5 ms·

What a vulgar article. I don't know Andrew Hsu and from the sound of it, neither did Anthony Ha or anyone who commented on it (there, or here). Airy Labs may

by jfarmer 15y ago

What a vulgar article. I don't know Andrew Hsu and from the sound of it, neither did Anthony Ha or anyone who commented on it (there, or here). Airy Labs may be poorly run. There are dozens of small, well-funded startups that are poorly run. The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation. Was the schadenfreude worth that? Articles like this are one of the worst aspects of startup culture. It's our version of reality TV -- taking smug delight in the bruising (merited or not) of another person. And if you say, no! Honest! This is an important article. Now people know to avoid this awful company. I suppose we'll have to disagree. Anthony wrote this not because it's a public service, but because everyone loves juicy gossip. Especially gossip about a wunderkind getting knocked down a few pegs. I also think the employees are cowards for giving up that gossip, e.g., the x@airylabs.com email address, but remaining anonymous.

potatolicious 15y ago
> "The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation." If the claims in the article are true, the company was being run like a police state, worse than most of the Big-Company shops that we love to deride here on HN. A borderline abusive work environment that's policed over by the family patriarch and matriarch... that's "small stuff"?! Damage to one's reputation is only unfair if the claims leveled against you aren't true. I suspect we haven't heard the last salvo fired in this whole brouhaha, but if these claims are on the mark, I'd say reputation hit deserved.
- jfarmer 15y ago
  Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their circus.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism". We've seen the ugly side of internet vigilantism - anonymous accusations, no chance to respond, personal information posted online, threats and intimidation, the works. But yet, that's not what has happened here - it strikes me as disingenuous to try and color this with a weasel word like "vigilantism" when nothing of the sort has happened. In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism". Unprofessional perhaps, but vigilantism? Get real.
  - jfarmer 15y ago
    'A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism".' Yes, it is. This isn't meticulously researched. This is not a 60 Minutes exposé. Did Anthony do any fact checking? Did he spend time researching the company and verifying these people's stories? No, he wrote an article in the Fox News style. Who needs fact-checking when you can just get people from two opposing camps to contradict each other? It was gossip. It worked. It's no better than an article about how such-and-such celebrity yelled at a waitress and made her cry. 'In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism".' Again, yes, by definition. If you put your name to it I'd think it was distasteful and a little petty, assuming we're talking about bad management and not something criminal. If you didn't, I'd think you were a coward. (This is my last response, so you can have the last word if you care to.)
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
pilgrim689 15y ago
I liked the article because it was about mistakes. We get a glimpse into a startup that used funding unwisely, made some strange management calls, overworked their employees, etc. We also get some feedback from people who shared the vision but had to live through the mistakes. Then, we have Andrew's response, which is a very good move in showing the reader a second perspective on the matter. Finally, we're left with a positive remark "I hope they succeed. I hope they build back up.” I think it's good for "startup culture" to share mistakes. We always hear about success... but mistakes are such a great source of education (more so than success stories?). There's nothing vulgar in sharing those mistakes.
- jfarmer 15y ago
  Well, at least you admit your interest in this article is essentially selfish. You like it because you learned something. What did you learn, exactly? Never mind than Andrew had no say in whether this article should go to press. He may or may not be a terrible manager -- is that a good reason to shame him in public? If he were a fantastic manager, would TechCrunch have written a similar, but glowing article? Of course not. Anthony's article is no better than tabloid crap. This just in: Brad and Angelina have a fight over how to raise the kids. Do you rationalize that article by saying it's teaching valuable parenting lessons to aspiring celebrities? Is an this article the price for screwing up, assuming he did? If it is, I'd wager fewer people will want to take the risk. And that is bad for startup culture.
  - earl 15y ago
    I learned to stay the fuck away from any company where Andrew Hsu or relatives are involved. And until we see a bunch of ex Airy folks saying this article is full of lies, it's fair to assume it's accurate.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      I'm not quite so ready to believe terrible things about Andrew Hsu - there's a non-zero chance that this is a hit-job by disgruntled ex-employees. Nor do we know if 100% of the accusations are 100% true, so assuming complete and utter factual accuracy would be unwise. But I take issue with jfarmer framing this as vigilantism. TC has brought up specific, verifiable claims of abuse, they have interviewed ex-employees, and they have given Hsu a chance to respond. I don't see how this is "vulgar" or "vigilantism".

