11 ms·

TechCrunch is a bully

202 points by asanwal 14y ago

crag 14y ago
I know this might come as a surprise to some.. but no one outside the valley cares. :) In fact, I'd bet very few inside the valley care.
steve8918 14y ago
I have no real interest in either side of this story, and Techcrunch isn't really on my rolodex of sites to read from. That being said, I don't think the original Techcrunch article was being a bully at all. The fact that she allegedly has gotten away with the simplest of social engineering tactics against a group that most likely thinks of themselves as at least smarter than average, was fairly interesting to me. It shows how easy and effective social engineering can be, even by someone as young as Shirley Hofnstein. All the author appears to write is that they don't like the fact that Techcrunch wrote an article about their friend. It appears that the author of the above article doesn't even defend Shirley Hornstein, which leads me to believe that she was in fact guilty of these acts of social engineering. If that's the case, then it seems like a decent bit of journalism to me. Do I think it's a huge crime? No, it's not like she pulled off a Madoff scam. But was it an interesting article? Yes, and it really points to the fact that we all need to keep on our toes.
- samstave 14y ago
  While I agree with your not being on a side - my personal opinion is this: Techcrunch was founded and run by a douchebag - thus douchebaggery is in its DNA.
  - nameuserc 14y ago
    Unfortunately this is true. I'm not sure all that many people know where the founder came from, i.e., the type of stuff he was doing before TechCrunch, and the company he worked for - a company responsible for a very large portion of some of the purest douchbaggery to be found anywhere on the web. The lowest of the low. They do some very dirty work. I'd even guess there are "innocent" people working at TC who do not know the history. I wanted to see TC as some sort of redemption for this guy, a stepping away from the sort of douchebaggery he was doing previously. But, after watching TC for a number of years, it clearly was a progression to an even more potent form of sleaze. If people are using underhanded tactics with TC, then I can only conclude that they've succeeded in attracting the very same type of people which they are themselves (excluding anyone working there who is naive and unaware).
    - aaronbrethorst 14y ago
      example?
    - uid 14y ago
      what the hell.. this thread is certainly being derailed very quickly. discredit the facts in the story, not the guy who hired the guy who used to run the site or whatever
      - samstave 14y ago
        "...not the guy who hired the guy who used to run the site or whatever" That is why we are referring to the DNA of the company... Meaning that its founder's character sets the tone for the future of the company... This is fact, as founders hire people whom they believe will carry on the traits they themselves want to instill in the company... Arrington, while successful, is a farking douchebag. The whole of techcrunch has followed this from the sensationalism, to the lack of proof/editing, to the very fanboi-ism and game mechanics they have attempted to apply to the stories they write. I rarely frequent TC - when I do, I find typos and grammar mistakes pretty much in every story I see. I think the site is a joke, and the egos abound. Do they get good scoops, sure they do - but they are CONSTANTLY offered excellent opportunity only to fumble and look like fools -- the sad part of that is that too few people actually notice and even fewer hold them to account! TC is successful - but they really should not be.
        nameuserc 14y ago
        Of course there are people working at TC who are not douchebags. Just like there are probably people working at Pool who are not douchebags. But these are not the founders the company nor those who are responsible for setting the standards and the course for the company.
        jazzdev 14y ago
        Maybe good scoops are more important than good spelling and grammar.
  - bugmenot 14y ago
    "thus douchebaggery is in its DNA" Let's play "name the logical fallacy"
  - mikescar 14y ago
    Furthermore, other sites jumping on this story are just as lame. Gawker is also owned and/or staffed by douchebags like Nick Denton and Adrian Chen. It's funny how much Gawker and Adrien in particular have slagged on 'content farms', when in fact they engage in the same SEO game they pretend to be offended by. Check out how many times the phrase 'Silicon Valley' is used in this journalistic gem. http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shirley-hornstein-is-making-friends-at-gop-convention http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shi... ( my grep showed 6 counts of 'silicon valley' in the headline + article, with a bonus 'valley' mention. )
  - pi18n 14y ago
    It's not even news. The sole purpose of TC is to get traffic for web apps that Arrington and other insiders have a personal stake in.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      And the sole purpose of this site is...
- chris_wot 14y ago
  As I recently learned to my cost, it doesn't matter how smart you think you are, you can and probably will be deceived by someone eventually.
googoobaby 14y ago
Seriously. You expect me to cry over a hustler's lies? It is amusing how recursively narcissistic the tech community is, but eventually even they reach their stack limit.
DanielOcean 14y ago
I think it's good journalism. That's their job, to get to the bottom of things and I think he did a great job.
freditup 14y ago
Both this article and the one it discussed seemed to go right over my head. The only impression I could get is that there is a small faction of tech related people who have formed their own hollywoodish faction and act like it too. Anyone care to take a go at explaining to me what really happened and why it matters?
karpathy 14y ago
Clearly there is a gradient of people and how much misinformation they spread around themselves. Few never lie, some will occasionally slip a word here and there to exaggerate a truth, some will lie from time to time about small things, and then waaaaaay on the other side of this gradient there is photoshopping yourself into pictures with famous public figures and similar tactics described in the article. Of course we are not all saints, but based on the outcry most people (myself included) agree that there is a line that was crossed here. I appreciated the article as an interesting case study.
eevilspock 14y ago
"Most of us are not as big of a deal that we convey that we are. 99% of the industry is guilty." Bullfuckingshit. Speak for yourself. Thou protests too much. "I’ll admit it. But so have you." Again, fuck you speak for yourself. A bit self-serving, aren't we? And I can't stand TechCrunch.
philwelch 14y ago
> So shame on TechCrunch for publishing something that belongs on TMZ. TechCrunch is TMZ for Silicon Valley.
googoobaby 14y ago
http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shirley-hornstein-is-making-friends-at-gop-convention http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shi... She's apparently the bane (or Bain) of the Republicans now
tomasien 14y ago
I seriously am considering swearing off TechCrunch because of this article. True or not, their hegemony gives them so much power, and to see it foolishly used in this way was disturbing. The people she was claiming to know are big boys/girls. This should have been handled socially in the valley.
- rhizome 14y ago
  As someone who stopped reading them years ago, let me tell you an incontrovertible fact of the Internet: if it's worth reading, it will show up in every aggregator you still pay attention to, three times on the front page of HN if necessary. Propagation is a cue for importance, which is why TC (and RWW, and...) spend so much effort manually posting these stories all over the place themselves. They're faking it, too.
  - shurane 14y ago
