4 ms·

> Launched in June of 2021, it was billed as a buzzy new tech publication from prestigious venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz — and a way to sidestep the

by rchaud 4y ago

> Launched in June of 2021, it was billed as a buzzy new tech publication from prestigious venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz — and a way to sidestep the legacy media entirely and take the message of technological progress directly to readers. Ah, the legacy media with their pesky questions. Why can't people just accept that Adam Neumann is a visionary, and that pay-to-earn crypto games are the future? Guess I'll have to start my own paper to set the record straight! /s Despite the premium domain name (future.com), the site itself looks and reads like your typical Medium.com publication.

jgalt212 4y ago
Did they start this because Pando (which they were also funding) shut down?
- sheepscreek 4y ago
  Pando shut-down? That’s a shame. They did some decent reporting, were my source of truth through my startup days (after TechCrunch sold to AOL, and it lost any credibility for me).
treis 4y ago
It's remarkable that despite being an avid HN reader this is the first time I've heard of future.com. Probably explains why they're shutting down.
- michaelteter 4y ago
  That's exactly what I thought!
- ahartmetz 4y ago
  However, you have probably seen a few Andreessen Horowitz blog shitposts (sorry, this is the appropriate term given the bullshit density) about crypto scroll by on HN.
- maxbond 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=future.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=future.com A couple of these have significant engagement (one of them has 483 comments), but most have 1 or 2 points & 0 comments.
- zinekeller 4y ago
  I honestly thought that was Future plc (https://www.futureplc.com/ https://www.futureplc.com/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_plc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_plc), a famous (and somewhat-notorious) owner of dozens of publications.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
luckylion 4y ago
Or, you know, because the "legacy media" had an order to shit on tech and not report neutrally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 (except SBF, of course, they were allowed to praise him) But no, of course, it was because they had "questions" and everything in tech is Adam Neumann and Theranos.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Four of the top five largest companies are tech companies. Tech is arguably the most powerful industry in the world. It has a huge impact on almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. The goal of journalism is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted", so why should publishers not take a critical stance toward some of the most comfortable people in the history of humankind?
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Journalists should always be skeptical of everything, but not default to opposition without cause. They shouldn't work under orders to paint a certain industry in a negative light without regard for what's actually happening, especially when there's a conflict of interest as players from that industry compete with their companies. If there's something happening in tech that worthy of criticism, criticize it. If there's something worthy of praise, praise it. And for the rest: report it. Only presenting negative things is about as useful as only presenting positive things. But it feels more journalistic, "speaking truth to power" and all that. It's not, negativity just sells better.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ak217 4y ago
