Something like this, if true, will cause the government to step in, and probably regulate and change things for the worse for a great many people. It won't just hurt these few super angels. It will take everyone with it.
Something like this, if true, will cause the government to step in, and probably regulate and change things for the worse for a great many people. It won't just hurt these few super angels. It will take everyone with it.
The rest is heresay, which is admissible in no non-kangaroo court that I know of.
1. Mike's not known for boldly lying. He might publish rumors that Facebook is building a phone too liberally, but I've not heard of him saying "I saw x happen" and it wasn't true. Assuming the account of what he himself saw was accurate it's hard to imagine collusion wouldn't be the purpose.
2. This sounds like something that would happen. VCs do this crap all the time, why not angels?
3. Publishing this might be bad for him, and if it were untrue, it would definitely be really bad for him.
The FB phone was (imho) classic Arrington (the bad side). Posted on the weekend (in the hopes that FB PR would be slow to respond and debunk it), quoting anonymous sources and no substance at all. Basically, link bait. That sort of story does him (or rather his credibility) no favours.
The comment I was replying to said, "his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't." I disagree with that — Arrington is not laying it all out here as a black-and-white truth. He's consciously omitting facts in a way that happens to shield him from repercussions if this is false. As a traditional dead-tree newspaper guy, I'm very familiar with the ways reporters fudge their claims to avoid being responsible if it turns out to be crap. That's what this sounds like to me.
He clearly wanted to avoid using weasel words. The only way to do that without being reckless is to not refer directly to the objects of the post.
He did mention that they were his friends. Perhaps he wants to nip the illegal activity in the bud with as little collateral damage as possible.
That being said, I think he's on the money with this one.
This can only be good for YC overall. The suspicion that YC alternatives are all colluding against your startup is likely to make YC seem more attractive still, to the class of startup that would be wavering between YC and a rival.