    But there are so many things that are propagated that aren't important. Consistently negative world news, for starters.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      While your second sentence is a non-sequitur and a pretty transparent dig besides, your first sentence is partly covered by "they're faking it." PR agencies, Digg-like upvote groups, all of them are corrupt attacks on organic popularity.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Couldn't agree more. This kind of thing happens all the time and is handled easily by companies doing basic due-diligence on people they work with, and resultant embarrassment teaching the individuals a necessary lesson. Many come back from it chastened but better for it. This hounding of a nobody is disproportionate. Clearly this person pissed off one or more of the TechCrunch team so they decided it was appropriate to get them back in this way. But someone photoshopping themselves into pics with celebs probably has some psychological issues (at the very least self-esteem issues). They're not a threat to anyone. A few stern words from the right people could nip this sort of thing in the bud. Such a disappointing article from TC - and there have been many in recent months.
mkohlmyr 14y ago
Enough people still read TC to where it can be considered a bully? I'm being completely serious. It's been a long time since I paid attention to anything that was written on TechCrunch and it's been even longer since the thing I paid attention to was anything remotely sensible or interesting. I actively avoid visiting links to TechCrunch. Because the people who work there are a poor excuses for journalists - which is why it will forever be to my mind 'just a blog'.
- rhizome 14y ago
  TC's world is people who have to look up what "BBS" means every time it comes up, both employees and readers.
- alttab 14y ago
  I was going to make my own top level comment, but this seems relevant, so I'll put it below yours: TIL People still read Techcrunch.
citricsquid 14y ago
The thing I don't get about the techcrunch article is in the comments Alexia Tsotsis wrote: > This is the story that no one was writing. Amazing work Anthony Ha. is his life in danger? is she some high power person that can destroy Anthony Ha's career? No... she's a person that lies...
- sharkweek 14y ago
  you'd be surprised how powerful fake connections can be
- dotBen 14y ago
  I don't understand why a co-editor of TechCrunch would ever write "this is the story that no one was writing". Er, if you were wanting someone to write it, why didn't you commission them to write it already? That's surely your job!?!
- mikescar 14y ago
  Well yes, we are all very fortunate that TC can figuratively pat itself on the back for such groundbreaking journalism. Alexia's comment is just a reminder about the article's high quality.
fourstar 14y ago
If everyone ignored them, they'd go away.
n00b101 14y ago
Cry me a river.
deniszgonjanin 14y ago
America has always been a land where you could fail, then pick yourself up. You could move west in search of a new beginning and a new identity. You could go bankrupt, then start over, and eventually fail your way to success and a better life. There is no longer a place to hide or run away to. There is no way to re-invent yourself and start over. The foolish crimes of our youths are now a permanent part of who we are. For the rest of our lives and likely eternity. This is the sad side of the products we are helping to create as engineers at Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc...
- GFKjunior 14y ago
  I think there is a clear distinction between failing and lying then being exposed. Join a start up and it fails horribly? Turn around and join a big corp, no cares if you didn't make a dime during that time. Lying blatantly about everything to everyone until they find out is not in the same league as checking 4chan during work. Which is hardly a fireable offense imo.
- kristianc 14y ago
  I'm not sure what point you're making. If it's that Facebook, Google, Twitter are making it harder for confidence tricksters to move on and repeat their lies when they've been rumbled - I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
  - jeffool 14y ago
    I think the point isn't that it's harder for grifters, but that it's harder for everyone. Even people who genuinely think they're playing the game, and have made statements too far, lies, or even genuine mistakes. Before, they could say "Wow, I guess I was wrong. I've learned my lesson." and try to be better. Now, they're branded, and must suffer, forever. It's a point I personally know all too well. I was fired from a journalism job a year ago; my boss accused me of looking at pornography at work. (I argue that "looked at porn" and "looked at 4chan", are vastly different, and intent is an important factor. I didn't think I was doing anything wrong.) I'm 31, and in this market, as someone who worked my way into a "producer" role without a degree? It's an employer's market. Even after a year of job hunting, people hear that story, and the conversation goes silent. There's plenty of people they can choose from with no discernable "problems" in their past. It seems my choices are "go into marketing, despite how you feel about hocking clients you hate", or "work two mediocre jobs of low wage". One drove me crazy, two isn't great. And I'm not trying to make a sob story out of this; I went to a website my employer didn't like. I'm not going to lie about that, I learned a lesson is all. I'm just trying to drive the point home. If you make a single "mistake," that may be all it takes.
jamiequint 14y ago
I'm pretty sure if you misrepresent yourself that blatantly time and time again you deserve what is coming to you. "she has the top media company in the tech industry trying to take her down." Oh please, she blatantly lied many times about many things to high profile people. That is a story and its going to get written about by someone whether its Techcrunch or someone else.
- unreal37 14y ago
  What am I missing? What do you know that you're not saying? I can't find anything in the original TC article that said "she blatantly lied many times about many things to high profile people". Who did she lie to? What was the lie? Was it a lie or just an exaggeration? The TC article mentions Founders Fund a bunch, and not much else.
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    That's my thought. I have no time for people who bullshit and lie. I've been burned before. But that's my fault for not doing due diligence. I just don't think that a TC article was really called for for a nobody. Not unless you're going to provide more context than was in the story. I mean it's hard to care either way, but I certainly felt rubbed the wrong way by the tone of the TC article and the subject matter - attacking an individual publicly when as far as I can see no serious harm was done. She needs help, I'll agree to that, but I doubt this kind of thing will prod her to get it.
  - herval 14y ago
    So, photoshopping yourself into pictures with several different people is "an exaggeration" to you?
    - benatkin 14y ago
      If she had only photoshopped herself into a picture with one person, I would have been more inclined to see it as malice. This is because it would have been more believable that she was trying to mislead people in power. With several different people I get the idea she was trying to mislead only gullible people. This is scandalous in a Hollywood sort of way. Some people think it's awful that Silicon Valley has gone this way, but I gave up worrying about Silicon Valley culture a long time ago. I'm not a fan of this type of behavior but neither do I appreciate a tabloid getting indignant about something that's so unsurprising.
gojomo 14y ago
I'm no TC fan, but it was a fair subject and story. That such deceptive operators can show up anywhere (and especially in a young/dynamic community) is important to know, and it can only be vividly demonstrated with tangible and current examples. And specifically, enough people were affected by this person's claims, leaving enough of a reportable trail, that a story warning others and documenting the modus operandi could be true, well-sourced, interesting, and useful for TC's readership.
patrickod 14y ago
A calling out for really unacceptable behaviour? Yes. Bullying? Far from it in my eyes. If you consistently misrepresent yourself and promise people things you are not capable of achieving then you deserve to be called out on it.
mistercow 14y ago
Wow, the Hollywood-ness implied by this article about the tech world... this... is it really like this out there now? Is this nauseous feeling I have right now the way serious but small filmmakers feel about the entertainment industry?
