I was the one who came forward about the Macbook Air | Hacker News Reader

I was the one who came forward about the Macbook Air

sam.bluwiki.com

310 pointsaston145 comments

Daniel recognizes his mistake and is simply trying to put this issue behind him. I regret that this post might make it more difficult for Daniel to do that.

Why the hell does everyone seem to tiptoe around this guy? Asking for bribes isn't some sort of youthful indiscretion, its indicative of a fundamental personality trait that won't change as he gets older.

The more I learn about Jason and Loren, the clearer their malicious intent becomes.

Its unfortunate that he didn't do his homework on this one before contacting Calcanis.

From my interactions with Sam, he seems like a good guy trying to do right by others by making something useful for them. He shouldn't be in any way apologetic to these leeches.

I don't think it's a fundamental personality trait. Bribery is common in certain countries. Do you think it's because the people in such countries have different fundamental personality traits? Seems more likely this sort of thing is largely determined by the situation. The kid may have just gotten carried away by the power he suddenly found himself holding.

Let's say honesty is a fundamental personality trait. One can be honest and bribe in a country where bribery is accepted. That same person wouldn't in a country where bribery is illegal. It's not the act of bribing that determines one's personality trait - it's the honesty.

I don't really think honesty is a fundamental personality trait either. Consider that in polite adult society, there're many times that you are expected to lie, and it's considered rude if you don't. If a women asks, "Do I look fat?", do you say yes? If someone asks you "How are you?", do you go on about how your life sucks and you wish you had their job?

It's more that there are certain culturally-dependent rules of behavior, and considerate people eventually learn and conform to those rules. Oftentimes the rules make zero sense in logical terms; they evolved through long years of accumulated customs.

Most teenagers are still learning those rules, and part of learning them involves breaking them. Didn't you ever push the boundaries as a teenager? Do something that perhaps your parents and other authority figures disapproved of?

I was just commenting on how it could be possible that accepting bribery in one country, but not in another doesn't imply a different fundamental personality trait, as was assumed in the example.

Even that is actually rather blurry. There's a difference between gift-giving (and accompanying smalltalk) to build relationships, and gift-giving to get one's way.

Understand that the former (gift-giving to build relationships) is designed to artificially create a high cost of entry to any new relationship so that people are discouraged from making bad deals (or otherwise behaving unethically).

The latter (gift-giving in exchange for services) is generally not accepted for the simple reason that it subverts rational decision making on the part of officials. That much is the same everywhere.

The fact that there is "bad" bribery in some relationship-based cultures does not diminish the fact that it's undesirable. People there may put up with it because they just need to get things done, much like the way we put up with the legal and patent system here.

What the kid did in this case regarding the MacBook Air would likely be considered bribery in any country. It is clearly an exchange of goods in return for services rendered.

I hope this gets not turned on it's head and we are supposed to be sorry for the guy because he seems to be "socially challenged". He is general being described as a smart guy, it seems safe to assume that he knew exactly what he was doing.

Also, I wonder how accepted bribes really are in some cultures. My guess is that bribes exist in certain cultures because their policies put people into power and give them the chance to ask for bribes. I don't think the people having to do the bribing particularly like it, but they can't help it because the other people are in power. It's maybe more a sign of a defunct legal system than of cultural attitudes.

> That same person wouldn't in a country where bribery is illegal.

Oh how much I wish it was a matter of legality. Unfortunately it's a matter of culture, which is a lot harder to change.

In a lot of countries bribery is necessary on a daily basis, otherwise government officials can take literally hours to carry out simple requests. It seems to occur when the person carrying out gets very little pay verses the value of the service they carry out to people using the service.

For instance, it's quite common on land border crossings between developing countries to have to pay $2/3 for your passport to be checked, but that money only goes in the guy's pockets. It might not sound like a lot, but when you consider their daily wage may only be $10-15 and there are 100s of people crossing everyday, it works out quite well I'd expect. If you don't pay it might take them 30mins or more to check your passport or they find some minor problem and send you back wasting several days of your valuable time.

Mostly in the cases I've seen in developing countries, is that you just bribing someone so they will actually do their job properly.

The fundamental personality trait is lower level; ie risk aversion. Daniel is probably not very risk averse and hence this looked like a great opportunity.

Giving people who do this a thorough and public flogging is a great thing, however, as it'll help keep future Daniels in line.

Violent behavior is also a fundamental personality trait. Just because someone controls their violent tendencies in one environment vs another, doesn't mean that they aren't a violent person.

It's more likely that the job attracted him because it put him in a position where he could accept bribes. This is analogous to the attraction of pedophiles to the priesthood.