  Deliver me from thin-skinned billionaires trying to bankroll their own sycophant "news media". Just because the NYT (which does not represent "legacy media" any more than a16z represents the tech industry) had a few editors and reporters with illusions of grandeur, doesn't lend any more credibility to the money bags people. I have had a target painted on my back before by someone with lots of money because they couldn't take a piece of criticism that I had for their company. Do you know how that feels? Normalizing retaliatory behavior by rich people (and yes, this outfit was part and parcel of a media strategy that included that) is destructive to civil society - while what the NYT did (though unprofessional) is still a normal aspect of a marketplace of ideas. Compare this behavior with Jeff Bezos. For all his faults, he did something infinitely classier. He actually bankrolled a news organization that has a global presence and practices journalistic excellence - and did not try to meddle in its editorial policy beyond that (or if he did, it was so subtle as to be imperceptible).
tough 4y ago
Yeah, let's pretend that the VC coverage and legacy media coverage of for example, SBF recent debacle was stellar. Not saying VC's will fix this, but someone needs to. There are good journalists out there, they just have been long fired from their news rooms and have accepted that the owners of the mass media are in control of the narrative.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > they just have been long fired from their news rooms and have accepted that the owners of the mass media are in control of the narrative The only useless stories on FTX I’ve seen has been through HN comments calling them out. The FT, Bloomberg (in particular, Matt Levine) and Journal have each called it a fraud from the beginning.
  - tough 4y ago
    I was referring to the NYTimes and WaPo puff pieces fwiw
  - uxp100 4y ago
    Bloomberg has been been pro-crypto, and a friend to SBF in particular. Levine writes a great column, but he never called FTX a fraud (if you’re referring to the podcast episode that is well known, they were discussing other crypto businesses there, not FTX). In fact he has discussed how his basic assumption that SBF was competent and making money lead him astray. He didn’t consider the possibility that their trading strategies didn’t continue to work into the ‘20s, even though they were making statements on twitter that kinda indicated that they were simply long crypto and no longer successful with complex trades. Levine wrote a whole enjoyable issue of Bloomberg about crypto that was moderately bullish! He thinks it’s kinda neat. That’s nowhere near the hype you hear from the bitcoin weirdos, but, you know, much more bullish than “a scam that should be made illegal,” which is also a mainstream take.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > wrote a whole enjoyable issue of Bloomberg about crypto that was moderately bullish! He thinks it’s kinda neat You may be missing the sarcasm. I think crypto is neat, intellectually. I also think it’s a scam, and everyone in it will lose money and reputation, but I’m not going to put one hundred percent confidence in that view. These are mutually compatible opinions. Read Levine’s insider trading takes and see if you think he’s pro insider trading.
satvikpendem 4y ago
The show Silicon Valley is still spot on with their satire. In the show there's a media outlet that writes badly about the company so they just outright buy the media outlet.
Analemma_ 4y ago
This comment would seem a lot more insightful if the legacy media wasn't, at this very moment, giving Sam Bankman-Fried a wet sloppy one. Where, exactly, are the pesky questions?
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I've only seen the negative articles/links. Am I missing the media that is still fawning over him?
mc32 4y ago
Yeah, I dunno. Doesn't seem like traditional media were very critical of crypto and more often than not tried to ride the wave of enthusiasm of each technological new thing. The only area traditional media were critical were areas that threatened their own existence and then they'd "huff, huff, long form journalism, huff huff, investigative journalism" but then we see such things as crypto scams and laptop scandals ignored and more often than not, if something was counternarrative it was labelled "disinformation" whatever it was.

