I'm having trouble imagining a scenario in which this is not exactly what Paul Carr (the Techcrunch author) wanted. The whole article was designed to stir up c

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario in which this is not exactly what Paul Carr (the Techcrunch author) wanted. The whole article was designed to stir up controversy and get people's blood pumping. Because controversial posts drive traffic. As far as losing readers they might lose a handful who were (a) already passively angry and (b) had this as their hot button issue. But 99% of people in the tech community know Techcrunch courts controversy at this point and have either chosen to accept that and continue to read or have already left. I don't think a lot of people are going to So in the end Techcrunch wins this round (as they usually do on these things)