8 ms·
It seemed like a slight overreaction here, but I have a feeling this was built-up rage over something else.
by dcurtis 17y ago
It seemed like a slight overreaction here, but I have a feeling this was built-up rage over something else.
- bkbleikamp 17y agoAgreed, Arrington's initial comment seemed to be a joke playing on all the accusations of him not disclosing his interests in start ups that are reviewed on TechCrunch.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- access_denied 17y agoI guess Leo is genuinely interested in technology. Arrington? I don't know off course but he doesn't seem to care.
- jsz0 17y agoProbably. It's such trash journalism this Arrington guy deals in. He should probably be covering celebrity gossip, not technology. Anyone can go try out a Pre, many people have review units, and he didn't even let him answer the question before suggesting bias.
- qeorge 17y agoHere's what I don't understand: I see anti-Arrington comments like this frequently, yet TechCrunch appears on the frontpage every day (usually several times a day). Where's the disconnect? (Full disclosure: I received a Mike Arrington review copy)
- pg 17y agoTC is polarizing, but HN doesn't have downvotes.
- qeorge 17y agoBut isn't not upvoting a form of downvoting?
- ynniv 17y agoNo, if 100 people love something and 100 people hate it, it will show up on the front page with +100. With downvoting, it would not show up on the front page with a score of 0.
- weaksauce 17y agoIt should be also mentioned that on most days it only takes a handful of votes to get to the front page.
- ynniv 17y agoIt might take a lot more with downvoting!
- weaksauce 17y agoIt would certainly take more to get to the front page with downvoting. I think the trouble with downvoting is if you have a polarizing story that is interesting the vocal minority could in practice downvote stories that don't align with their worldview. Thus censoring an otherwise merit based story economy. I was toying with different downvoting schemes but all of them seemed flawed in a fundamental way: You could have downvotes after a certain threshold. You could have downvoting carry a different weight based on how much karma you have. You could have downvotes only after a certain time has passed thus making stories with polarizing opinions not get squashed immediately but still allow for the opposition to have their voice heard. You could have downvotes only enabled on submissions from members under a certain karma threshold. I am sure there are many more ways to do the downvoting but I think there is a more fundamental problem with downvotes in that it creates a kind of hostile community. It might be worth having the occasional dumb story come to the front page to keep this place a civil place. Downvotes in the comment section should be reserved for a person that does not further the discussion or is overly rude to another member here.
- jibiki 17y ago> Where's the disconnect? Nobody can downvote articles. Also, TC's journalism isn't usually just MA stirring up drama. The average TC article on HN simply profiles a new startup, or service, or acquisition.
- htsh 17y agojust wondering - if nobody can downvote, how is it than some trollish stories end up at 0 or negative numbers?
- oomkiller 17y agoNever seen a negative story, but I have seen stories removed, which is done by an admin (i think) after it gets a few 'flags'
- jganetsk 17y agoNow, the average TC article is about Twitter.
- ruby_roo 17y agoIf Leo pressed on, wouldn't that have been a case of feeding the troll? Arrington even eggs him on with "Whatcha gonna do about it?" What a prick.