So bribery is okay in 'certain' countries, so it's okay in this one where there's well established laws dating back centuries that outlaw it? Bullshit, the guys a criminal. He took bribes and he should be driven out of the industry like the parasite he is.

He's young, I'll give him that. He should have been working harder than anyone to maintain his integrity and an image of maturity, but he wasn't he was trying to take advantage of people. He's a rat, through and through. It's so clear by his mixergy interview that he has no intent to admit his behavior was abhorrent.

He took bribes and he should be driven out of the industry like the parasite he is.

He's a rat, through and through.

It's actually a different kind of person that's an unfortunate presence in online tech debates.

Yeah, I think Sam is being far too generous in thinking Daniel has recognized his mistake. Going back to the Mixergy interview Daniel did, he claimed the suggestion of a Mac Book air was intended as a joke but it seems very clear that from Sam's point of view that it was not. Also, he uses the alleged "Birthday Present" cover story when talking about the iMac he received.

When most 17-year-olds make mistakes - even big ones - the whole internet doesn't know about it. Kids make judgment mistakes because they aren't emotionally mature yet. One mistake made at 17 is not necessarily indicative of a lifelong personality trait.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Sadly, a lot of people need to be bribed to get work done. Even if they may not ask directly, its written all over their face.

Thats the way the world works.

You mean people expect something money in return for work? That sounds like a salary.

"On February 5th, Jason Calacanis posted some thoughts on the Techcrunch "extortion" story. I found his article insightful and well written. Wanting to reach out to someone about the issues I've been struggling with, I emailed him and confessed my involvement."

This is the first time I have actually performed a real facepalm.

+1. Reaching out to someone? Not a horrible idea. Reaching out to Calacanis? What in the hell was he (not) thinking? He's the nosy watercooler gossip lady of the blogosphere.

He's worse than that. Mahalo is Yahoo 1994 being sold to people as if it's something else. I pity his investors.

It's much worse than that. Yahoo 1994 was providing some real value, in terms of organizing and filtering information.

Yahoo 1994 would be something for Mahalo to aspire to.

Wow! You guys are harsh. Love it. I should have been harsher. :P

I have to say, he handled it very well considering the circumstances. I don't think Divvyshot was at fault here either, his responses to Daniel were perfectly understandable.

It almost sounds like what happens in sexual harassment cases. The victim will often not give a straightforward refusal, because they're trying to avoid the consequences confrontation may lead to. It's not particularly admirable, but it is totally understandable.

I've lived in a few different countries and cultures and one thing I've learned is that the reply "Maybe later" is a polite way of saying "I will definitely not do it but I want to avoid any confrontation." It's actually quite surprising how universal this is.

Yes, good point - perhaps, because of Daniel's age and inexperience, he didn't know about this social cue and kept on pushing it when he should have read between the lines.

I'm sure we've all done dumb stuff in our youth we'd like to forget.

Actually does he not admit he doesn't give a straightforward refusal because the idea of the coverage actually makes him think its worth it? rather than the consequences of the confrontation.

The consequences feature in his thinking about if and when to report it to techcrunch a bit later on

Not meaning this as criticism of Daniel though who comes across fine - massive, massive difference between considering doing something unethical and actually doing it.

When talking to technology industry journalists, I'm not surprised that bribery starts to seem like a halfway good idea. Because most of it is bribery, of an indirect sort.

In this industry, people are allowed to fly journalists to exotic locations, throw them massively expensive parties, comp them entry to conferences, entertain them, take them out to fabulous restaurants, give them enormous amounts of their valuable time, allow them sneak previews, team t-shirts and other tchotchkes, etc. etc. etc. And that's the stuff that's on the books.

If you look at it as a simple ROI calculation, bribing a journalist seems like a good deal, and not tremendously different from all the other stuff you would have had to do anyway.

I'm not sure that it's simple ethics that makes us all recoil from bribery. Because we're obviously okay with all the other indirect, soft bribery.

I think, at a deeper level, people realize that once journalists offer direct quid pro quos, then there will be no end to their demands. So giving in to one will hurt all of one's colleagues (and oneself) in the future.

Spot on comparison.

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently."

Warren Buffett

Maybe i'm underestimating these "consequences", but reading the interview i just cant' understand why he didn't simply said to the kid to get lost...

Calacanis does not seem worth trusting based on this.

When did Calacanis ever seem to be worth trusting? He'll do anything to get attention.

or this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1074168

or this: http://www.seobook.com/black-hat-seo-case-study

...

I think he's worth trusting as much as it's worth it to trust anybody else in business; that is, not that much. Jason Calacanis is not your friend, unless he's actually your friend. If you have a juicy story you want kept secret, why would you tell one of the most loud people in your industry?

