3 ms·
It was probably flagged because it's a little ridiculous. Those companies are not Michael Arrington's bosses. They are advertisers trying to reach a certain m
by jbenz 17y ago
It was probably flagged because it's a little ridiculous. Those companies are not Michael Arrington's bosses. They are advertisers trying to reach a certain market, the type of market that reads TechCrunch.
I don't think it's fair to shame these people for conducting business and attempting to bring in customers. Are they suppose to pull their advertising every time TC posts a controversial article? They're ads would barely show up at all.
- rwolf 17y agoI may be wrong, but I believe the page is not suggesting a temporary TechCrunch boycott by advertisers. While I agree that advertisers are not Arrington's boss, they do have more leverage than your average commenter (as the linked page says, "A note to the people paying Techcrunch's bills can make a big difference. They care what their customers think."). The attention-grabbing "wall of shame" phrasing makes this a little hard to parse. For people upset about the Twitter leak, convincing the advertisers to support their idea doesn't sound crazy. So, I disagree that the page is ridiculous. I'm a big fan of not seeing stories if HN's users don't think they are interesting (go social web!), and I don't think the original link was interesting.
- jbenz 17y agoI don't think it's crazy, and I don't think it's completely ridiculous either. The shaming part is what bothered me. The idea that these companies belong on wall of shame is (just a little) ridiculous. I kind of wish it hadn't been flagged too. I didn't catch it until this second posting. Now that I look back at the HN post, it looks like I'm rehashing some of that conversation.