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

TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#71

Post by nknight »

cletus wrote: post #67

Look this is all pretty simple: Mike wants to get fired. Last year, Mike decided to cash out. According to the AOL CEO there had been previous attempts to buy TechCrunch. So one day Mike, who largely covers Silicon Valley, decides to move from San Francisco to... Seattle [1]. His stated reason? Largely, to "mix things up in my life". Washington state, by some amazing coincidence also has no state income tax. Around t…

It absolutely is not illegal for a US citizen to change his state of residence purely for tax reasons. It's only fraud if he does not actually intend to reside there, the motivation behind that intent is completely irrelevant.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#72

Post by thadeus_venture »

Meh, who cares, TC was always yellow press to begin with. An added perceived conflict of interest doesn't change anything in my eyes, just adds to the drama of it all which is what the site thrives on in the first place. On a more practical note, whether the content of the site will be affected with Arrington leaving - that's to be determined by time only. My guess is it won't. On a personal note, I briefly met Arrington at one of TC conferences and he's an arrogant asshole, I would even say douchebag (he wasn't an asshole to me, that's just his demeanor), so if he doesn't get exactly what he wants that sounds fine to me.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#74

Post by Tashtego »

tuhin wrote: post #68
okboy wrote: post #24

I started reading TechCrunch again yesterday because I heard Arrington would be fired. I don't like Arrington. When I think of TC, I usually think of the CrunchPad drama, Mike's sexist comments, Mike complaining about the Google kid standing in front of his car and the CrunchFund conflict of interest. There are other startup sites that don't have the same arrogance.

Liking Arrington and reading TC have no logical correlation, as far as I see.

For a history of logical vs human decision making, see Spock v. Kirk

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#75

Post by nikcub »

cletus wrote: post #67

Look this is all pretty simple: Mike wants to get fired. Last year, Mike decided to cash out. According to the AOL CEO there had been previous attempts to buy TechCrunch. So one day Mike, who largely covers Silicon Valley, decides to move from San Francisco to... Seattle [1]. His stated reason? Largely, to "mix things up in my life". Washington state, by some amazing coincidence also has no state income tax. Around t…

you copy and paste the exact same reply every time Arrington is mentioned in a post - and every time there are numerous rebuttals posted in comments here.

I have no idea what your agenda is, but your comment has been discussed ad nauseum multiple times in the past and has nothing to do with OP.

if you are interested in this thread, search for one of the dozen other times it came up with the exact same allegations and exact same characters.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#76

Post by vessenes »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #39
staunch wrote: post #3

TechCrunch's days were numbered the day Arrington sold it to AOL. The honeymoon rarely lasts more than a year, so this is right on time.

You're not being entirely fair to AOL here: Arrington could have just said "no way" to the whole CrunchFund thing and posted a TechCrunch rant if it did go through. That would have made it much harder to sustain accusations of a conflict of interest (the critics are certainly less noisy about TechCrunch's coverage of AOL these days, although that's obviously a no-no according to classical journalist ethics.) AOL is i…

I think the fundamental issue is that the powers-that-be at AOL that helped bring the fund into existence wanted to do it IN ORDER TO leverage the TechCrunch name.

AOL didn't know that, and apparently either didn't care or wished for a conflict of interest.

Arrington knew there would be no conflict of interest from his own actions, but has stayed 'blind' to this conflict in approach from his major LP. For whatever reason, he went ahead with this plan, causing significant agitation at TC, and also indicating to the TC staff how much influence AOL has right now; on paper maybe not so much; with only a few 10s of millions of dollars, though, they can rule Michael's roost.

This isn't going to finish well, but I think we all knew that.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#77

Post by [deleted] »

cletus wrote: post #67

Look this is all pretty simple: Mike wants to get fired. Last year, Mike decided to cash out. According to the AOL CEO there had been previous attempts to buy TechCrunch. So one day Mike, who largely covers Silicon Valley, decides to move from San Francisco to... Seattle [1]. His stated reason? Largely, to "mix things up in my life". Washington state, by some amazing coincidence also has no state income tax. Around t…

[deleted]

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#78

Post by cletus »

nikcub wrote: post #75
cletus wrote: post #67

Look this is all pretty simple: Mike wants to get fired. Last year, Mike decided to cash out. According to the AOL CEO there had been previous attempts to buy TechCrunch. So one day Mike, who largely covers Silicon Valley, decides to move from San Francisco to... Seattle [1]. His stated reason? Largely, to "mix things up in my life". Washington state, by some amazing coincidence also has no state income tax. Around t…

you copy and paste the exact same reply every time Arrington is mentioned in a post - and every time there are numerous rebuttals posted in comments here. I have no idea what your agenda is, but your comment has been discussed ad nauseum multiple times in the past and has nothing to do with OP. if you are interested in this thread, search for one of the dozen other times it came up with the exact same allegations and…

Citations, please.

I know I've mentioned it once before, maybe twice. I'll also require citations on the "numerous rebuttals".

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#80

Post by nikcub »

cletus wrote: post #78
nikcub wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you copy and paste the exact same reply every time Arrington is mentioned in a post - and every time there are numerous rebuttals posted in comments here. I have no idea what your agenda is, but your comment has been discussed ad nauseum multiple times in the past and has nothing to do with OP. if you are interested in this thread, search for one of the dozen other times it came up with the exact same allegations and…

Citations, please. I know I've mentioned it once before, maybe twice. I'll also require citations on the "numerous rebuttals".

Even one other time is enough - because it was pointed out then that it isn't illegal to change your residence and that Arrington had bought his house in WA, the only house he owns, before he started Techcrunch

this having nothing to do with OP doesn't really need a citation

Post reply on HN