1. I did forward the note to Loren, but I didn't think Loren would use it this way.

2. Loren shouldn't have and that was not cool.

3. Daniel has problems and needs to get help. I feel bad for him because doing something so extreme at a young age so publicly is, well, not good.

4. Good on the company who turned Daniel in and who confessed--that's brave. It was also really stupid and desperate to even consider, let alone promise, giving a laptop in return for a blog post. Honestly, if you're company doesn't get attention don't get desperate... just keep trying!

5. Bad on me for sending this to Loren. I honestly didn't even read the whole thing... I was like "oh here is an email from the dude who got extorted cool... " I actually didn't think it was that big of deal.

6. If you can do a story about Open Angel Forum on Thursday and get it to the top slot on HN I will gladly give you an Apple Tablet.

Anyway, I've got more important things to attend to at 1AM than Daniel extortion plot fall out.

peace and love,

jcal

Peace and love?

http://twitter.com/Jason/status/9866153749 http://twitter.com/Jason/status/9866120496

Bullshit.

I also think it's amusing that you call Sam a loser for dithering when asked to give a bribe, but here you are trying to bribe your way onto Hacker News.

I have a hard time reconciling your desire to be "the most sought-after, and value-added, angel investor in the world" and the huge shit you just took on Sam's head -- in public, no less.

This AFTER you forwarded a confidential email to a third-party who used it to threaten Sam.

but here you are trying to bribe your way onto Hacker News.

Satire dude. Satire.

The last comment here got me downvoted; not sure why.

When I read it I was 50/50 as to whether he was being sarcastic or not. I guess I came down on the wrong side. :)

it's a loser move to even considering bribing your way into coverage.

that being said, he is a hero for coming out about his mistake!

peace and love... peace and love... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAU0l7325w0

Noblesse Oblige ... look it up. It's a sad reflection on your personality that you would go after a little guy like this and still defend yourself.

You gotta kill the spiders to save the butterflies.

If you wanted to sway me into disagreeing with parent's post, then you pretty much failed. Your post came across as pretty insincere. Sorry to say.

And this: If you can do a story about Open Angel Forum on Thursday and get it to the top slot on HN I will gladly give you an Apple Tablet.

Always an agenda, eh. Even if the event is news-worthy (and organization good), together with the rest of your post it certainly made me sneer.

get a sense of humor.... really. this isn't that big of deal.

also, i get noting out of doing Open Angel Forum other than pleasure (and maybe the ability to cherry pick a couple of amazing investments from time to time if the startups will have me!). it's a pure labor of love....

... don't hate.

Obviously it's a more of a "big deal" to a lot of people on this site, considering it got 200 votes overnight.

Pretending it's not a big deal makes you sound ignorant. If and when mahalo fails, and you end up having to sell your tesla, no ones going to be around to support you.

"I have thrown my life into Divvyshot for the last year. I've personally invested close to $100,000 into the company. I would probably give anything I have to see it succeed. Other than a happy and fulfilling relationship with my girlfriend, there's nothing I want more."

Sounds like a big deal to me. Not good when good men like Sam have to deal with men of dubious morals and ethics and for the kicker we get to hear that the issue is that our sense [of] humor is lacking.

Peace and love.

Why do people downmod Jason's post? Disagreeing is not a reason for downmodding. I was interested in his response, whatever it might be. I want to judge for myself.

Because the post is positively oozing insincerity, and most of us here value honesty?

Except his posts all get a reflexive down-vote to -4. I don't see the point, obviously the discussion here is better for his defending himself.

Give the guy some credit for showing up in front of the firing squad and trying to defend himself.

Or we can turn this into a complete echo chamber where we can all bad-mouth Jason in absentia.

I guess people feel like he doesn't deserve credit.

Irrelevant. That's not what voting is for. I've upvoted every one of Jason's posts, not because I agree with them, but because downvoting is for something else.

It's not for you to decide what down-voting is for.

Some people don't like lies, other people don't like off-topic posts, other people don't like fallacies, and other people just don't have time to write a disagreement post ... especially if the assertions made in the down-voted comment aren't worth bothering with.

And if down-voting should have a purpose ... then it should definitely be for filtering out people not in HN's demographic.

And if down-voting should have a purpose ... then it should definitely be for filtering out people not in HN's demographic.

That might be true for people who want to use HN to talk about politics or religion, but Jason is definitely in our demographic. He's a web startup founder, whether or not his startup sucks.

What do you consider grounds for a down-vote then ? (this is sincere question)

Two possibilities:

1) In the case of obvious trolling or idiocy, e.g. "lol your mom sucks" or "ur dumb", downvoting below zero is warranted because those comments are stuff that we don't want to see at all.

