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

Some things need to change

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 209 posts

Re: Some things need to change

#131

Post by shiranaihito »

Xichekolas wrote: post #59
shiranaihito wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

> 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.

Re: Some things need to change

#132

Post by litewulf »

rantfoil wrote: post #19
litewulf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 Ar…

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.

Re: Some things need to change

#133

Post by dasil003 »

rantfoil wrote: post #19
litewulf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 Ar…

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.

Re: Some things need to change

#134

Post by litewulf »

xenophanes wrote: post #128
migpwr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.)

Re: Some things need to change

#135

Post by shiranaihito »

hk wrote: post #87
jimbokun wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also amusing that someone who seems to be fine with spitting on someone as legitimate communication, getting up in arms about a down arrow on a web page. Would you prefer to be spat on instead?

Of course not. And I'm not fine about it at all, it's a disgusting thing to do. I just can understand why people might be driven to do it, and don't think it should be an actual crime! I'm beginning to suspect my writing style is prone to misunderstanding, though. C'est la vie.

I for one understand your point of view, and don't think you deserved any downmods either.

You've been bravely standing behind your words, even in the face of the "public shaming" of so many downmods. That's respectable.

Besides, should a downvote be used to express mere disagreement, or reserved for posts that one thinks are really inappropriate or maybe jarringly stupid?

In any case, I agree that insulting someone or calling them names should not be a crime, and that spitting on someone shouldn't be considered an "assault" (with the provisions you mentioned).

Re: Some things need to change

#137

Post by bmelton »

jsdalton wrote: post #60
hk wrote: post #15

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 m…

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 to…

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.

Re: Some things need to change

#138

Post by xenophanes »

litewulf wrote: post #134
xenophanes wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant why couldn't the police do something effective that would make him safe? isn't that their job?

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.)

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

Re: Some things need to change

#139

Post by bmelton »

staunch wrote: post #103
scott_s wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spitting in someone's face and then standing your ground to accept the consequences takes balls. Running away is, almost by definition, cowardice.

I think spitting in someone's face is by definition cowardice.

I'm inclined to disagree. If you view cowardice as avoiding confrontation, I fail to see how blatantly spitting in someone's face meets the criteria.

Re: Some things need to change

#140

Post by abstractwater »

hk wrote: post #15

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 m…

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.

Post reply on HN