4 ms·

Moments worth pointing out: 1. Early in the interview Daniel admits that he even published his first story without approval from TechCrunch editors. I spent a

Moments worth pointing out: 1. Early in the interview Daniel admits that he even published his first story without approval from TechCrunch editors. I spent almost three years writing for The Escapist (http://escapistmagazine http://escapistmagazine) and started when I was 16. When it came to writing and researching, I was given free reign. However, when it came to PUBLISHING, it was made pretty clear that an editor would have to vet the story before it was released. Editors would prefer that I call them on weekends and at least give them a heads up on the situation before releasing a story. We might've differed from TechCrunch in that we strove for quality as opposed to breaking news. Point being that the Escapist editorial system worked very well, with everyone knowing the content going onto the site. 2. TechCrunch didn't have Daniel sign any paperwork or give him a title when he joined as an intern in June 2009. 3. In general, Daniel does provide a really good insight into how TechCrunch operates: management structure, the editorial process, etc. 4. Admits he doesn't really have any technical background. 5. Says the company involved was one that TechCrunch had covered multiple times before. 6. Says he never received the Macbook Air and the type of post the company requested was never written. 7. Says he has not extorted companies for products, but received products from Intel for an unrelated project he was involved with that he discusses on his blog. 8. The evidence used against him were joking IMs and emails. 9. Received an iMac from a friend who works at a tech company as a thank you for making an introduction to another company, not for TechCrunch posts. Then later wrote about one of the companies that was involved in a big legal discussion with Apple (iPod Rip). 10. Advice Daniel received from Mike Arrington the night before Teens in Tech (Daniel's conference): Neither party wants to have a public fight about this. This was another quality Mixergy interview revealing Daniel's side of the story and more details about a still mysterious topic. The entire interview is worth viewing.

ericb 17y ago
8. The evidence used against him were joking IMs and emails. Has the "I was only joking" defense ever worked?
- loganfrederick 17y ago
  Don't know. It's right up there with pleading insanity and the 5th amendment.
- novas0x2a 17y ago
  I think I believe him, actually. Or rather, I believe that he didn't seriously mean to trade a post for an Air. It looks to me like he just didn't have the experience to realize that you have to be careful when you're joking about an ethical violation. I'd like to believe the conversation went something like: "We have this new product coming out. Could you write it up?" `Hm. I don't know, I have a bunch of posts I'm currently work on, not sure if I can take on another for a few days.` "Is there anything we can do to change your mind?" `How about a <pie in the sky request>?` For a 17-year-old (even a fairly-well-connected one) an Air is a pie in the sky request. If he had asked for a nugget of platinum or an Oscar, it would have been obvious that he was joking. As it was, he (probably) asked for something that to him WAS obviously joking, but to most of us is an easily-attainable object; that inequity easily leads to the current situation. I'm not saying that's how it happened (also: I have no inside information or anything) but this is why I'm not prepared to burn the kid at the stake for it. A lack of experience led to a critical mistake; one that I don't think he'll make again. It sucks for him that his mistake is so public, but that's that's the way it goes.
  - cglee 17y ago
    I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt since he's so young and seems to generally have a good head on his shoulders, but a MP Air is definitely not pie in the sky, especially for those in the tech industry. Had he said a Porsche, that may have been entering the "joking" territory, but even then, it's hard to say for sure. From his posts and tweets, he seems like a smart, savvy, mature-beyond-his-years reporter and should've known better than to insinuate, even jokingly, that his coverage could be bought.
  - ericb 17y ago
    If the IM conversations looked like he was joking, would they fire him and also go public with it? I'm not sure. I've learned from painful experience that my discomfort with lying is not necessarily a good mental model for how other people feel about lying--some have no compunction at all, especially when self-interest is involved, so I'm slow to give the benefit of the doubt.
romland 17y ago
And one can also deduct that the event took place not too long ago since he said "people think I've been playing around with my Macbook Air for weeks now" (or something along those lines). Beginning of January sounds good :)

ericb 17y ago

8. The evidence used against him were joking IMs and emails. Has the "I was only joking" defense ever worked?

loganfrederick 17y ago
Don't know. It's right up there with pleading insanity and the 5th amendment.
novas0x2a 17y ago
I think I believe him, actually. Or rather, I believe that he didn't seriously mean to trade a post for an Air. It looks to me like he just didn't have the experience to realize that you have to be careful when you're joking about an ethical violation. I'd like to believe the conversation went something like: "We have this new product coming out. Could you write it up?" `Hm. I don't know, I have a bunch of posts I'm currently work on, not sure if I can take on another for a few days.` "Is there anything we can do to change your mind?" `How about a <pie in the sky request>?` For a 17-year-old (even a fairly-well-connected one) an Air is a pie in the sky request. If he had asked for a nugget of platinum or an Oscar, it would have been obvious that he was joking. As it was, he (probably) asked for something that to him WAS obviously joking, but to most of us is an easily-attainable object; that inequity easily leads to the current situation. I'm not saying that's how it happened (also: I have no inside information or anything) but this is why I'm not prepared to burn the kid at the stake for it. A lack of experience led to a critical mistake; one that I don't think he'll make again. It sucks for him that his mistake is so public, but that's that's the way it goes.
- cglee 17y ago
  I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt since he's so young and seems to generally have a good head on his shoulders, but a MP Air is definitely not pie in the sky, especially for those in the tech industry. Had he said a Porsche, that may have been entering the "joking" territory, but even then, it's hard to say for sure. From his posts and tweets, he seems like a smart, savvy, mature-beyond-his-years reporter and should've known better than to insinuate, even jokingly, that his coverage could be bought.
- ericb 17y ago
  If the IM conversations looked like he was joking, would they fire him and also go public with it? I'm not sure. I've learned from painful experience that my discomfort with lying is not necessarily a good mental model for how other people feel about lying--some have no compunction at all, especially when self-interest is involved, so I'm slow to give the benefit of the doubt.

romland 17y ago

And one can also deduct that the event took place not too long ago since he said "people think I've been playing around with my Macbook Air for weeks now" (or something along those lines). Beginning of January sounds good :)