2) In the case of everything else, downvoting is warranted, imho, only when something has been upvoted beyond where it should be. For example, if Jason's posts were at 50 upvotes, I would downvote them, because that's totally unwarranted. In this case, I'd downvote them even at 10 points... they're relevant because of who he is and how he's connected to this, but not that insightful.

Basically, for all non-troll posts, you should upvote/downvote based on whether you feel the post has the points it deserves, and generally never downvote below zero.

In this case, Jason, although controversial, is not an obvious stupid troll - he's responding to points that people are making. I would like to see his posts somewhere between 1 and 5 points, rather than at -4.

I look at HN voting in the same way. If you upvote what you agree with and downvote what you don't, you end up with Reddit, where "lolz your mom" gets +12 and reasoned disagreement ends up -30.

I actually end up upvoting a lot of <1 point comments, even ones I disagree with. If the comment is reasonably coherent and not trolling, it usually shouldn't be below 1.

Thanks for the explanation of how you decide.

I guess since there are no explicit references in the HN guidelines it's up to each user to make his or her mind up themselves.

I was also interested in his replies, but it seems he has a different answer ready for the HN crowd and different one for the world as pointed by his tweets linked by jfarmer.

For me, changing a statement like this is pretty close to lying and is probably worse than trolling.

I just had a 40 minute bike shed moment thanks to this question.

How else would you indicate strong disagreement with a comment given the HN culture of well thought out replies and a zero cost binary device for weighing in on an issue, when you have nothing else to contribute other than "I disagree"/"I do not like your post"?

Upvote the commenter who makes the point you wanted to make. If no one else says it, you say it.

For instance, I upvoted Calcanis' comment (to rescue it from negative number territory) and upvoted the people who pointed out the insincerity / inconsistency. Both kinds of posts advanced the general knowledge.

I didn't have to upvote the more personal attacks on Calcanis. But it did feel pretty good. ;)

I think people judged with their votes.

Then you should judge and upvote his post. Please do not tell people how to vote -- that itself is judging. Users are given the ability to upvote or downvote and the community should see that through. Its always interesting to me how many people jump in and try to establish rules on upvoting and downvoting. I'm sorry but every member of this community should upvote and downvote as they please.

Agreed, regardless of whether you disagree with him or not, his post is quite topical to this article.

because they are Jason Haters.... Jayters.

there are a group of them who down vote everything i post... doesn't matter how insightful... TEN DOWN VOTES!!

it's kind of funny.

I did not downvote your comment even though your comment sounded insincere and provocative. I did not down-vote because it was already low on points. I think most HN-ers hate downvoting.

there are a group of them who down vote everything i post... doesn't matter how insightful...

I don't have much experience in the industry other than reading a few blogs and even I could not spot any insights in most of your past comments in HN (especially the ones from the SEOmoz debate).

Anyway, I've got more important things to attend to at 1AM than Daniel extortion plot fall out.

Really? This is enough to piss off anyone who read it. As far as I can understand you forwarded a private email. You have more important things to do than attending to things you screwed up? I can't understand what is so insightful in that.

(Good that you apologized to Daniel. Kudos)

http://bit.ly/peacenlove

"Hey! There is nothing wrong with what I do or what I say! It's those bad haters!"

"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

From http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm not sure that's it. I've down voted some of your comments because they just seem to ooze insensibility and really have you coming across like an almighty bell-end. I don't know you apart from a few comments of yours I've seen here on HN.

Just a simple apology would probably have been your best bet. Everyone makes mistakes. Best not to lash out at the people you've already harmed.

http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=jasonmcalacanis

If you look at your comment history, this is not true. Some people are down voting you extensively in this thread, this is not true for the whole community or even for your comments outside this thread.

All the downvoting actually makes finding and reading your comments in a post a lot easier. Just look for the faded blocks of text in the sea of dark letters.

Bad on me for sending this to Loren. I honestly didn't even read the whole thing... I was like "oh here is an email from the dude who got extorted cool... " I actually didn't think it was that big of deal.

Never email something you're not comfortable with sharing with the world. Aside from the security concerns, your email is not going to be read in a clean room and you never know what distraction, mood or state's caught the recipient.

uhhhh..... correct!

it would have been kept confidential if it said confidential in the subject line or first line. i get 400-500 emails a day... i scan most.

If he was so concerned about keeping it private why did he e-mail you in the first place? Did the e-mail specifically ask you not to share? If not it's a valuable lesson in how the exchange of information works in the real world. Talk to your good friends about private issues in a private setting. Don't start sending e-mails to strangers(?) and expect them to understand the implied privacy concerns without an explicit privacy request attached.

