The Line Was Crossed
danielbru.com
danielbru.com
I dislike him, imho, for not being able to own up to what he did. Passive voice is not admitting anything. I mean- he might as well say "They crossed a line and I got fired," for he isn't actually admitting any fault.
The fact that one or two articles in techcrunch were unreliable is hardly news, this is an isolated incident. The actual apology--from a 17 year-old who is not himself a hacker nor a startup founder and whether it is sincere or not--not hacker news in my opinion.
That being said, who died and made me King?
Of course he's been writing for TC and I won't doubt its the right thing to write such a blog post in his situation, but this could just as well be written for a politician or a manager.
Yes, Daniel made a lapse in judgement, but being a minor (and clearly are hard and dedicated worker) he should have at least been given the opportunity to let this go down silently. When a minor gets into some trouble before they are 18, typically their record is wiped clean as they enter adulthood. Sadly, this is a permanent public record and could prevent him from getting hired or having a career in journalism again (whether thats deserved or not is up in the air).
As an intern, should he have been given so much responsibilty? Who knows really, it just kind of feels like they took advantage of Daniel and threw him to the wayside when he first faultered. Clearly that much spotlight and attention for someone that young might have been too much (at least without some protectionary measures). Losing his intern position and having to deal with that personally and with his family should have been punishment enough. If he wanted to make that a public issue, he should have at least gotten the choice. Instead he was forced publicly to disclose what happened to the world and might have to live with that small error in judgement his whole life. Ahah, it's almost the internets version of the story of original sin. I guess the temptation was to great for someone so young and naive and now hes been branded a bad seed.
I must admit to having no better argument (although I wouldn't have done such things!), but note that "not having internalized wrong" is not meaningfully different from the "too young" argument I first disagreed with.
Unless you want to suggest that it's a failure of education?
The knowledge of good and bad builds up and refines itself with age through experiences. Note that a lot of adults are still confused about this limit in some domains like for instance exchanging and using unpayed copies of films and musics.
The integrity and reputation of TC is in play here so the prompt and radical reaction was legitimate. The communication was also a good move to make clear that such behavior is not in line with TC ethics. Whether the collaboration with Daniel should have been terminated or not depends on his responsibility.
Turning public about this incident is a clear error of Daniel which may be another demonstration of his inexperience or bad advice given to him. This new error would have remained unnoticed if TC didn't advertise it.
My impression is that TC behaves with Daniel as if he was an adult, which he clearly isn't. This makes it much more difficult for Daniel to learn from his errors because the back burn is quite devastating and probably excessive.
I hope Daniel manage to learn the lessons, and I hope TC used this opportunity to learn some lessons too.
So in conclusion it is still not clear if Daniel is the only one to blame here. However the aim shouldn't be to know who to blame, but to make sure that everyone managed to learn what has to be learned and correct his behavior in consequence.
It didn't take me 17 years to learn that "hitting people up for bribes is bad." YMMV I guess.
The problem with tips, especially in the US, as far as I know, is that it is kind of perverted. It should be a free gift expressing gratitude and recognition, but it is often considered by the receiver as a due and even the amount is often codified and considered an implicit agreement. This is so strong that not giving a tip is socially considered bad.
In France and most European countries tips are thankfully not considered as a due and requesting a tip is even considered rude, especially if the amount is specified.
So what if the author (US) interpreted his compensation requests as a tip ? It could have been considered as normal from his perspective since it is so common.
The information that would help clarifying our mind on this is if the author has put the compensation as a condition to write the article or not. As long as we don't know this, making any judgment in one way or the other is just poor judgment, that's all I tried to explain in my previous answer. From this perspective the down vote is a bit disappointing.
I mean, Michael Arrington takes equity in return for publicity, this guy took a MacBook Air. What exactly is the difference?
However, it was blatantly obvious since his about page disappeared http://www.techcrunch.com/author/danielbru/
I mean, come on - "TechCrunch" isn't exactly the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal.
If someone had written "So and So intern got a laptop for writing an article at TechCrunch", I would have said "Awesome. Good on him. Hopefully he scores some more nifty electronics...."
I've never, ever, lived under the illusion that TC is some bastion of journalistic integrity... And I say this as an Avid and enthusiastic reader.
Relevant excerpt: "The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."
Why should someone be bribed with free expensive products for writing a blog post?
He took advantage of the situation. It takes a lot of time and effort for hardworking people to make money and I don't see why a kid should be given a MacBook under unethical circumstances.
Wouldn't the ethical dilemma be the payment for good results not the payment to be included in the first place? If consumer reports was running a review of vacuums and I knew I'd probably not be included, is it unethical to pay them to be included even if they don't give me high marks?
Perspective wasn't built in a day.
What a joke.
People make mistakes. Kids make more of them. Now with the internet, this mistake is going to live with Daniel for the next 80 years.
I'm really thankful that I lived in a time where you acted like an idiot when you were a teenager, just like all teenagers, and then folks forgot about it. But those days are long gone.
Meta note: It's very interesting to note the tone of some of the commenters here.
But he knowingly asked for a bribe in return for writing a post. His actions shows an actual personality flaw, not inexperience.
I think it's a fair trade-off, a young person is given the chance to take on an important role while being expected to show a certain level of maturity.