I believe there was a dinner, Arrington reported it, but there is/was no real collusion or conspiracy
63 points
Don't care
59 points
I believe that Arrington uncovered that the 'super angels' were colluding to further their interests, and it has changed my opinion of these super angels.
39 points
I believe that Arrington uncovered that the 'super angels' were colluding to further their interests, but it has not changed my opinion of them.
I personally can't believe that Arrington is getting hailed for this by some people.
Maybe he's absolutely right in his accusation. But we've seen nothing but hearsay, delivered out of a context involving Arrington's social rejection by people he keeps referring to as friends. It's hard not to wonder whether or not it's just a tantrum thrown by someone blocked from the 'NO-ARRINGTONS' secret society.
(Which is not to say that I'm claiming he made EVERYTHING up. But how much did it play into his decision to report such serious allegations with little actual evidence? That's what I'm asking.)
In any case - that's not journalism. That's not someone who spent a long time doing investigative research, gathering evidence, on-the-record testimony... it's bitchy gossip - and that's it. It's times like this that I feel that we really have lost something important with the rise of blogger journalism.
Whatever the truth, it all looks extremely childish and unprofessional from all sides.
He is getting praise about it because most reporters would have preserved the connections they have with these people and not said a word.
Arrington said up front that he was not invited to this dinner, he showed up expecting a quick chat or a rejection and knew that he was stirring trouble by showing up. He was tipped off that something was up because they all remained quiet, and chased up afterwards to find out that something fishy had indeed gone on (he confirmed with two people, one of those being the person who tipped him off to the meeting).
As entrepreneurs, do we not want people like Arrington fishing out stories like this? Can't we appreciate that the reason he went public is to let the public be aware that something might be happening.
I can see how people might be arguing that what the angels are doing is not wrong, but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything.
Besides, the post from McClure today confirmed everything Arrington wrote yesterday (it was that post that completely tipped my own opinion). Dave essentially said 'yes this is all what happen, but we aren't colluding because it is a free country'. Doesn't what Dave posted counter-argue everything you just wrote? And that is coming straight from somebody who was there, not somebody who read about it online and then formed an opinion.
"but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything."
...is about as fallacious as it gets. I totally support your sentiment that journalists should be out there taking down the bastards of the world. And we suffer from such a dearth of this that I am hardly surprised that so many people want to believe that this is what is happening here.
But how can you possibly assert that just because I'm saying that Arrington shouldn't have broke the story in the manner that he did - that it follows that I'm arguing that journalists should just process press releases? That's just a ridiculous implication.
If Arrington had a genuine tip as to some bad goings on - then I certainly don't think that he should have just buried his head in the sand and ignore it. He should have INVESTIGATED it further before mouthing off. Even if he had some balls in making his post - you're confusing his balls with good journalism. Good journalism is to go further than just gossip, it's to go further than just to mouth off...
It's possible I've got this wrong. Maybe Arrington here has got the integrity of a Berstein and Woodwoard duo sourcing information from a DeepThroat type personage.
I just don't see any evidence of this. If anyone does - I'd be keen to see it.
He was out-there and persistant with the story at the same time that other media outlets were praising Zynga for their performance figures. Arrington was mocked by developers at a conference when he made these accusations to Offerpal Media - and in the end the CEO ended up being replaced, Zynga apologized and Facebook changed their platform policies.
It was easy for people to be critical of his initial claims because they didn't come back later when it ended up being true with an apology.
There are blogs dedicated to covering the social gaming space, and when they covered these companies they painted a rosy picture and never questioned the offer system that was causing children to steal from their parents and be unfairly charged.
We should be thankful that Techcrunch and some other bloggers are putting the truth ahead of any other interests and not only exposing these stories but forcing companies to change the way they work to benefit consumers.
Old media are struggling and killing off the old style of investigative journalism - and it is great that somebody is picking up the mantle and challenging conventions. Stories like this shouldn't be written off just because they are from " a blog".
Is it bad to double reply? I'm enjoying the discussion. :)
I think the example you've cited is quite a good one... He provides clear evidence for his claim that can be independently verified. And certainly props goes to Arrington for the effort.
That doesn't make his current adventure any more respectable - each effort must be judged on its own merits.
Also - it's not actually the central issue whether or not Arrington is right or not. I accept that he might be - after all, what would I know? The key issue is whether or not it's appropriate to publically air unsubstantiated, barside allegations of such a damaging nature without further evidence to back it up.
That's the point I want addressed - and I'm not seeing anyone provide me with a decent justification of the behaviour.
