5 ms·

To be fair, this is Michael Arrington. He's not above sensationalism to get a few extra clicks.

by j_baker 16y ago

jnoller 16y ago
I'm not going to disagree with that. As I said, I hope this is a mistake.
Alex3917 16y ago
In Arrington's defense his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't. So while I'm pretty meh about TC as a whole, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
- chc 16y ago
  He didn't name a single name. If he really believed this was so certain, he could have. Unless he's trying to make them do something, the only reason to keep names out of it is because he thinks this might be libel.
  - swombat 16y ago
    He doesn't need to expose himself to lawsuits by naming names. The names are pretty obvious to anyone in the field.
    - chc 16y ago
      Yes, but that's the thing — you can't get sued for "obvious names." Even if he's completely making this up, if one of the obvious suspects sues him, he can just say, "Oh, no, I didn't mean him." The comment I was replying to said, "his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't." I disagree with that — Arrington is not laying it all out here as a black-and-white truth. He's consciously omitting facts in a way that happens to shield him from repercussions if this is false. As a traditional dead-tree newspaper guy, I'm very familiar with the ways reporters fudge their claims to avoid being responsible if it turns out to be crap. That's what this sounds like to me.
      - eavc 16y ago
        If he calls them felons and they wind up being acquitted for whatever reason, however technical or stupid, then he would be liable for libel. He clearly wanted to avoid using weasel words. The only way to do that without being reckless is to not refer directly to the objects of the post.
  - techiferous 16y ago
    "the only reason" He did mention that they were his friends. Perhaps he wants to nip the illegal activity in the bud with as little collateral damage as possible.
mattmaroon 16y ago
This goes well beyond sensationalism. I'm inclined to believe him for three reasons: 1. Mike's not known for boldly lying. He might publish rumors that Facebook is building a phone too liberally, but I've not heard of him saying "I saw x happen" and it wasn't true. Assuming the account of what he himself saw was accurate it's hard to imagine collusion wouldn't be the purpose. 2. This sounds like something that would happen. VCs do this crap all the time, why not angels? 3. Publishing this might be bad for him, and if it were untrue, it would definitely be really bad for him.
- swombat 16y ago
  Add to that that there is no convincing reasons why this group of angels would manufacture this story to lead him on. Unlike with some other TC stories which turned out to be manufactured to discredit TC, in this one, the sources themselves would risk a lot by leaking this - true or false.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - brendonjason 16y ago
    Well, that depends. If they have nothing to do with YC, then you may be correct. But then again it would be unlikely that they would only single out YC by name at such a meeting. Or any meeting. If, on the other hand they are co-investors with YC, which they must be since according to this scenario between them they see "100%" of the deals, then their "collusion" against YC would be a rather amateurish attempt to close the loop between them and a newly-prominent YC, made all the more so now that this "leaked" news item highlights just how much of a player YC is, as per the envy of all these angels. I don't know. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. But I find it unlikely that such a group, if they had to name one institution by name at such a risky meeting, would name YC and not, say, KPCB.
- cletus 16y ago
  I believe it too. You succinctly enumerate the reasons. The biggest for me was that (he claims) he saw it happen. That puts his personal reputation at stake, which I think will have to meet a far higher standard than the rumour publishing "go tos" of "an anonymous source". The FB phone was (imho) classic Arrington (the bad side). Posted on the weekend (in the hopes that FB PR would be slow to respond and debunk it), quoting anonymous sources and no substance at all. Basically, link bait. That sort of story does him (or rather his credibility) no favours.

To be fair, this is Michael Arrington. He's not above sensationalism to get a few extra clicks.

by j_baker 16y ago

To be fair, this is Michael Arrington. He's not above sensationalism to get a few extra clicks.

jnoller 16y ago

I'm not going to disagree with that. As I said, I hope this is a mistake.

Alex3917 16y ago

In Arrington's defense his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't. So while I'm pretty meh about TC as a whole, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

chc 16y ago
He didn't name a single name. If he really believed this was so certain, he could have. Unless he's trying to make them do something, the only reason to keep names out of it is because he thinks this might be libel.
- swombat 16y ago
  He doesn't need to expose himself to lawsuits by naming names. The names are pretty obvious to anyone in the field.
  - chc 16y ago
    Yes, but that's the thing — you can't get sued for "obvious names." Even if he's completely making this up, if one of the obvious suspects sues him, he can just say, "Oh, no, I didn't mean him." The comment I was replying to said, "his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't." I disagree with that — Arrington is not laying it all out here as a black-and-white truth. He's consciously omitting facts in a way that happens to shield him from repercussions if this is false. As a traditional dead-tree newspaper guy, I'm very familiar with the ways reporters fudge their claims to avoid being responsible if it turns out to be crap. That's what this sounds like to me.
    - eavc 16y ago
      If he calls them felons and they wind up being acquitted for whatever reason, however technical or stupid, then he would be liable for libel. He clearly wanted to avoid using weasel words. The only way to do that without being reckless is to not refer directly to the objects of the post.
- techiferous 16y ago
  "the only reason" He did mention that they were his friends. Perhaps he wants to nip the illegal activity in the bud with as little collateral damage as possible.

mattmaroon 16y ago

This goes well beyond sensationalism. I'm inclined to believe him for three reasons: 1. Mike's not known for boldly lying. He might publish rumors that Facebook is building a phone too liberally, but I've not heard of him saying "I saw x happen" and it wasn't true. Assuming the account of what he himself saw was accurate it's hard to imagine collusion wouldn't be the purpose. 2. This sounds like something that would happen. VCs do this crap all the time, why not angels? 3. Publishing this might be bad for him, and if it were untrue, it would definitely be really bad for him.

swombat 16y ago
Add to that that there is no convincing reasons why this group of angels would manufacture this story to lead him on. Unlike with some other TC stories which turned out to be manufactured to discredit TC, in this one, the sources themselves would risk a lot by leaking this - true or false.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- brendonjason 16y ago
  Well, that depends. If they have nothing to do with YC, then you may be correct. But then again it would be unlikely that they would only single out YC by name at such a meeting. Or any meeting. If, on the other hand they are co-investors with YC, which they must be since according to this scenario between them they see "100%" of the deals, then their "collusion" against YC would be a rather amateurish attempt to close the loop between them and a newly-prominent YC, made all the more so now that this "leaked" news item highlights just how much of a player YC is, as per the envy of all these angels. I don't know. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. But I find it unlikely that such a group, if they had to name one institution by name at such a risky meeting, would name YC and not, say, KPCB.
cletus 16y ago
I believe it too. You succinctly enumerate the reasons. The biggest for me was that (he claims) he saw it happen. That puts his personal reputation at stake, which I think will have to meet a far higher standard than the rumour publishing "go tos" of "an anonymous source". The FB phone was (imho) classic Arrington (the bad side). Posted on the weekend (in the hopes that FB PR would be slow to respond and debunk it), quoting anonymous sources and no substance at all. Basically, link bait. That sort of story does him (or rather his credibility) no favours.