nateberkopec 14y ago
Listen, this just proves that TC is a gossip rag, but, you're going to defend someone who is literally Photoshopping themselves into photos with celebrities and claiming that they're real? Uhh.
- learc83 14y ago
  If you'll notice the article never mentioned any context for the pictures, just kind of put them out there for the reader to draw conclusions. Was it a joke between friends, or an actual attempt to defraud people. Who knows? The article certainly didn't offer any evidence either way.
richardjordan 14y ago
I thought the same thing when reading that article. Here was someone I've never heard of - and I'm pretty active at getting around the startup world; someone who seems to have got herself into a web of lies which probably started off with some exaggerations. Let's stipulate to the fact that it's not okay to lie about yourself to get a gig, even if you think it's harmless and you'll make up for it in work. I thought it was right that the Yahoo! CEO was fired for that stuff. I've never lied on a resume, never would. But what we have here is a nobody, who's probably got a bit of a problem. That problem is exacerbated by the bullshit celebrity culture TechCrunch tries to build around our industry. It's the bullshit attitude displayed by a ton of the current incubator ducklings, who follow their angels around in awe like momma duck, while convincing themselves they're starring the fantasy version of Silicon Valley they saw in the Social Network. TechCrunch is among the worst offenders creating this problem. If we're going to be honest about it, there are plenty of folks - and we don't need to get ugly and name names but if you're around the industry you bump into these people - who call themselves Tech Journalists who are little more than exaggerators, fabricators and bullshit artists who have NEVER CREATED ANYTHING OF VALUE themselves, never created a job, never taken the risk. Just the role of the critic. Never the man in the arena. So it's a bit rich them all ganging up on this unfortunate person who tied herself up in knots and exaggerations leading to great embarrassment. (Try going to any event full of tech journalists from these blogs and wait till they get a bit drunk and listen to the boasts and stories and thoroughly inappropriate behavior.) But I have NO sympathy for any startup that works with someone without doing the most basic of background checks which would immediately expose lies and exaggerations. The valley is full of people who overstate things and word gets around pretty quickly. You can often see the smoke and smell the charcoal from burning bridges from a long distance, and way after the fact. No public interest is served by tarring and feathering a nobody for entertainment purposes under the guise of investigative journalism. The way this story is written you'd think they'd uncovered Carlos the Jackal, cracked a terrorist ring, discovered the whereabouts of Nazi war criminals. It is pathetic and mean spirited. I keep hoping TechCrunch will recapture what once made it a must-read, but I'm increasingly saddened by the reality that it won't happen. As I've posted elsewhere, it's a serious thing that we do here in Silicon Valley, building companies, taking risks. We often spend large sums of other people's money. We commit our lives and those of our loved ones to the endeavor. Sure we can have fun. But we cannot run the industry like a school yard and we deserve more from our media outlets than mean-spirited gossip.
error54 14y ago
The article does seem a little bullying. I mean, what harm has she really done other than lie (which every business person has done since the beginning time). I could see if she caused some startup to go under or cost some company millions of dollars but to quote the author, "Shirley Hornstein has never done anything bad to me. Except, y’know, lie." It really seems like a bunch of people got together one night and came to the conclusion that they don't like this woman and one those people said "Hey, I'm a TC writer. I can write an article about all this Silicon Valley phoney and we can all have a laugh about it tomorrow!" Do I agree Shirley Hornstein told some blatant lies? Yes. Do I think that these falsehoods deserve a front page article? No. Besides, "Everyone lies" -House
- edm4r 14y ago
  Quoting the article: "Sometimes it was mostly just embarrassing, in other cases reputations or deals had been affected by the deception." However, they don't show what deals and reputations had been affected.
greghinch 14y ago
Wow this whole exchange depresses the hell out of me. Can't we just build cool shit and leave this kind of lame drama for other industries?
homosaur 14y ago
The moral of this blog post seems to be that most tech companies' execs are all as big of tools as this gal. Okay. So I'm supposed to somehow trust someone's company that's trying to be some fake Silicon Valley star effer? I dunno man. Maybe she has the best social kitten mashup ever but I can't imagine if I had a million dollars to invest that I'd let this one anywhere near it.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I'd like your leave to go a bit meta here, hope you don't mind. What I find interesting about this exchange (the original TC article and Lanewood's response) is the message "don't do this because it hurts." Yes, it does. But my experience is that pain is a signal you listen to, it's one of those things that says "stop doing what you are doing." It is a corrective force. Making exaggerated claims about your influence or connections or importance to folks is wrong. It is wrong because it abuses the trust the other person put into the person lying, which then causes great hurt and shame when they realize they have been "duped" or "fooled" or "lied to". Calling someone on it, is hurtful too, but its important to do as well. That pain going the other way is a signal to moderate behavior, or change it. So this conversation is "Shirley is a liar" / "You shouldn't do that because it hurts her feelings" seems to want to shut down a force working for good, which is better behavior. I know I would love it if people were more honest about themselves, but I also know that some folks have convinced themselves that their own self worth is tied up in how influential they perceive themselves to be. Thus exaggerating that influence is like make-up, or fancy bling, its a crutch to prop up their self image. I think there is pain on both sides of this conversation, at least a couple of kilo-snarks. If it helps someone to become a better person, its beneficial. But if they don't have the mental tools to process it they can (and sometimes do) become simply depressed by it. I don't think either party in this conversation represented themselves particularly well. If Shirley is young now would be a good time to come to grips with the way she presents herself. TC should work at doing better at informing rather than blaming (it did read like it came right out of Valleywag). Continuing acting this way on both parties will only hurt them going forward.
- famousactress 14y ago
  So, first off I don't give a fuck about the story, or the counter story, or people who photoshop themselves with celebrities, or people who care about whether people really know celebrities, or techcrunch. That said, I wanted to contrast the HN reaction to this story with the HN reaction to the kid who slept at AOL. I figure in both cases we're talking about someone who did something deceptive and wrong in the supposed name of entrepreneurial hustle. The AOL kid actually went as far as breaking the law, while it's not clear this girl did at all. In the AOL kid's article you wrote: "However for a potential investor this is a great demonstration of how committed someone is to their idea, and their passion. I don't doubt for a moment that Eric will be successful at what ever he sets out to do, you can't buy that kind of focus." ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4019755 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4019755 ) Then went on to at least play devil's advocate to the commenter who called it an 'ethical failure'. Honestly not trying to call you hypocritical here.. I'm genuinely curious what gives the AOL kid 'moxie' while the girl that plays up her relationships with folks is less admirable.
