I 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,

I 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.