TechCrunch backed down from that pledge. See https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-techcrunch-embargo-and-other-myths/ https://techcrunch.com/201

TechCrunch backed down from that pledge. See https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-techcrunch-embargo-and-other-myths/ https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-techcrun... -> "Do we break embargoes? Sometimes. Do we break embargoes even after agreeing to them? Sometimes (but very rarely). Do we agree to embargoes and then respect them? Sometimes." or https://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/the-lyft-launch-that-coulda-been/ https://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/the-lyft-launch-that-could... -> "For the most part, though, all the TechCrunch writers are cool with embargoes. I don’t know a single person here who doesn’t accept them and we generally all play by the rules." That second article is a good example of another problem with close-hold embargoes. You might wonder "why not just wait until the embargo lifts, then interview someone, then publish?" This article shows a reporter who decides that they couldn't possibly be reduced to posting an article about something another reporter posted about twelve hours previously.