davemel37 14y ago
One Word About the attacks on Shirley Hornstein... Schadenfreude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude ------------------------
mindcrime 14y ago
And she has the top media company in the tech industry trying to take her down. TechCrunch isn't anything close to a "top media company." TC is a shitty blog run by a bunch of amateurs who should be lucky enough to be referred to as "wannabe journalists." TC exists to whore for page impressions and ad clicks, nothing more. The best thing to do is pretend they don't exist... quit reading TC, quit sending them "news", quit responding to their bullshit, etc.
- corin_ 14y ago
  I guess it depends whether you define "top media company" as top in quality of top in readership/influence/etc. I've on idea about stats but it wouldn't surprise me if TC was at the very top for its niche on the latter.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    I guess it depends whether you define "top media company" as top in quality of top in readership/influence/etc. Here, I'm referring more to quality / journalistic standards / ethics / etc, than readership. And even in terms of readership, I doubt TC can touch actual mainstream media outlets in terms of eyeballs.
softbuilder 14y ago
>It’s like reading a middle school girl’s diary. Exactly this. There was no point to the story. Sure, I'll buy that the lady is a headcase/creeper or whatever. But that's it? No real crimes detailed or list of people screwed over? It was just a finger-pointing "hate this person right here" piece. Cyberbullying doesn't just happen to kids.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  Expose fraud isn't bullying. She's a grown woman who chose to risk her reputation by playing a con game. Most con artists get away with it: she didn't. Her being exposed will deter other would-be parasites. Good.
  - Jgrubb 14y ago
    > Most con artists get away with it Citation needed. > Her being exposed will deter other would-be parasites. I don't think this is how it works. I think the parasite or pathological liar or con man will always think they're smarter than that last person who got caught, if they even consider that person at all. They're probably just "playing the game", right?
  - softbuilder 14y ago
    If there was a real exposé here, I might agree. There would be more specifics, statements from victims and prosecutors, etc.. This article lacked any purpose aside from pure humiliation. Maybe this lady is so awful that she deserves that, but the case wasn't made. What if she's mentally ill?
    - mcantelon 14y ago
      Well, they included a court document and any small startups thinking of pushing consulting money to her likely won't now, so mission accomplished. >What if she's mentally ill? Not all dishonest people are mentally ill.
xenen 14y ago
Exaggerating your connections to others to try and hustle favors and more connections is one thing, but photoshopping yourself into photos with celebrities is pretty damn creepy no matter how you look at it.
leoh 14y ago
Yes, TC is a bully. Not only that, Arrington is a major con artist. Half the people in the valley these days are con artists. It's like this girl was the scape goat for this overwhelming shitstorm of lies that has grown the past few years. Pathetic.
lukejduncan 14y ago
"So shame on TechCrunch for publishing something that belongs on TMZ." ... TechCrunch essentially is TMZ.
cpeterso 14y ago
I'm surprised there isn't a "Photoshop yourself with Shirley Hornstein" meme yet.
- se85 14y ago
  LMAO! Thats a really good idea!
  - cpeterso 14y ago
    Or better yet, Shirley Hornstein with unexpected people or places: Shirley Hornstein with Darth Vader. Shirley Hornstein with the Curiosity rover on Mars.
mikescar 14y ago
TechCrunch is just a joke. I would never go there outside of HN posts, but it's really amusing to see how self-important a bunch of hipster bloggers can be when writing about people doing actual work. The puff pieces that they run as the majority of what is published, those are pretty funny. It's the slag pieces that are most entertaining.
OoTheNigerian 14y ago
The easiest antidote to an article such as this is to out yourself. If everyone knew this was coming out, she most probably knew. The advantage of her outing herself would be that it would be far less damaging and considering people love those that seek a sort of penance, something positive would have come out of her outing post. It is not too late though. She should write, ask for forgiveness, NOT blame TechCrunch for her woes and move on. Everyone loves a comeback stor so this might end up having a positive outcome if told well. Ironically, I did not read the post the first time I came across it. This post brought far more attention than the original one.
se85 14y ago
Come on people, she is a con artist! She deserved every last bit of it, and then some. If only more con artists got destroyed like this in public, the world would be a better place for sure.
gadders 14y ago
Leaving aside all the bruised egos of people that fell for her schtick, I'm well impressed with her photoshopping skills. She should be hired for that.
kenster07 14y ago
Most programmers are hard-working, relatively honest people. It must be difficult for them to watch people like Shirley pass them on the career ladder. It's one thing to have people skills, and use it as a lever to add benefit and value to this world. The Shirley's of this world deserve zero sympathy. That being said, the TechCrunch article wasn't as articulate as it should have been. At the very least, context should have been provided for these pictures.
xxiao 14y ago
I don't see any bully at all. In fact your title and the way you're describing is bullying. That article showed quite some evidences, where are yours? Plus, you called TechCrunch a bully outright, which is hard to do for any sensible human being, unless he/she is also a photoshop expert and got offended by this article.
Uchikoma 14y ago
I'm burning my karma with this, but I appreciate this article. As a startup I'd like to be warned, probably people wasted time with this girl, time to market, time to VCs, time to get there startup somewhere b/c they believed this girl would help them when indeed she didn't. Could they have done better due dilligence? Perhaps. Would others tell how they got burned? Perhaps. But I don't follow the thinking that everything other people do to you is your fault b/c you should have known better. The wrongdoer is the victim stuff. And it's astonishing how HN reacts to guys that fake startups, connections, products compared to this girl that is faking her way around. We'll see if there is coming more.
edm4r 14y ago
"The opposite of success isn't failure; it is name-dropping" - Nassim Taleb
illuminate 14y ago
I don't understand how exposing frauds is "bullying". This person is trying to pass false credentials, and has been somewhat successful in doing so. I don't see how exposing someone's scam is really "mean", yes, she might have some sort of personality disorder, but not all mental illness can be tolerated. If it's pathological, I feel badly for her on some level, but I still see no reason why she shouldn't be blocked from performing this social engineering in the future.
richieh 14y ago
http://betabeat.com/2012/08/shirley-hornstein-shirls-credit-card-fraud-records/ http://betabeat.com/2012/08/shirley-hornstein-shirls-credit-...
mark_l_watson 14y ago
I have called TechCrunch "assholes" twice on tweets in the last week or so (because I hate following a link to TC on my iPad and having to cancel the annoying nag popup to install their app; last time I could not get through to the article because of constant redirects back to the nag popup. Yuck.) So, I might be a little prejudiced against TC right now, but even with that, I think the original article about Shirley Hofnstein was really mean spirited. In any case, I usually do my web browsing on my iPad so I am not reading TechCrunch anymore anyway.
nfriedly 14y ago
Techcrunch dropped from one of my favorite sites to one that I actively avoid more than a year ago due to a number of the shenanigans they've pulled. I make special exceptions if someone I know is covered there, but other than that I basically avoid the site like the plague.