by jfarmer 15y ago

potatolicious 15y ago

> "The scale of what Anthony is writing about is so small, but he's done real damage to Andrew's reputation." If the claims in the article are true, the company was being run like a police state, worse than most of the Big-Company shops that we love to deride here on HN. A borderline abusive work environment that's policed over by the family patriarch and matriarch... that's "small stuff"?! Damage to one's reputation is only unfair if the claims leveled against you aren't true. I suspect we haven't heard the last salvo fired in this whole brouhaha, but if these claims are on the mark, I'd say reputation hit deserved.

jfarmer 15y ago
Internet-scale vigilantism has an awful side effect: it can never be entirely walked back. The damage has been done and the crowd is happy. They have their circus.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism". We've seen the ugly side of internet vigilantism - anonymous accusations, no chance to respond, personal information posted online, threats and intimidation, the works. But yet, that's not what has happened here - it strikes me as disingenuous to try and color this with a weasel word like "vigilantism" when nothing of the sort has happened. In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism". Unprofessional perhaps, but vigilantism? Get real.
- jfarmer 15y ago
  'A single article, quoting sources, and even giving the founder a chance to respond right in the article itself, is not "internet vigilantism".' Yes, it is. This isn't meticulously researched. This is not a 60 Minutes exposé. Did Anthony do any fact checking? Did he spend time researching the company and verifying these people's stories? No, he wrote an article in the Fox News style. Who needs fact-checking when you can just get people from two opposing camps to contradict each other? It was gossip. It worked. It's no better than an article about how such-and-such celebrity yelled at a waitress and made her cry. 'In your books, me blogging about a terrible previous employer is "vigilantism".' Again, yes, by definition. If you put your name to it I'd think it was distasteful and a little petty, assuming we're talking about bad management and not something criminal. If you didn't, I'd think you were a coward. (This is my last response, so you can have the last word if you care to.)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

pilgrim689 15y ago

I liked the article because it was about mistakes. We get a glimpse into a startup that used funding unwisely, made some strange management calls, overworked their employees, etc. We also get some feedback from people who shared the vision but had to live through the mistakes. Then, we have Andrew's response, which is a very good move in showing the reader a second perspective on the matter. Finally, we're left with a positive remark "I hope they succeed. I hope they build back up.” I think it's good for "startup culture" to share mistakes. We always hear about success... but mistakes are such a great source of education (more so than success stories?). There's nothing vulgar in sharing those mistakes.

jfarmer 15y ago
Well, at least you admit your interest in this article is essentially selfish. You like it because you learned something. What did you learn, exactly? Never mind than Andrew had no say in whether this article should go to press. He may or may not be a terrible manager -- is that a good reason to shame him in public? If he were a fantastic manager, would TechCrunch have written a similar, but glowing article? Of course not. Anthony's article is no better than tabloid crap. This just in: Brad and Angelina have a fight over how to raise the kids. Do you rationalize that article by saying it's teaching valuable parenting lessons to aspiring celebrities? Is an this article the price for screwing up, assuming he did? If it is, I'd wager fewer people will want to take the risk. And that is bad for startup culture.
- earl 15y ago
  I learned to stay the fuck away from any company where Andrew Hsu or relatives are involved. And until we see a bunch of ex Airy folks saying this article is full of lies, it's fair to assume it's accurate.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    I'm not quite so ready to believe terrible things about Andrew Hsu - there's a non-zero chance that this is a hit-job by disgruntled ex-employees. Nor do we know if 100% of the accusations are 100% true, so assuming complete and utter factual accuracy would be unwise. But I take issue with jfarmer framing this as vigilantism. TC has brought up specific, verifiable claims of abuse, they have interviewed ex-employees, and they have given Hsu a chance to respond. I don't see how this is "vulgar" or "vigilantism".