by rchaud 4y ago

jgalt212 4y ago

Did they start this because Pando (which they were also funding) shut down?

sheepscreek 4y ago
Pando shut-down? That’s a shame. They did some decent reporting, were my source of truth through my startup days (after TechCrunch sold to AOL, and it lost any credibility for me).

treis 4y ago

It's remarkable that despite being an avid HN reader this is the first time I've heard of future.com. Probably explains why they're shutting down.

michaelteter 4y ago
That's exactly what I thought!
ahartmetz 4y ago
However, you have probably seen a few Andreessen Horowitz blog shitposts (sorry, this is the appropriate term given the bullshit density) about crypto scroll by on HN.
maxbond 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=future.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=future.com A couple of these have significant engagement (one of them has 483 comments), but most have 1 or 2 points & 0 comments.
zinekeller 4y ago
I honestly thought that was Future plc (https://www.futureplc.com/ https://www.futureplc.com/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_plc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_plc), a famous (and somewhat-notorious) owner of dozens of publications.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

luckylion 4y ago

Or, you know, because the "legacy media" had an order to shit on tech and not report neutrally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 (except SBF, of course, they were allowed to praise him) But no, of course, it was because they had "questions" and everything in tech is Adam Neumann and Theranos.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Four of the top five largest companies are tech companies. Tech is arguably the most powerful industry in the world. It has a huge impact on almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. The goal of journalism is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted", so why should publishers not take a critical stance toward some of the most comfortable people in the history of humankind?
- luckylion 4y ago
  Journalists should always be skeptical of everything, but not default to opposition without cause. They shouldn't work under orders to paint a certain industry in a negative light without regard for what's actually happening, especially when there's a conflict of interest as players from that industry compete with their companies. If there's something happening in tech that worthy of criticism, criticize it. If there's something worthy of praise, praise it. And for the rest: report it. Only presenting negative things is about as useful as only presenting positive things. But it feels more journalistic, "speaking truth to power" and all that. It's not, negativity just sells better.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ak217 4y ago
Deliver me from thin-skinned billionaires trying to bankroll their own sycophant "news media". Just because the NYT (which does not represent "legacy media" any more than a16z represents the tech industry) had a few editors and reporters with illusions of grandeur, doesn't lend any more credibility to the money bags people. I have had a target painted on my back before by someone with lots of money because they couldn't take a piece of criticism that I had for their company. Do you know how that feels? Normalizing retaliatory behavior by rich people (and yes, this outfit was part and parcel of a media strategy that included that) is destructive to civil society - while what the NYT did (though unprofessional) is still a normal aspect of a marketplace of ideas. Compare this behavior with Jeff Bezos. For all his faults, he did something infinitely classier. He actually bankrolled a news organization that has a global presence and practices journalistic excellence - and did not try to meddle in its editorial policy beyond that (or if he did, it was so subtle as to be imperceptible).

tough 4y ago

Yeah, let's pretend that the VC coverage and legacy media coverage of for example, SBF recent debacle was stellar. Not saying VC's will fix this, but someone needs to. There are good journalists out there, they just have been long fired from their news rooms and have accepted that the owners of the mass media are in control of the narrative.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> they just have been long fired from their news rooms and have accepted that the owners of the mass media are in control of the narrative The only useless stories on FTX I’ve seen has been through HN comments calling them out. The FT, Bloomberg (in particular, Matt Levine) and Journal have each called it a fraud from the beginning.
- tough 4y ago
  I was referring to the NYTimes and WaPo puff pieces fwiw
- uxp100 4y ago
  Bloomberg has been been pro-crypto, and a friend to SBF in particular. Levine writes a great column, but he never called FTX a fraud (if you’re referring to the podcast episode that is well known, they were discussing other crypto businesses there, not FTX). In fact he has discussed how his basic assumption that SBF was competent and making money lead him astray. He didn’t consider the possibility that their trading strategies didn’t continue to work into the ‘20s, even though they were making statements on twitter that kinda indicated that they were simply long crypto and no longer successful with complex trades. Levine wrote a whole enjoyable issue of Bloomberg about crypto that was moderately bullish! He thinks it’s kinda neat. That’s nowhere near the hype you hear from the bitcoin weirdos, but, you know, much more bullish than “a scam that should be made illegal,” which is also a mainstream take.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > wrote a whole enjoyable issue of Bloomberg about crypto that was moderately bullish! He thinks it’s kinda neat You may be missing the sarcasm. I think crypto is neat, intellectually. I also think it’s a scam, and everyone in it will lose money and reputation, but I’m not going to put one hundred percent confidence in that view. These are mutually compatible opinions. Read Levine’s insider trading takes and see if you think he’s pro insider trading.

satvikpendem 4y ago

The show Silicon Valley is still spot on with their satire. In the show there's a media outlet that writes badly about the company so they just outright buy the media outlet.

Analemma_ 4y ago

This comment would seem a lot more insightful if the legacy media wasn't, at this very moment, giving Sam Bankman-Fried a wet sloppy one. Where, exactly, are the pesky questions?

JKCalhoun 4y ago
I've only seen the negative articles/links. Am I missing the media that is still fawning over him?

mc32 4y ago

Yeah, I dunno. Doesn't seem like traditional media were very critical of crypto and more often than not tried to ride the wave of enthusiasm of each technological new thing. The only area traditional media were critical were areas that threatened their own existence and then they'd "huff, huff, long form journalism, huff huff, investigative journalism" but then we see such things as crypto scams and laptop scandals ignored and more often than not, if something was counternarrative it was labelled "disinformation" whatever it was.