202 points by asanwal 14y ago

crag 14y ago

I know this might come as a surprise to some.. but no one outside the valley cares. :) In fact, I'd bet very few inside the valley care.

steve8918 14y ago

I have no real interest in either side of this story, and Techcrunch isn't really on my rolodex of sites to read from. That being said, I don't think the original Techcrunch article was being a bully at all. The fact that she allegedly has gotten away with the simplest of social engineering tactics against a group that most likely thinks of themselves as at least smarter than average, was fairly interesting to me. It shows how easy and effective social engineering can be, even by someone as young as Shirley Hofnstein. All the author appears to write is that they don't like the fact that Techcrunch wrote an article about their friend. It appears that the author of the above article doesn't even defend Shirley Hornstein, which leads me to believe that she was in fact guilty of these acts of social engineering. If that's the case, then it seems like a decent bit of journalism to me. Do I think it's a huge crime? No, it's not like she pulled off a Madoff scam. But was it an interesting article? Yes, and it really points to the fact that we all need to keep on our toes.

samstave 14y ago
While I agree with your not being on a side - my personal opinion is this: Techcrunch was founded and run by a douchebag - thus douchebaggery is in its DNA.
- nameuserc 14y ago
  Unfortunately this is true. I'm not sure all that many people know where the founder came from, i.e., the type of stuff he was doing before TechCrunch, and the company he worked for - a company responsible for a very large portion of some of the purest douchbaggery to be found anywhere on the web. The lowest of the low. They do some very dirty work. I'd even guess there are "innocent" people working at TC who do not know the history. I wanted to see TC as some sort of redemption for this guy, a stepping away from the sort of douchebaggery he was doing previously. But, after watching TC for a number of years, it clearly was a progression to an even more potent form of sleaze. If people are using underhanded tactics with TC, then I can only conclude that they've succeeded in attracting the very same type of people which they are themselves (excluding anyone working there who is naive and unaware).
  - aaronbrethorst 14y ago
    example?
  - uid 14y ago
    what the hell.. this thread is certainly being derailed very quickly. discredit the facts in the story, not the guy who hired the guy who used to run the site or whatever
    - samstave 14y ago
      "...not the guy who hired the guy who used to run the site or whatever" That is why we are referring to the DNA of the company... Meaning that its founder's character sets the tone for the future of the company... This is fact, as founders hire people whom they believe will carry on the traits they themselves want to instill in the company... Arrington, while successful, is a farking douchebag. The whole of techcrunch has followed this from the sensationalism, to the lack of proof/editing, to the very fanboi-ism and game mechanics they have attempted to apply to the stories they write. I rarely frequent TC - when I do, I find typos and grammar mistakes pretty much in every story I see. I think the site is a joke, and the egos abound. Do they get good scoops, sure they do - but they are CONSTANTLY offered excellent opportunity only to fumble and look like fools -- the sad part of that is that too few people actually notice and even fewer hold them to account! TC is successful - but they really should not be.
      - nameuserc 14y ago
        Of course there are people working at TC who are not douchebags. Just like there are probably people working at Pool who are not douchebags. But these are not the founders the company nor those who are responsible for setting the standards and the course for the company.
      - jazzdev 14y ago
        Maybe good scoops are more important than good spelling and grammar.
- bugmenot 14y ago
  "thus douchebaggery is in its DNA" Let's play "name the logical fallacy"
- mikescar 14y ago
  Furthermore, other sites jumping on this story are just as lame. Gawker is also owned and/or staffed by douchebags like Nick Denton and Adrian Chen. It's funny how much Gawker and Adrien in particular have slagged on 'content farms', when in fact they engage in the same SEO game they pretend to be offended by. Check out how many times the phrase 'Silicon Valley' is used in this journalistic gem. http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shirley-hornstein-is-making-friends-at-gop-convention http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shi... ( my grep showed 6 counts of 'silicon valley' in the headline + article, with a bonus 'valley' mention. )
- pi18n 14y ago
  It's not even news. The sole purpose of TC is to get traffic for web apps that Arrington and other insiders have a personal stake in.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    And the sole purpose of this site is...
chris_wot 14y ago
As I recently learned to my cost, it doesn't matter how smart you think you are, you can and probably will be deceived by someone eventually.

googoobaby 14y ago

Seriously. You expect me to cry over a hustler's lies? It is amusing how recursively narcissistic the tech community is, but eventually even they reach their stack limit.

DanielOcean 14y ago

I think it's good journalism. That's their job, to get to the bottom of things and I think he did a great job.

freditup 14y ago

Both this article and the one it discussed seemed to go right over my head. The only impression I could get is that there is a small faction of tech related people who have formed their own hollywoodish faction and act like it too. Anyone care to take a go at explaining to me what really happened and why it matters?

karpathy 14y ago

Clearly there is a gradient of people and how much misinformation they spread around themselves. Few never lie, some will occasionally slip a word here and there to exaggerate a truth, some will lie from time to time about small things, and then waaaaaay on the other side of this gradient there is photoshopping yourself into pictures with famous public figures and similar tactics described in the article. Of course we are not all saints, but based on the outcry most people (myself included) agree that there is a line that was crossed here. I appreciated the article as an interesting case study.

eevilspock 14y ago

"Most of us are not as big of a deal that we convey that we are. 99% of the industry is guilty." Bullfuckingshit. Speak for yourself. Thou protests too much. "I’ll admit it. But so have you." Again, fuck you speak for yourself. A bit self-serving, aren't we? And I can't stand TechCrunch.

philwelch 14y ago

> So shame on TechCrunch for publishing something that belongs on TMZ. TechCrunch is TMZ for Silicon Valley.

googoobaby 14y ago

http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shirley-hornstein-is-making-friends-at-gop-convention http://gawker.com/5938904/notorious-silicon-valley-fraud-shi... She's apparently the bane (or Bain) of the Republicans now

tomasien 14y ago

I seriously am considering swearing off TechCrunch because of this article. True or not, their hegemony gives them so much power, and to see it foolishly used in this way was disturbing. The people she was claiming to know are big boys/girls. This should have been handled socially in the valley.