If you read, jason's comments in the original post, he has said that the email asked to be kept confidential. Jason said he didn't read the whole thing and forwarded it for fun and berated sam for not mentioning confidentiality in the subject !! Stay away from calcanis.

Ah well that's just sloppy or shady. No excuse for that.

Re: 3. ... 'so publicly '.. You make it sound the problem is the publicity rather the act itself :) Actually it may be better in the long run for him it happened so publicly, or he may have reached new lows later on encouraged by early success. Being caught can be a blessing in disguise.

good point

JC did not out him..LF had other sources he used..as Sammy has a big damn mouth

LF: No emails from Jason were in any way involved in the making of this story. Nothing was spoken about, reprinted, or transmitted by me in any way.

JC: Bad on me for sending this to Loren. I honestly didn't even read the whole thing... I was like "oh here is an email from the dude who got extorted cool... " I actually didn't think it was that big of deal.

Not only did JC not out Sam Odio but some of us smart people figured out who of Sam's friends bought Daniel the iMac..

Sam Odio was dumb enough to open his mouth even..I mean when you blab that bad over internet about what you thought you got away with why do you expect it to be secret for long?

I wasn't "blabbing" about something I got away with. I reached out to Jason because I mistakenly thought that he might be willing to help a guy in a tight spot. I've never been in a situation like this before. That was obviously a mistake.

Also, I've been careful to only reveal information about my friend that was already public. See Daniel's mixergy interview: http://mixergy.com/daniel-brusilovsky/

It's already known that Daniel received an iMac and who he received it from.

Yup. He said who gave him the iMac. People who called my interview a joke are still trying to figure out if he got the iMac and who gave it to him. But he did the Mixergy interview on the iMac and talked about who gave it to him.

And, making fun of Daniel is a slam dunk right now. Everyone seems to be doing it. I think the more honorable thing is to think when others are outraged.

No matter whether you agree or disagree with JC, Mike Arrington or anyone else in this debacle here is what really pisses me off

As a person building a startup and startup products there is no room for behavior in which both sides of the bribe get a free pass.

S Odio is just as guilty as Daniel..

We do not need this type of fraud in our tech industry as it leads to bigger fraud crimes.

Okay back to code..rant mode off

At what point did Sam take part in a bribe? His response seems to have been a genuine mix of confusion, shock and "I assume this is a joke right?". Ultimately he went to arrington when it was clear the idea of a bribe was serious.

How else should he have reacted?

Yeah, you made some mistakes, but don't be too hard on yourself. That kind of situation is unexpected and when you're in the moment, it's hard to know how to respond. Good on you for doing the right thing in the end, and for coming clean about everything publicly now. In the end, a person's character is less about never making mistakes than how you handle the mistakes you do make.

Loren Feldman's threats against Divvyshot:

> "If I were ipodrip and divvyshot, Id be be starting to think about damage control. Arrington cant hide you forever."

> "Divvyshot. you have 24 hrs."

Veiled threats via Twitter? Come on. Unnecessarily dramatic and threatening, childish even.

http://www.1938media.com/crunchgate/

A little heavier of a threat than just twitter but this Loren guy came out as the biggest scumbag out of all of them for me.

Loren's just reporting it - and says he got his info from multiple sources.

He didn't ask for bribes, nor did he tell anyone he'd provide a bribe. Yes he's a dirty, agressive man, that makes puppets of his enemies to mock them, but that's just his personality - his ethics aren't being called into question here.

This account contradicts what Daniel Brusilovsky said during his Mixergy interview (http://mixergy.com/daniel-brusilovsky/).

From the interview transcript:

Interviewee: I mean, so there were conversations that I had with this company and both in jokingly in manner and that they may have perceived as the real thing.

Andrew: I see so you and I are sitting and talking and I might want you to write about Mixergy for Tech crunch and I say listen Dan. Why don’t you write for Mixergy? Why don’t you write about Mixergy on Tech crunch? No there’s nothing, there’s no loops here. I say what if I give you this Mac book pro that I’m writing? That kind of joke.

Interviewee: Exactly!

Andrew: We’re not giving you the Mac book pro but we’re kidding around.

Interviewee: Yeah

I realize this contradicts the details Daniel's story.

I'm trying to respect Daniel's wishes by not releasing transcipts of our conversations.

However if Daniel feels that I wasn't fair or accurate then i'll release transcripts. I'll leave it up to him.

I don't think that respecting his wishes is a virtuous thing to do in this situation. If what you've said is true, first he extorted you and then he lied about extorting you. In effect, he slandered you by saying that you got him fired over a misunderstanding.

Protecting him from a isolated indiscretion of youth is fine, but he's revealed his true character with a series of immoral acts.

