" The irony is that the culture in which these technologies derive from has become a place where democracy is increasingly serving the plutocracy of Silicon Valley, likely at the expense of innovation. "
Isn't humor, it is critique. It is also wrong.
It isn't irony (the word you were going for is paradoxical) there isn't a 'democracy' and there isn't a 'plutocracy'. So when you start that way it sounds like you were going for profound but missed.
My suggestion, if you're open to it, is to actually write what you think you mean. Don't try to make it sound 'smart' just try to make it clear. Use rhetoric you are comfortable with and try to write it at the 'top level' first, which is to say don't try to embed any clever subtext. If you're going to be cynical you should be able to cite examples.
Re-reading it again you're entry says: 1) I'm (the writer) sad
2) I don't understand the Silicon Valley ecosystem.
3) I think people writing about technology are tools and that is part of the problem.
4) I am not like these people who don't have morals I'm going to only write truth.
5) Join my quest but sending all your press releases to me.
Now, if you've been successful at communicating your message to me through your blog (and it is always possible you haven't and I've misread it) then it might have easily been a single paragraph thusly,
"My impression of Silicon Valley is that startups, VCs, and journalists [inadvertently?] collude on creating an understanding of what is worth doing and what isn't. That collusion harms innovation by not giving voice to ideas outside the group. In this blog I'm going to try to look at the ideas that others don't, and bring them to your attention. To avoid conflicts of interest, I don't monetize this content."
If I did correctly read your intent, then it would also help if you provided an argument [1] for this group think you feel is pervasive since that would help people know if you were worth reading, and finally the whole monetization thing is non-obvious. Folks who don't have an obvious source of income for their writing are often treated with great suspicion if it isn't known they are independently wealthy.
[1] Strongly recommend you take this course: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.asp... which will help with that. You can listen to it in your car.
Sometimes, I have a tendency to create my own dialect in which only I understand the context (self note: stop doing that). I am of course open to suggestion and you are spot on-- it does sound like i'm trying to sound smart (cringe) Def going to re-word that to express myself in a more straightforward manner.
This isn't a blog to enviously rebel against those that have worked and deserve the position they are in, but rather a blog to alleviate the organic ramifications that are out of their control. This isn't a blog to cover startups or ideas that aren't getting covered-- theres likely a reason why they aren't. I am not hating on people that write about technology-- this is their job and many are very good at it. But, the reality is they are working for a company that desires to increase their bottom line just like any other business-- as they should. My point is because of this, the ecosystem is click driven. Which means a much greater frequency of startups will be covered. Which means even if a startup is doing nothing new and the technology is rather unimpressive, the brand attached to it means clicks ($$) so it gets coverage.
When this is done at such a frequency, the greater the likelihood the companies that are doing dynamic things fall through the cracks-- creating a lower standard that isn't producing optimal results of what the space is capable of.
Many of the startups I cover probably will be startups i've read about else where and never even submitted anything. So, in essence this is just a filter to differentiate from startups written for clicks due to brand equity and startups that are doing dynamic things-- built upon a culture that emphatically acknowledges this standpoint. That doesn't mean A16Z startups won't get covered. That doesn't mean Y Combinator companies won't get covered. This does mean not all their portfolio startups are doing dynamic things that legitimately deserve acknowledgement.
And the only way to fully keep intact the integrity of this blog without question is to not monetize. This is a hobby for me. Startups are my passion and I like to write. I love giving product deep thought-- where are they headed with this and what can this ultimately become and what sort of impact can potentially proceed and how this will affect the ecosystem? I want to read about startups that force my mind to think about these things, kind of like your response has forced me to think deeper about this blog. And then cover them from this perspective with the intent to set a higher standard for everyone to aspire to.
That's really all i'm trying to do-- and maybe your standpoint of cynicism is a result of me not initially expressing myself properly (aka the first paragraph).
I suggest you really closely examine this thought :
"The reality is they are working for a company that desires to increase their bottom line just like any other business-- as they should. My point is because of this, the ecosystem is click driven. Which means a much greater frequency of startups will be covered. Which means even if a startup is doing nothing new and the technology is rather unimpressive, the brand attached to it means clicks ($$) so it gets coverage."
There is a whole lot of assumption going on in there, and while you do have to assume some things [1] its not true that you can assume all things. To check yourself you can try to reason your way from first principles to the conclusion that you expressed above.
You can stipulate that businesses want to be profitable. Some will argue with that saying some businesses are non-profits but the point is sufficiently accepted that you can get away with just stipulating it. Then you claim based on that one stipulation that the desire for profit makes the business "click driven." That bit of reasoning is weak, on what basis can you claim that the only source of revenue for the web site is "clicks"? And I'll assume you mean advertising clicks but how does that manifest here? The issue isn't that your claim isn't credible in the small, you can say 'Techcrunch is supported entirely by ad share revenue generated by the click through rate on its pages' (and cite some reference for this), but you cannot generalize and say 'all people who write about technology' live or die by the clicks they get on their blog. I will give you a really clear example,
Robin Harris writes the Storage Mojo blog (http://storagemojo.com/) where he talks about trends in the storage industry and the various players. He has advertisements on his blog, but he doesn't live or die by them, rather he lives on being a consultant to folks who want to tap into his wisdom about the storage industry. That wisdom comes from putting in the hours watching the industry. He doesn't care if you don't read his blog, but he does care that Tom Georgens (CEO of Netapp) does. But more importantly to this discussion he is a good example that your assumption about the relationship between tech writers and money, as a generalization, is invalid.