rhizome 14y ago
As someone who stopped reading them years ago, let me tell you an incontrovertible fact of the Internet: if it's worth reading, it will show up in every aggregator you still pay attention to, three times on the front page of HN if necessary. Propagation is a cue for importance, which is why TC (and RWW, and...) spend so much effort manually posting these stories all over the place themselves. They're faking it, too.
- shurane 14y ago
  But there are so many things that are propagated that aren't important. Consistently negative world news, for starters.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    While your second sentence is a non-sequitur and a pretty transparent dig besides, your first sentence is partly covered by "they're faking it." PR agencies, Digg-like upvote groups, all of them are corrupt attacks on organic popularity.
richardjordan 14y ago
Couldn't agree more. This kind of thing happens all the time and is handled easily by companies doing basic due-diligence on people they work with, and resultant embarrassment teaching the individuals a necessary lesson. Many come back from it chastened but better for it. This hounding of a nobody is disproportionate. Clearly this person pissed off one or more of the TechCrunch team so they decided it was appropriate to get them back in this way. But someone photoshopping themselves into pics with celebs probably has some psychological issues (at the very least self-esteem issues). They're not a threat to anyone. A few stern words from the right people could nip this sort of thing in the bud. Such a disappointing article from TC - and there have been many in recent months.

mkohlmyr 14y ago

Enough people still read TC to where it can be considered a bully? I'm being completely serious. It's been a long time since I paid attention to anything that was written on TechCrunch and it's been even longer since the thing I paid attention to was anything remotely sensible or interesting. I actively avoid visiting links to TechCrunch. Because the people who work there are a poor excuses for journalists - which is why it will forever be to my mind 'just a blog'.

rhizome 14y ago
TC's world is people who have to look up what "BBS" means every time it comes up, both employees and readers.
alttab 14y ago
I was going to make my own top level comment, but this seems relevant, so I'll put it below yours: TIL People still read Techcrunch.

citricsquid 14y ago

The thing I don't get about the techcrunch article is in the comments Alexia Tsotsis wrote: > This is the story that no one was writing. Amazing work Anthony Ha. is his life in danger? is she some high power person that can destroy Anthony Ha's career? No... she's a person that lies...

sharkweek 14y ago
you'd be surprised how powerful fake connections can be
dotBen 14y ago
I don't understand why a co-editor of TechCrunch would ever write "this is the story that no one was writing". Er, if you were wanting someone to write it, why didn't you commission them to write it already? That's surely your job!?!
mikescar 14y ago
Well yes, we are all very fortunate that TC can figuratively pat itself on the back for such groundbreaking journalism. Alexia's comment is just a reminder about the article's high quality.

fourstar 14y ago

If everyone ignored them, they'd go away.

n00b101 14y ago

Cry me a river.

deniszgonjanin 14y ago

America has always been a land where you could fail, then pick yourself up. You could move west in search of a new beginning and a new identity. You could go bankrupt, then start over, and eventually fail your way to success and a better life. There is no longer a place to hide or run away to. There is no way to re-invent yourself and start over. The foolish crimes of our youths are now a permanent part of who we are. For the rest of our lives and likely eternity. This is the sad side of the products we are helping to create as engineers at Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc...

GFKjunior 14y ago
I think there is a clear distinction between failing and lying then being exposed. Join a start up and it fails horribly? Turn around and join a big corp, no cares if you didn't make a dime during that time. Lying blatantly about everything to everyone until they find out is not in the same league as checking 4chan during work. Which is hardly a fireable offense imo.
kristianc 14y ago
I'm not sure what point you're making. If it's that Facebook, Google, Twitter are making it harder for confidence tricksters to move on and repeat their lies when they've been rumbled - I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
- jeffool 14y ago
  I think the point isn't that it's harder for grifters, but that it's harder for everyone. Even people who genuinely think they're playing the game, and have made statements too far, lies, or even genuine mistakes. Before, they could say "Wow, I guess I was wrong. I've learned my lesson." and try to be better. Now, they're branded, and must suffer, forever. It's a point I personally know all too well. I was fired from a journalism job a year ago; my boss accused me of looking at pornography at work. (I argue that "looked at porn" and "looked at 4chan", are vastly different, and intent is an important factor. I didn't think I was doing anything wrong.) I'm 31, and in this market, as someone who worked my way into a "producer" role without a degree? It's an employer's market. Even after a year of job hunting, people hear that story, and the conversation goes silent. There's plenty of people they can choose from with no discernable "problems" in their past. It seems my choices are "go into marketing, despite how you feel about hocking clients you hate", or "work two mediocre jobs of low wage". One drove me crazy, two isn't great. And I'm not trying to make a sob story out of this; I went to a website my employer didn't like. I'm not going to lie about that, I learned a lesson is all. I'm just trying to drive the point home. If you make a single "mistake," that may be all it takes.

jamiequint 14y ago

I'm pretty sure if you misrepresent yourself that blatantly time and time again you deserve what is coming to you. "she has the top media company in the tech industry trying to take her down." Oh please, she blatantly lied many times about many things to high profile people. That is a story and its going to get written about by someone whether its Techcrunch or someone else.

unreal37 14y ago
What am I missing? What do you know that you're not saying? I can't find anything in the original TC article that said "she blatantly lied many times about many things to high profile people". Who did she lie to? What was the lie? Was it a lie or just an exaggeration? The TC article mentions Founders Fund a bunch, and not much else.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  That's my thought. I have no time for people who bullshit and lie. I've been burned before. But that's my fault for not doing due diligence. I just don't think that a TC article was really called for for a nobody. Not unless you're going to provide more context than was in the story. I mean it's hard to care either way, but I certainly felt rubbed the wrong way by the tone of the TC article and the subject matter - attacking an individual publicly when as far as I can see no serious harm was done. She needs help, I'll agree to that, but I doubt this kind of thing will prod her to get it.
- herval 14y ago
  So, photoshopping yourself into pictures with several different people is "an exaggeration" to you?
  - benatkin 14y ago
    If she had only photoshopped herself into a picture with one person, I would have been more inclined to see it as malice. This is because it would have been more believable that she was trying to mislead people in power. With several different people I get the idea she was trying to mislead only gullible people. This is scandalous in a Hollywood sort of way. Some people think it's awful that Silicon Valley has gone this way, but I gave up worrying about Silicon Valley culture a long time ago. I'm not a fan of this type of behavior but neither do I appreciate a tabloid getting indignant about something that's so unsurprising.

gojomo 14y ago

I'm no TC fan, but it was a fair subject and story. That such deceptive operators can show up anywhere (and especially in a young/dynamic community) is important to know, and it can only be vividly demonstrated with tangible and current examples. And specifically, enough people were affected by this person's claims, leaving enough of a reportable trail, that a story warning others and documenting the modus operandi could be true, well-sourced, interesting, and useful for TC's readership.

patrickod 14y ago

A calling out for really unacceptable behaviour? Yes. Bullying? Far from it in my eyes. If you consistently misrepresent yourself and promise people things you are not capable of achieving then you deserve to be called out on it.

mistercow 14y ago

Wow, the Hollywood-ness implied by this article about the tech world... this... is it really like this out there now? Is this nauseous feeling I have right now the way serious but small filmmakers feel about the entertainment industry?