Not releasing the transcripts also prevents people from knowing whether what you've said is really true. By protecting him, you're actually harming yourself.

I think Sam is trying to clear his name and at the same time adding as little fuel to the fire as possible.

Agreed, who gives a damn about this guys 'stature' for working at Tech Crunch.

Last time I checked extortion was a serious crime, he should be exposed and the authorities should be investigating how wrong his actions were or weren't. Beyond that the transcripts should be released so everyone in the industry knows EXACTLY the type of person he is and whether they want to deal with him.

Bribery and extortion kills political careers, and it should kill journalistic careers too.

For what it's worth, Daniel told me who turned him into TC, but I agreed not to say.

And these two accounts of the conversations contradict each other. What you excerpted here is pretty much what he told me before the interview.

A few lines down from your excerpt:

Interviewee: There are IMs. They’re not made public and hopefully they won't be made public.

Daniel told me who turned him into TC, but I agreed not to say.

Kudos.

Good to hear Andrew, certainly the kind of behaviour you've led me to expect.

How do you suggest that you'd write an article about someone if they give you a laptop in a 'joking' manner. If I asked my secretary to suck my cock 'in a joking manner' it's still sexual fucking harassment, this is juvenile bullshit he's 17 and clearly displaying it.

Regardless of his intention, it was gross professional misconduct and he fully deserved being dismissed.

While I agree with your every word, I down voted you for using vile language.

I must be missing something (I haven't followed this story), but how is this an issue at all for anyone except TC and their journalistic integrity? Am I supposed to feel morally outraged that a tiny startup even just entertained the idea of giving someone a gift in exchange for blog coverage? Is there actually something here or just self-important silicon valley pundit drama? (god I'm glad I unsubscribed from TC long ago)

Seems like its a small start-up founder trying to protect his baby from PR hungry wolves.

Yes, especially since these PR hungry wolves gave him 24 hours to confess publicly before they put their own spin on what happened. I commend him for coming out in good faith and being upfront and honest about the situation. I definitely have more respect for him and Divvyshot as an organization after this.

I feel for Divvyshot, the actual event seems way beyond their control and this has brought a whole new angle. It just makes me wonder how many other eager startups may have/will/could be put in this kind of situation for 'positive coverage', when they have a lot at stake in their business.

I think you guys are way to easy on Daniel using the cover of youth and naivety, at 17 you are more than capable of knowing this kind of behavior is unacceptable. The only reason he would do extort someone like this is because he is fully aware of the power of his position. If what Sam is saying is true.. then there should be no excuse.

Correct.

Daniel wants to be treated like an adult when he is writing a story or claiming to be the stage manager at TechCrunch50 (uhhh.... no, he wasn't). Then he wants to be forgiven for a folly of youth when he extorts startups.

He's an adult, he f-ed up and he really never apologized correctly. "A line was crossed" is not an apology... he really should have said "I tried to extort thousands of dollars from companies in exchange for blogs posts and I betrayed the trust of the people who helped me most in my professional life: the TechCrunch team."

Honest question: why does anyone listen to anything Loren Feldman says?

Loren Feldman responds:

http://www.1938media.com/crunchgate-what-makes-sammy-run/

Me personally? I signed up for Divvyshot a few weeks ago and forgot about it. I'm about to go check it out again now. I like Sam's attitude and honesty.

Ugh. The growing lack of civility online makes me sad. I want to undo the traffic I just sent to that blog, so I've reproduced the contents here in the hopes that other people can avoid clicking on the link:

Crunchgate - What Makes Sammy Run? By Loren Feldman, on March 2nd, 2010

Well it seems we have yet more about Crunchgate to discuss. I thought we were all done with this. It really is the gift that keeps giving. It seems our newest character in this pathetic tale is some guy named Sam Odio. Seems Sam owns Divvyshot. Sam’s also an idiot, see he’s the guy who Dainel Brusivlosky wanted the McAir from for reviews on Techcrunch. He says he never got it for him though. Good for you Sam. HIS FRIEND DID GET DANIEL AN IMAC though for coverage. Right Sam? Anyway, Sam wrote a big woe is me blog post about how I outed his crimes with Jason Calacanis. Only problem is it never happened. A lot of people knew that Sam was dirty and weak. Many people know of his story with Daniel Bru. I had 3 different people tell me in fact. Amateurs like these guys tend to have big mouths. Especially dopey ones with shitty iphone apps.

Knowing how weak and stupid someone must be to be in this situation to begin with I knew I could scare this guy into confessing his evil ways. I tweeted. “You have 24hrs.” That’s it. That’s all I said. Well, when you are guilty and stupid that’s all it takes to make you cave, because that’s exactly what Sam did. Sam, you are a weak dishonest dope. You were played by Daniel Bru, and now you were just played by your own guilt.