"The key issue is whether or not it's appropriate to publically air unsubstantiated, barside allegations of such a damaging nature without further evidence to back it up."
Well it is a tough call, I think most people cringed when they read the story and not in a bad way, more in a 'I can't believe I am reading this' sort of way.
This story, by its very nature, is difficult to verify further - unless he can get one of the VC's on the record I think it will remain the way it is now, that is, a strong allegation and a series of denials.
I was hoping for an update today from Arrington to keep this story rolling - right now it seems to be in a state of limbo.
If I was keeping score, I think it is a tie except for McClure losing a few points with his response (and I am familiar with his writing style, I just think his response jumped around the issue a lot)
Woodward and Bernstein had far less integrity than Arrington!
Arrington's source was one of the potential conspirators, and he's blowing it up early to kill it and get it out there so more sources either publish or leak. Woodward and Bernstein were being spoonfed almost every drop of information from a single source, the acting head of the FBI — they were used as stenographers by the professional part of the government to take down the elected part. They would have never been canonized as the pinnacle of journalism had they revealed their source twenty years earlier.
And these are competing VCs yeah? Because they would have no interest in making their competitors look bad?
Absolutely it required further investigation than two barside chats... certainly before one starts throwing the muck which is pretty hard to wash off - innocent or not.
Imagine it hypothetically - you meet with a few of your competitors to discuss some issues and a couple of them immediately turn to a report and lie and say that you're being evil. The reporter goes ahead and publishes these claims without even trying to independently check them, and without even asking you your side first (and Arrington gave no indication in his article that he did either of these things). Now, as per the hypothetical... how would you feel about it?
Now I'm not saying these folks were lying - but the point is, how do we know?
You're right that we don't know, but as I mentioned above it was McClure's post that tipped me because it confirmed most of what happen (McClure even said 'it's not that your post is wrong').
I can imagine a scenario where the VCs discussed agreeing not to out-bid each other in deals and to work together without actively knowing that what they were doing could be seen as a problem by others. In the TC article, the issue at the core here only came up because on of the VC's "started feeling uncomftable".
So it could turn out that they thought they were innocently discussing some of these points and were so caught up in themselves that nobody took a step back and analyzed the situation (which is why I think it was McClure - a relatively new 'vc' - was the person who tipped Arrington off and was the person who felt uncomfortable).
Plus, if you think about it, everybody is colluding all the time. All the founders who come help yc companies out are colluding with them to beat the competition, and yc is a big old festival of colluding.
Colluding isn't really a crime. Saying "here's a method to get a better deal or reduce costs" happens all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Are these guys important, respected people? Of course. Do they primarily invest in companies within Silicon Valley? Yep.
Is the country, and the world much bigger than the ego's of these guys? Absolutely.
My point is, why should I care about a closed door meeting that happened 2000 miles away from me.
As a startup founder I find myself hesitant to comment on articles / topics like these mostly due to the fact that you never know who you might work with in the future. But I'll make the exception here.
I find it difficult to believe that a bunch of smart investors would sit in a public restaurant and discuss how to restrain each other from making costly investments. It would have been much easier to do it someone's home and not be noticed..there's just too much at stake.
Do super angels have super powers? Or could it just be that a bunch of guys in the same industry wanted to meet together. That people in a given industry meet to further the goals of that industry is hardly surprising.
Who doesn't want to buy into a company at a lower valuation?
Who cares! Collusion should be legal. It's based on freedom of association, freedom of speech and private property. The only cartels/monopolies we should be are the ones governments create--since they're really the only ones immune from competition. Let's talk about phasing out the FCC, not a bunch of angel investors meeting.
The problem with your implied argument (that competitors that aren't part of the collusion will make the collusion irrelevant) is that there are often significant barriers to entry in many markets that favour encumbents.
Maybe he's absolutely right in his accusation. But we've seen nothing but hearsay, delivered out of a context involving Arrington's social rejection by people he keeps referring to as friends. It's hard not to wonder whether or not it's just a tantrum thrown by someone blocked from the 'NO-ARRINGTONS' secret society.
(Which is not to say that I'm claiming he made EVERYTHING up. But how much did it play into his decision to report such serious allegations with little actual evidence? That's what I'm asking.)
In any case - that's not journalism. That's not someone who spent a long time doing investigative research, gathering evidence, on-the-record testimony... it's bitchy gossip - and that's it. It's times like this that I feel that we really have lost something important with the rise of blogger journalism.
Whatever the truth, it all looks extremely childish and unprofessional from all sides.