nateberkopec 14y ago

Listen, this just proves that TC is a gossip rag, but, you're going to defend someone who is literally Photoshopping themselves into photos with celebrities and claiming that they're real? Uhh.

learc83 14y ago
If you'll notice the article never mentioned any context for the pictures, just kind of put them out there for the reader to draw conclusions. Was it a joke between friends, or an actual attempt to defraud people. Who knows? The article certainly didn't offer any evidence either way.

richardjordan 14y ago

I thought the same thing when reading that article. Here was someone I've never heard of - and I'm pretty active at getting around the startup world; someone who seems to have got herself into a web of lies which probably started off with some exaggerations. Let's stipulate to the fact that it's not okay to lie about yourself to get a gig, even if you think it's harmless and you'll make up for it in work. I thought it was right that the Yahoo! CEO was fired for that stuff. I've never lied on a resume, never would. But what we have here is a nobody, who's probably got a bit of a problem. That problem is exacerbated by the bullshit celebrity culture TechCrunch tries to build around our industry. It's the bullshit attitude displayed by a ton of the current incubator ducklings, who follow their angels around in awe like momma duck, while convincing themselves they're starring the fantasy version of Silicon Valley they saw in the Social Network. TechCrunch is among the worst offenders creating this problem. If we're going to be honest about it, there are plenty of folks - and we don't need to get ugly and name names but if you're around the industry you bump into these people - who call themselves Tech Journalists who are little more than exaggerators, fabricators and bullshit artists who have NEVER CREATED ANYTHING OF VALUE themselves, never created a job, never taken the risk. Just the role of the critic. Never the man in the arena. So it's a bit rich them all ganging up on this unfortunate person who tied herself up in knots and exaggerations leading to great embarrassment. (Try going to any event full of tech journalists from these blogs and wait till they get a bit drunk and listen to the boasts and stories and thoroughly inappropriate behavior.) But I have NO sympathy for any startup that works with someone without doing the most basic of background checks which would immediately expose lies and exaggerations. The valley is full of people who overstate things and word gets around pretty quickly. You can often see the smoke and smell the charcoal from burning bridges from a long distance, and way after the fact. No public interest is served by tarring and feathering a nobody for entertainment purposes under the guise of investigative journalism. The way this story is written you'd think they'd uncovered Carlos the Jackal, cracked a terrorist ring, discovered the whereabouts of Nazi war criminals. It is pathetic and mean spirited. I keep hoping TechCrunch will recapture what once made it a must-read, but I'm increasingly saddened by the reality that it won't happen. As I've posted elsewhere, it's a serious thing that we do here in Silicon Valley, building companies, taking risks. We often spend large sums of other people's money. We commit our lives and those of our loved ones to the endeavor. Sure we can have fun. But we cannot run the industry like a school yard and we deserve more from our media outlets than mean-spirited gossip.

error54 14y ago

The article does seem a little bullying. I mean, what harm has she really done other than lie (which every business person has done since the beginning time). I could see if she caused some startup to go under or cost some company millions of dollars but to quote the author, "Shirley Hornstein has never done anything bad to me. Except, y’know, lie." It really seems like a bunch of people got together one night and came to the conclusion that they don't like this woman and one those people said "Hey, I'm a TC writer. I can write an article about all this Silicon Valley phoney and we can all have a laugh about it tomorrow!" Do I agree Shirley Hornstein told some blatant lies? Yes. Do I think that these falsehoods deserve a front page article? No. Besides, "Everyone lies" -House

edm4r 14y ago
Quoting the article: "Sometimes it was mostly just embarrassing, in other cases reputations or deals had been affected by the deception." However, they don't show what deals and reputations had been affected.

greghinch 14y ago

Wow this whole exchange depresses the hell out of me. Can't we just build cool shit and leave this kind of lame drama for other industries?

homosaur 14y ago

The moral of this blog post seems to be that most tech companies' execs are all as big of tools as this gal. Okay. So I'm supposed to somehow trust someone's company that's trying to be some fake Silicon Valley star effer? I dunno man. Maybe she has the best social kitten mashup ever but I can't imagine if I had a million dollars to invest that I'd let this one anywhere near it.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I'd like your leave to go a bit meta here, hope you don't mind. What I find interesting about this exchange (the original TC article and Lanewood's response) is the message "don't do this because it hurts." Yes, it does. But my experience is that pain is a signal you listen to, it's one of those things that says "stop doing what you are doing." It is a corrective force. Making exaggerated claims about your influence or connections or importance to folks is wrong. It is wrong because it abuses the trust the other person put into the person lying, which then causes great hurt and shame when they realize they have been "duped" or "fooled" or "lied to". Calling someone on it, is hurtful too, but its important to do as well. That pain going the other way is a signal to moderate behavior, or change it. So this conversation is "Shirley is a liar" / "You shouldn't do that because it hurts her feelings" seems to want to shut down a force working for good, which is better behavior. I know I would love it if people were more honest about themselves, but I also know that some folks have convinced themselves that their own self worth is tied up in how influential they perceive themselves to be. Thus exaggerating that influence is like make-up, or fancy bling, its a crutch to prop up their self image. I think there is pain on both sides of this conversation, at least a couple of kilo-snarks. If it helps someone to become a better person, its beneficial. But if they don't have the mental tools to process it they can (and sometimes do) become simply depressed by it. I don't think either party in this conversation represented themselves particularly well. If Shirley is young now would be a good time to come to grips with the way she presents herself. TC should work at doing better at informing rather than blaming (it did read like it came right out of Valleywag). Continuing acting this way on both parties will only hurt them going forward.

famousactress 14y ago
So, first off I don't give a fuck about the story, or the counter story, or people who photoshop themselves with celebrities, or people who care about whether people really know celebrities, or techcrunch. That said, I wanted to contrast the HN reaction to this story with the HN reaction to the kid who slept at AOL. I figure in both cases we're talking about someone who did something deceptive and wrong in the supposed name of entrepreneurial hustle. The AOL kid actually went as far as breaking the law, while it's not clear this girl did at all. In the AOL kid's article you wrote: "However for a potential investor this is a great demonstration of how committed someone is to their idea, and their passion. I don't doubt for a moment that Eric will be successful at what ever he sets out to do, you can't buy that kind of focus." ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4019755 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4019755 ) Then went on to at least play devil's advocate to the commenter who called it an 'ethical failure'. Honestly not trying to call you hypocritical here.. I'm genuinely curious what gives the AOL kid 'moxie' while the girl that plays up her relationships with folks is less admirable.

