3 ms·

I wouldn't call them trolls, just writers with a taste for controversy. And I don't really see much of a change since I've been reading Signal vs. Noise (a few

I wouldn't call them trolls, just writers with a taste for controversy. And I don't really see much of a change since I've been reading Signal vs. Noise (a few years). "Is alienating tech professionals really the best strategy for their business?" How many people does this sort of post actually alienate? From what I can tell, 37signals' customers are primarily small businesses who enjoy the "rail against the behemoth" approach.

danilocampos 16y ago
In fairness, I live to rail against the behemoth. I've got a rich streak of idealism, and I can see the value in iconoclasm. At the same time, controversy over substance feels like the cheap way to have a conversation. It feels exploitative, instead of virtuous. I find more enjoyment in, say, Paul Graham's measured, thoughtful approach to a subject. It feels like I'm reading someone who respects me and respects the conversation he is joining. It's entirely possible to voice powerful disagreement without being inflammatory. If 37signals wants to be the Howard Stern of tech blogging, that's an entirely reasonable position. It can be entertaining to watch and I'm sure it's fun to write. It's just not for me.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>I wouldn't call them trolls, just writers with a taste for controversy. I wouldn't call them $word, just definition($word)[1]?
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  The difference between a troll and a controversial writer is that a troll cares about the point as a means to effect controversy whereas a legitimate writer cares about the controversy as a means to get the point across. 37Signals seems more the latter than the former.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    If the controversy were a byline then the writer would have a "taste for" pushing their point though and merely be riding the controversy to get there. IMO writers often care about controversy because they make money based on engagement and get better responses if people are passionate about the subject. I don't think this harms their legitimacy as a writer it just provides a poor motive. Trolls on the other hand want to maximise engagement as it gives them a sort of sadistic pleasure, they do it for free.

danilocampos 16y ago

In fairness, I live to rail against the behemoth. I've got a rich streak of idealism, and I can see the value in iconoclasm. At the same time, controversy over substance feels like the cheap way to have a conversation. It feels exploitative, instead of virtuous. I find more enjoyment in, say, Paul Graham's measured, thoughtful approach to a subject. It feels like I'm reading someone who respects me and respects the conversation he is joining. It's entirely possible to voice powerful disagreement without being inflammatory. If 37signals wants to be the Howard Stern of tech blogging, that's an entirely reasonable position. It can be entertaining to watch and I'm sure it's fun to write. It's just not for me.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>I wouldn't call them trolls, just writers with a taste for controversy. I wouldn't call them $word, just definition($word)[1]?

InclinedPlane 16y ago
The difference between a troll and a controversial writer is that a troll cares about the point as a means to effect controversy whereas a legitimate writer cares about the controversy as a means to get the point across. 37Signals seems more the latter than the former.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  If the controversy were a byline then the writer would have a "taste for" pushing their point though and merely be riding the controversy to get there. IMO writers often care about controversy because they make money based on engagement and get better responses if people are passionate about the subject. I don't think this harms their legitimacy as a writer it just provides a poor motive. Trolls on the other hand want to maximise engagement as it gives them a sort of sadistic pleasure, they do it for free.