4 ms·

a breaking story would name names...him not naming names just means he can use this as a hammer to get better terms for Techcrunch(either I get exclusive to eve

by vaksel 16y ago

a breaking story would name names...him not naming names just means he can use this as a hammer to get better terms for Techcrunch(either I get exclusive to every deal you guys do...or your names will be posted)

metamemetics 16y ago
I would argue it's more ethical to discourage and prevent crime from ever happening in the first place. Seeking satisfaction from "catching the bad guy" (naming names) is to setup a market dependent on the need for new crimes. Arrington did the right thing. It's not about whether he caught a criminal, it's about whether he prevented someone from becoming one.
- eavc 16y ago
  Someone (maybe everyone) in that group knew what they were doing to be wrong. I doubt that they will abandon their ethical choice; they'll find smarter ways to do what they'd intended all along. One thing that might work is if someone in the group has damning correspondence, everyone will panic and promise to "never talk about that summer again," genuinely preventing future problems.
jon_dahl 16y ago
Maybe. This approach shows some integrity too, though. Not everything has to turn into a scandal (at least if inappropriate behavior stops quickly). Call me soft on crime.
drusenko 16y ago
unlikely. business in the valley is not done by extortion. more likely is that he doesn't want anyone to get in trouble, he's just putting them on notice.
mattmaroon 16y ago
Him not naming names means that people will continue to give him information in the future. He'd be shooting himself in the foot by naming a source that requested anonymity.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  There's an interesting conundrum there too. He can't name names without either omitting (and hence identifying) his source/s, or including (and inditing) them. Either way he loses that/those source/s for future stories. He did the only thing he could do, besides staying silent. If it happened to be the right thing as well, so much the better.

by vaksel 16y ago

metamemetics 16y ago

I would argue it's more ethical to discourage and prevent crime from ever happening in the first place. Seeking satisfaction from "catching the bad guy" (naming names) is to setup a market dependent on the need for new crimes. Arrington did the right thing. It's not about whether he caught a criminal, it's about whether he prevented someone from becoming one.

eavc 16y ago
Someone (maybe everyone) in that group knew what they were doing to be wrong. I doubt that they will abandon their ethical choice; they'll find smarter ways to do what they'd intended all along. One thing that might work is if someone in the group has damning correspondence, everyone will panic and promise to "never talk about that summer again," genuinely preventing future problems.

jon_dahl 16y ago

Maybe. This approach shows some integrity too, though. Not everything has to turn into a scandal (at least if inappropriate behavior stops quickly). Call me soft on crime.

drusenko 16y ago

unlikely. business in the valley is not done by extortion. more likely is that he doesn't want anyone to get in trouble, he's just putting them on notice.

mattmaroon 16y ago

Him not naming names means that people will continue to give him information in the future. He'd be shooting himself in the foot by naming a source that requested anonymity.

SkyMarshal 16y ago
There's an interesting conundrum there too. He can't name names without either omitting (and hence identifying) his source/s, or including (and inditing) them. Either way he loses that/those source/s for future stories. He did the only thing he could do, besides staying silent. If it happened to be the right thing as well, so much the better.