4 ms·

I agree. For what's its worth, he's an ardent supporter of user rights and you need someone with a loud voice on occasion. It's also quite difficult to inflic

by physcab 17y ago

I agree. For what's its worth, he's an ardent supporter of user rights and you need someone with a loud voice on occasion. It's also quite difficult to inflict change on an industry that seemed entrenched in its practices. Kudos to him for taking the initiative and getting results.

biznerd 17y ago
Ugh - guys please don't be fooled by this. The guy has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. Remember the last.fm fiasco? http://www.itworld.com/business/63085/lastfm-tech-crunch-and-riaa http://www.itworld.com/business/63085/lastfm-tech-crunch-and... He's a very opportunistic person. Ranting against popular business practices produces great publicity. So does posting a very damaging but completely unverified rumor. Arrington has done both, which is why he is hardly the Robin Hood of web2.0. Yes, occasionally Arrington's flamebaits produce some good. But overall TechCrunch is a mediocre and irresponsible "publication". I think it's a tragedy that the network effect has resulted in a clown running the most important blog about web start-ups. Imagine if the WSJ or NYT was run like TC.
- jkincaid 17y ago
  Imagine... http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/11/why-mainstream-media-is-dying.html http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/11/why-mainstream-media-is-dyi...
- ErrantX 17y ago
  I dont like Arrington much myself; especially after the Last.fm debacle. On the other hand had the last.fm story been true the fall out could have been as "big" as this. In that case he made a serious and unacceptable mistake in reporting very dodgy "information received". But he reported it for the right reasons and deserves some respect for that (IMO).
floodyberry 17y ago
He called scams bad (a very controversial stance!), let some scumbags brag about how they got rich off scams (I'm sure they all gave the money back), and has run off some 15 posts on the topic with links back from time & newsweek. What part of that was difficult or laudable? When he starts suffering personally or professionally to do the right thing there will be something to congratulate him for.
- stilist 17y ago
  It’s laudable because even though scams are obviously bad from our perspective, they were lucrative that nobody significant in the startup world had made them officially evil. Sometimes it doesn’t matter who you are if you can make things better.

by physcab 17y ago

biznerd 17y ago

Ugh - guys please don't be fooled by this. The guy has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. Remember the last.fm fiasco? http://www.itworld.com/business/63085/lastfm-tech-crunch-and-riaa http://www.itworld.com/business/63085/lastfm-tech-crunch-and... He's a very opportunistic person. Ranting against popular business practices produces great publicity. So does posting a very damaging but completely unverified rumor. Arrington has done both, which is why he is hardly the Robin Hood of web2.0. Yes, occasionally Arrington's flamebaits produce some good. But overall TechCrunch is a mediocre and irresponsible "publication". I think it's a tragedy that the network effect has resulted in a clown running the most important blog about web start-ups. Imagine if the WSJ or NYT was run like TC.

jkincaid 17y ago
Imagine... http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/11/why-mainstream-media-is-dying.html http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/11/why-mainstream-media-is-dyi...
ErrantX 17y ago
I dont like Arrington much myself; especially after the Last.fm debacle. On the other hand had the last.fm story been true the fall out could have been as "big" as this. In that case he made a serious and unacceptable mistake in reporting very dodgy "information received". But he reported it for the right reasons and deserves some respect for that (IMO).

floodyberry 17y ago

He called scams bad (a very controversial stance!), let some scumbags brag about how they got rich off scams (I'm sure they all gave the money back), and has run off some 15 posts on the topic with links back from time & newsweek. What part of that was difficult or laudable? When he starts suffering personally or professionally to do the right thing there will be something to congratulate him for.

stilist 17y ago
It’s laudable because even though scams are obviously bad from our perspective, they were lucrative that nobody significant in the startup world had made them officially evil. Sometimes it doesn’t matter who you are if you can make things better.