Walking through your own reasoning can be a great way of figuring out if you are 'fooling yourself' or are really on to something. You know others will demand you defend your viewpoint so having done the home work you are prepared to engage right away. Then you jump into this:
"When this is done at such a frequency, the greater the likelihood the companies that are doing dynamic things fall through the cracks-- creating a lower standard that isn't producing optimal results of what the space is capable of."
This is a pretty classic move. It reads like you have convinced yourself that the reason you haven't found folks who talk about these innovative startups is because all tech journalists are click driven, and thus 'the space' is not performing as efficiently as it could.
The challenge though is that your reasoning is counter to about 200 years of free market research starting with Adam Smith. It would be safer to start with the assumption that free markets work and are efficient and thus if you're not seeing the content out there that you would expect, you should dig into why that is. (hint: it isn't because the techno-journalists are click whores)
Last bit as this is getting too long, this one:
"And the only way to fully keep intact the integrity of this blog without question is to not monetize. This is a hobby for me. Startups are my passion and I like to write. I love giving product deep thought-"
Integrity comes from the author, not from the money (or lack thereof, I know people with no money and no integrity). Great to make a statement of your principles on your blog somewhere and actually stick to them. Do that long enough and people will believe you. The rest of this statement is pure gold, you are passionate about startups and you like to think deeply about them. So go forth and do that, write your pen dry as my grandfather once said. Don't over think it. There is a good chance nobody will care, but in your passion you will find reward (one of the ways I tell people they can discriminate between true passion and one that isn't, is people engaged in their true passion don't care at all if nobody else cares, just the doing is so wonderful that they do it.) If you cannot be passionate in a blog nobody reads, then perhaps its not really your passion after all. You will get lots of chances to talk to people and all of that research and thinking will give you a chance to make insightful observations and eventually, folks might seek out what other things you written, but it starts with you just following your passion not really caring if anyone else cares.
[1] There is a funny joke about a wife talking to her mathematician friend about commitment while driving around in the car. She says "You won't agree to anything, like there is a house painted white in this neighborhood, see there is one right over there." To which he responds, "Well all we know is that one side of that house is painted white."
There is such an abundance of money floating around in the space, consumers are increasingly becoming more likely to adopt these technologies, creating an environment most likely susceptible to innovation-- but the output isn't as significant as these realities should potentially suggest.
Forget significant technological breakthroughs, such as Peter Thiel frequently refers to-- I'm even talking about already existing technologies that aren't fully being leveraged and if they were could further lead to these significant technological breakthroughs. Why isn't this the case? Why is it that even though curbs can be lined with some sort of proximity sensors I need to drive 45 minutes to blindly search for a parking spot when these sensors can ping me the nearest spot when making a query? I think of all the data from every aspects of our lives that is quantifiable and we create on a daily basis and how if this was curated then interpreted to the consumer, how much more efficient lives we could live-- why isn't this so? Why is it that that the digital world is still yet to merge with the real world? Even from a product standpoint-- I find that i'm increasingly using products where it almost seems as if the founders aren't using the product themselves. I come across way too many flawed user experiences and to be honest it is beyond frustrating to me. Last week a 20 under 20 special highlighting the Thiel Fellowship aired on CNBC, so I set my TiVo to record it not knowing it was a 2 part special-- TiVo knows this. Why would I want to watch one part and not the other? Why wouldn't a notification popup "Since you've recorded this, It's very likely you'd want to record this as well. Would you like to?" This is a minuscule example but I believe everything that i'm saying stems from not a lack of resources, not a lack of ideas-- but rather a lack of depth in their thought when conceptualizing a solution to the problem all the way through to executing.
So why is there seemingly such a lack of thought? There are many possible reasons why, many of which are likely out of my control-- but I do believe that part of this problem which I can potentially make a difference in, is a deficiency of inspiration. Inspiration is directly correlated to consumption-- so if people aren't inspired enough I feel it's not illogical to question what they are consuming. Technito is my attempt to cover startups and review user experiences in such a way, highlighting the subtle features that most oversee but really confirm the user experience of companies and founders that make you scratch your head and question. The reader, should it be an entrepreneur will be inspired to view product in a much deeper way and should it be a consumer will walk away with setting a higher standard and having greater expectations for the products they use which will ultimately trickle throughout the entire ecosystem.
Independent bloggers that aren't reliant on ad revenue, such as Fred Wilson are likely not going to be as click driven-- but the reality is the bulk of content created (especially covering startups) that most of us are then consuming aren't coming from independent bloggers, but rather tech journalists working for media companies. I'm not claiming that the only source of revenue for these sites are ad clicks-- but traffic is their currency, and they are well aware of that.
My integrity is something that I take pride in for the fact that it will always remain in tact. What I was referring to was the integrity as far as the public perception is concerned-- which any way you look at has it's best chance of fully remaining in tact if the platform isn't monetized.
I am relatively new to the HN community-- I'm probably going to post this link a couple more times with the hopes of maybe gaining some traction. Do you have any suggestions for titles/headlines that would appeal most to this community? "Open letter to Silicon Valley: A True Story" does seem a bit hostile now that I think of it (the irony)-- which was likely why you perceived it the way you did in the first place. Any suggestions? This is all just a figment of my imagination of I can't get readers!