VC's Livid With Digg: Cash Was Not Meant for More "Bongs and Beer" | Hacker News Reader

VC's Livid With Digg: Cash Was Not Meant for More "Bongs and Beer"

tekpopuli.com

26 pointsjackjack10021 comments

While this article is supposed to be satirical (I hope), it fails at even being remotely humorous. As much as I love reading an invented rant, the excessive amount of swearing just ruins the whole effect of the article and reduces it to a childish game of "look how much I can swear!"

And this is stupid, but honestly, who uses the term "mary jane"?

Tom Petty?

Exactly.

"Welcome to TekPopuli... The last ugly bastard of tech journalism with unbeatably impeccable standards and incrutable insider information is the one lone blog that stands against the cronyism, the idiocy, and the hypocrisy of the new media techmemefeedification of tech news. Totally."

so... it's like Valleywag, just without the occasional interesting post?

it is a satire site - it just isn't good enough to be funny.

My bet: Post-FSJ Dan Lyons

I want to read more about the social news black market. Does anyone have any material or comments on it?

Digg specific... http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/03/72832

This an older article from WIRED (March 2007). A writer was able to buy votes to a lame, made-up blog post.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/03/72832

I'll try to find something newer.

Are people up-voting this because they think it is funny, or because they think it's real?

It's neither.

It was almost believable. But I'm not sure what it's relevant to?

Psst. Hey pal. What's a fella gotta do to get Dugg?

Don't laugh, I actually know a few top diggers who actually do that.

No names will be mentioned, but they know exactly who they are.

Do you know how much money crosses hands every day in the Digg blackmarket? About $1.6 million dollars....

Wow, even if the figure is 1/10th of that, it's still a huge pile of cash.

How does this hit the top of HN without someone coming in and decrying it's nonhacker nature? I laughed at this, but I just want to stop and remark on the fact.

Yeah, Revision3 is going blue next January. 100% home-made porn.

Incoming slander lawsuit.

Apostrophe-S is not a plural!

It's pretty commonly accepted to use an apostrophe when pluralizing an acronym. It might not technically be correct, but it improves readability, and sacrificing readability for correctness is silly.

But - it's very incorrect, I don't agree that it enhances readability - and moreover it makes my blood boil.

Google fails me for finding a citation, but apparently the precedent was set by cigarette advertising (for say, 25's).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com