lyons is not one of them (SCO), and neither is MG, but MG (and more) is just telling us he is neither a good VC nor journalist, but his (and his friends') wallet would like you to think he was.
tl;dr: MG is innovating the huckster niche.
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
Don't be afraid to be an influencer+blogger. I like Jay Rosen's guide for modern reporting: don't hold to false objectivity. Telling us the motivations you have in reporting gives you the freedom to report on others motivations and not simply parrot what they are saying.
Telling us the motivations you have in reporting gives you the freedom to...
This leaves a gaping hole for unreliable narrators.
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "fanboy dismissal" is here, as usal, a cop out. It's the same copout that 2/3 of the commentariat falls back on whenever the subject comes up of why Apple is so successful. Must be those fanboys, that pixie dust, that RDF... "Some sort of subconscious need to find superiority in consumer purchases and brand loyalty. It's kind of disturbing." Or maybe it's just a good blog? Despite happily not owning a Mac for alm…
I don't think this can be construed as 'fanboy dismissal', though the term 'fanboy' itself is controversial. Post purchase dissonance reduction is a well known cognitive bias[1]. And what can be better for dissonance reduction than someone telling you that you have good taste, and anyone who buys the competition is a philistine? I should point out that this does not impute anything to the quality of the products them…
This might be one of the best comments I've ever read on the web.
These gadgets are EXPENSIVE. If you're clearing $15.00 an hour and you buy a smartphone, that's 15-40 hours of your life that you've dedicated to that little machine. You can see why there would be fervor over those devices, especially for those enthusiasts that have to work so hard to afford them in the first place.
Re: Hit men, click whores, and paid apologists: Welcome to the Silicon Cesspool
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's important to realize that this is how many industries work because it's practically human nature. The article basically boils down to "influential people in tech can be greedy/power-hungry." I often get the impression that those involved in tech are viewed as more advanced or more noble than in other industries. This is false, and a dangerous assumption. Tech is not full of angels - it's full of people. SV peopl…
I think it is more serious than you make it sound. This article describes a racket that resembles mafia behavior. “Pay seven figures a year to buy a corporate subscription to my newsletter and I’ll say nice things about your company, and when the press needs a quote, I’ll be there to puff you up. Or, don’t buy a subscription and I will bash you relentlessly.”
This is not a new game. "No one gets fired for buying IBM" was born, then later became "No one gets fired for buying Microsoft" on the back of "industry journals" that were more or less the dead-tree version of the rackets Fake Steve is describing. None of this is new. This, more or less, is the history of subscription trade journals in every industry for the last 100 years.
Model is thus: Subscribe to our journal, we'll ply you for survey responses/advertising. Fail to pay? You won't get reviewed or if so, it won't be flattering. Advertise? You'll be reviewed, and positively so. Oh, and we'll charge you for the report born of the analysis of the survey data you gave us. Repeat for all major players in a niche field. Welcome to industry publishing.