All I needed to do was give the mere suggestion that Sam might get caught and he confessed, and that’s what happened here. Social engineering FTW!! Sam you need to stop crying. You are weak, dishonest and stupid. I can’t imagine these traits help you with building quality iphone apps.

The real story Sammy boy is not you, but which one of your friends BOUGHT DANIEL BRUSIVLOVSKY AN IMAC FOR COVERAGE ON TECHCRUNCH?

C’mon Sammy the truth will set you free. WHO BOUGHT DANIEL BRUSIVLOVSKY AN IMAC FOR COVERAGE ON TECHCRUNCH?

The tone in that post by Feldman makes my skin crawl. I hadn't heard of him before but I don't think I could ever read anything he's written now. Is he always like that? ICK.

sadly, yes. i used to read his blog when it was good natured poking of fun at the tech industry (arrington, scoble etc) but since he seems to have developed some issue with tech crunch, he has become vindictive, nasty and nothing more than an internet troll.

This is one of those stories that I can't read without thinking "The Valley is a wacky, wacky place".

A few other adjectives come to mind, but... yeah. Not sure having glanced at this story really adds anything to my life. It just looks like a big "Internet Drama" piece:-/ I'm sure it's important to those involved, but it really doesn't affect my life.

The worst part of this story is that it exposed me to the 1938media website. A 45 year old man making youtube puppet shows about bloggers? yikes.

For what it's worth, I just signed up for Divvyshot. I had to fight hard not to say "giving it a shot."

Now I know not to trust Jason Calcanis. He always seemed like a good guy, if a bit of a megalomaniac.

Anybody who forwards private emails is way beyond the pale of somebody who offers a MacBook Air for good coverage. The latter is an ethical lapse, the former is evidence of a deep character flaw.

Jason Calcanis owes the community a large, unequivocal apology through his newsletter - without ads and hyperbole.

I had a long response to all of this drama typed out but in the end I decided to simplify it down to this:

What part of this, if any, is constructive to the startup community?

I wonder if there's a smallish set of keywords that one could filter to get a less valley-drama-filled HN, with a higher percentage of that excellent tech content. Maybe filter out anything involving "calacanis" and "techcrunch" and see how it goes (though this particular post would be hard to catch, since the title only alludes to it).

Hacker Newspaper removes all TechCrunch stories: http://hacker-newspaper.gilesb.com/

Wouldn't catch this story but it would remove a lot of drama.

Sam being brave and trying to make the make the best of this is a positive example of responding to adversity.

I find it ironic that by going around and routinely downvoting anything jasonmcalacanis posts in these comments it makes them much easier to spot; I simply scrolled down and read everything in light grey.

personally, I'm sick of this kindergarden. While I agree that journalistic integrity is very important, I fail to see the gravity in this issue to warrant it being blow out of proportions the way it is.

Who cares about some crappy MacBook Air (that whould not have been fun to work with anyways) and a startup like so many others doing what so many others do?

There are so many much bigger issues than stuff like this. Get a grip.

Sorry. I had to vent. Now mod me down into oblivion. I guess European and US cultures don't quite mix - over here, stuff like this just is no big deal.

Calacanis is going to love this - that man thrives on controversy, good and bad, and we keep letting him back into the spotlight.

voted up

I'm surprised the 'ask' was as blatant as it was; I thought it would have been a sort of roundabout quid pro quo, "my project needs this, friends help me with hardware, I make sure my friends get good TC coverage." But, Brusilovsky was young and unsubtle!

Regardless of whose story is correct (http://www.1938media.com/crunchgate-what-makes-sammy-run vs. http://sam.bluwiki.com/blog/2010/03/confession-i-was-one-who...), a real lesson for young people in this community emerged: Your character and personality can be more powerful than your fame.

People here have commented on how thoughtful and helpful Sam is. Yet Loren's tone of voice alone has made it probably impossible for his words to be taken seriously. Imagine his above response written calmly - or even just respectfully: He would stand a much better chance of being listened to.

And Jason's approach to the matter appears equally immature. I've never met any of these players, but Sam sounds like he's much older than Jason or Loren. This doesn't mean you have to sound like a "boring old guy" - but it does mean that you give yourself an uphill battle when you speak like a child.

My only exposure to this has been this thread and the links posted in it. This has allowed me to see Sam, Jason, and Loren in action. I have no chips in this game, so to speak; having never heard of any of these people before today, I'm as neutral an observer as they come.

Sam comes across as thoughtful, tempted to do something foolish and immoral, but ultimately a guy who did the right thing.

Daniel (via secondhand sources) comes across as a fool who may have sacrificed his career over a macbook, but who seems to have learned from his foolishness. It remains to be seen how he'll weather this.