davemel37 14y ago

One Word About the attacks on Shirley Hornstein... Schadenfreude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude ------------------------

mindcrime 14y ago

And she has the top media company in the tech industry trying to take her down. TechCrunch isn't anything close to a "top media company." TC is a shitty blog run by a bunch of amateurs who should be lucky enough to be referred to as "wannabe journalists." TC exists to whore for page impressions and ad clicks, nothing more. The best thing to do is pretend they don't exist... quit reading TC, quit sending them "news", quit responding to their bullshit, etc.

corin_ 14y ago
I guess it depends whether you define "top media company" as top in quality of top in readership/influence/etc. I've on idea about stats but it wouldn't surprise me if TC was at the very top for its niche on the latter.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  I guess it depends whether you define "top media company" as top in quality of top in readership/influence/etc. Here, I'm referring more to quality / journalistic standards / ethics / etc, than readership. And even in terms of readership, I doubt TC can touch actual mainstream media outlets in terms of eyeballs.

softbuilder 14y ago

>It’s like reading a middle school girl’s diary. Exactly this. There was no point to the story. Sure, I'll buy that the lady is a headcase/creeper or whatever. But that's it? No real crimes detailed or list of people screwed over? It was just a finger-pointing "hate this person right here" piece. Cyberbullying doesn't just happen to kids.

mcantelon 14y ago
Expose fraud isn't bullying. She's a grown woman who chose to risk her reputation by playing a con game. Most con artists get away with it: she didn't. Her being exposed will deter other would-be parasites. Good.
- Jgrubb 14y ago
  > Most con artists get away with it Citation needed. > Her being exposed will deter other would-be parasites. I don't think this is how it works. I think the parasite or pathological liar or con man will always think they're smarter than that last person who got caught, if they even consider that person at all. They're probably just "playing the game", right?
- softbuilder 14y ago
  If there was a real exposé here, I might agree. There would be more specifics, statements from victims and prosecutors, etc.. This article lacked any purpose aside from pure humiliation. Maybe this lady is so awful that she deserves that, but the case wasn't made. What if she's mentally ill?
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    Well, they included a court document and any small startups thinking of pushing consulting money to her likely won't now, so mission accomplished. >What if she's mentally ill? Not all dishonest people are mentally ill.

xenen 14y ago

Exaggerating your connections to others to try and hustle favors and more connections is one thing, but photoshopping yourself into photos with celebrities is pretty damn creepy no matter how you look at it.

leoh 14y ago

Yes, TC is a bully. Not only that, Arrington is a major con artist. Half the people in the valley these days are con artists. It's like this girl was the scape goat for this overwhelming shitstorm of lies that has grown the past few years. Pathetic.

lukejduncan 14y ago

"So shame on TechCrunch for publishing something that belongs on TMZ." ... TechCrunch essentially is TMZ.

cpeterso 14y ago

I'm surprised there isn't a "Photoshop yourself with Shirley Hornstein" meme yet.

se85 14y ago
LMAO! Thats a really good idea!
- cpeterso 14y ago
  Or better yet, Shirley Hornstein with unexpected people or places: Shirley Hornstein with Darth Vader. Shirley Hornstein with the Curiosity rover on Mars.

mikescar 14y ago

TechCrunch is just a joke. I would never go there outside of HN posts, but it's really amusing to see how self-important a bunch of hipster bloggers can be when writing about people doing actual work. The puff pieces that they run as the majority of what is published, those are pretty funny. It's the slag pieces that are most entertaining.

OoTheNigerian 14y ago

The easiest antidote to an article such as this is to out yourself. If everyone knew this was coming out, she most probably knew. The advantage of her outing herself would be that it would be far less damaging and considering people love those that seek a sort of penance, something positive would have come out of her outing post. It is not too late though. She should write, ask for forgiveness, NOT blame TechCrunch for her woes and move on. Everyone loves a comeback stor so this might end up having a positive outcome if told well. Ironically, I did not read the post the first time I came across it. This post brought far more attention than the original one.

se85 14y ago

Come on people, she is a con artist! She deserved every last bit of it, and then some. If only more con artists got destroyed like this in public, the world would be a better place for sure.

gadders 14y ago

Leaving aside all the bruised egos of people that fell for her schtick, I'm well impressed with her photoshopping skills. She should be hired for that.

kenster07 14y ago

Most programmers are hard-working, relatively honest people. It must be difficult for them to watch people like Shirley pass them on the career ladder. It's one thing to have people skills, and use it as a lever to add benefit and value to this world. The Shirley's of this world deserve zero sympathy. That being said, the TechCrunch article wasn't as articulate as it should have been. At the very least, context should have been provided for these pictures.

xxiao 14y ago

I don't see any bully at all. In fact your title and the way you're describing is bullying. That article showed quite some evidences, where are yours? Plus, you called TechCrunch a bully outright, which is hard to do for any sensible human being, unless he/she is also a photoshop expert and got offended by this article.

Uchikoma 14y ago

I'm burning my karma with this, but I appreciate this article. As a startup I'd like to be warned, probably people wasted time with this girl, time to market, time to VCs, time to get there startup somewhere b/c they believed this girl would help them when indeed she didn't. Could they have done better due dilligence? Perhaps. Would others tell how they got burned? Perhaps. But I don't follow the thinking that everything other people do to you is your fault b/c you should have known better. The wrongdoer is the victim stuff. And it's astonishing how HN reacts to guys that fake startups, connections, products compared to this girl that is faking her way around. We'll see if there is coming more.

edm4r 14y ago

"The opposite of success isn't failure; it is name-dropping" - Nassim Taleb

illuminate 14y ago

I don't understand how exposing frauds is "bullying". This person is trying to pass false credentials, and has been somewhat successful in doing so. I don't see how exposing someone's scam is really "mean", yes, she might have some sort of personality disorder, but not all mental illness can be tolerated. If it's pathological, I feel badly for her on some level, but I still see no reason why she shouldn't be blocked from performing this social engineering in the future.

richieh 14y ago

http://betabeat.com/2012/08/shirley-hornstein-shirls-credit-card-fraud-records/ http://betabeat.com/2012/08/shirley-hornstein-shirls-credit-...

mark_l_watson 14y ago

I have called TechCrunch "assholes" twice on tweets in the last week or so (because I hate following a link to TC on my iPad and having to cancel the annoying nag popup to install their app; last time I could not get through to the article because of constant redirects back to the nag popup. Yuck.) So, I might be a little prejudiced against TC right now, but even with that, I think the original article about Shirley Hofnstein was really mean spirited. In any case, I usually do my web browsing on my iPad so I am not reading TechCrunch anymore anyway.

nfriedly 14y ago

Techcrunch dropped from one of my favorite sites to one that I actively avoid more than a year ago due to a number of the shenanigans they've pulled. I make special exceptions if someone I know is covered there, but other than that I basically avoid the site like the plague.