Loren and Jason don't come across as reasonable or trustworthy to me. None of what they've said here or in the linked stories has made me think "these are people I want to go to for information". Jason seems to have trouble taking things seriously and he's made a lot of excuses for himself. Loren just comes across as mean and vindictive. So I guess my contribution to this thread is to say, Loren and Jason, you've created some image problems for yourselves. I know I'll be taking anything I see your names attached to with a grain of salt from here on out.

Irony: extorting someone into talking about how they were extorted.

Also, Loren just posted another piece on the matter. But I won't link to it because it's total trash. It's one giant attack on Sam's character without saying anything at all interesting.

And if you do go look at the post, be a good citizen and use adblock =]

Funny how when the FCC demanded that bloggers disclose any gifts they receive while covering something they were all in arms about it. It was mandated to avoid situations like this. If they want to be accepted as serious journalism they have to expect to be treated as such. If you fuck up, lie, take bribes or violate journalism ethics then expect to fired and hung out to dry.

I love Scoble's response to this:

I'm more likely to check out Divvyshot because of this post. Thanks, off to check it out!

Any publicity is good publicity, it seems..

http://www.inquisitr.com/64659/like-meatloaf-through-a-straw...

Deleted comment

Really? I don't think the kid got what he deserved to be honest.

I'm with you, but it's likely that he won't ever be taken seriously again. That is the sort of thing that IS just punishment, so long as it plays out that way.

What's the value of not ever taking him seriously again? I understand that his actions were unethical, but do we really believe that people are incapable of processing feedback and learning from experience? Should someone be ostracized forever based on this? Obviously, he will need to work harder than the average person to prove his value in the future, but we shouldn't discount everything he says or does in perpetuity, that's just cruel.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him with a start-up in the next few years.

Neither would I, and that's cool by me. He's not stupid, just naïve and young. I don't wish him to be unsuccessful, but I do hope his reputation keeps him out of journalism and PR.

I wonder if he'd get a feature story on Techcrunch after all of this? Would Arrington, if the startup was admirable and honest, forgive him and allow a story to be run?

The only problem with all this nonsense is that Jason Calacanis wasn't the only one who knew. In fact I probably knew before him. He was just the one who Sam confessed to. Did that ever occur to any of you? In terms of this flaming email so what? So Jason sent me an email that I can't even remember which is probably due to the fact that it contained nothing I didn't already know. I don't get this whole thing. No emails of any kind were printed, talked about nothing. Here's my more theatrical response.

http://www.1938media.com/crunchgate-the-blame-game/#respond

Dude, you are seriously unbalanced. Do you have any talents other than yelling into a video camera? Who appointed you the watchdog of tech industry ethics?

The worst you can say about Sam Odio is that he wasn't more timely and direct with his refusal. As others have pointed out, saying maybe is often an easier way of saying no. In the end he didn't provide the kick back and he did the right thing by going to Techcrunch.

I'm sure you've got your own skeletons and as you so ominously warned Odio, 'you will get what's coming to you'.

Karma's a bitch.

If you came in blind to Loren on this particular episode, sure, he comes off as a bit of a tool, but he's playing this as theater. I don't know 100%, but I think he's playing a great "angry man" persona (in a similar way to how Zed Shaw did for a while - just in video form).

I rarely agree with anything Loren says, but he makes for compelling, funny watching. Take his recent review of ChatRoulette, for example: http://youtu.be/nMlTuS39zC0 - watching Loren is like visiting one of those theme restaurants that have deliberately bad service.

He also looks like my plumber, so that makes him pretty cool in my book.

No, I have seen a lot of his videos and he always comes off as a tool. I've heard Loren and others justify his attacks on people as comedy, but comedy is meant to be funny. And trust me when I say that the dude can dish it but he certainly can't take it.

More to the point of this article though is that he threatened to expose someone and possibly damage their reputation without any proof of wrongdoing.

There's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion about or making light of a situation. What he did is closer to blackmail or defamation.

You sir appear to be one seriously creepy fellow. What's up with you?

I imagine he's pissed off that people are trying to act like he's in the wrong, when he didn't ask for a bribe (like the TechCrunch reporter), nor state he'd provide a bribe (like the poster).

I've never met Loren but in general he is refreshingly honest and enjoys raining on the parade of anyone that thinks blogging, parties, and thinly-transparent self-promoting charity events matter more than products do - generally using puppets as a preferred form of expression.

We desperately need him to come to London sometime.

To those aggressively moderating me down, I suggest you re-read the HN guidelines - furthermore the parent poster doesn't dispute they said they'd provide a MacBook - read the linked article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com