Yesterday an investigative piece on the Tinder lawsuit was published on TechCrunch. The piece took quite a bit of reporting, and in the process of researching, our writer, Jordan Crook, spoke to more than 15 people involved in the case.
While there is always room for tighter edits, the story went through multiple editors at TechCrunch and multiple passes from our legal team. However, this work was called into question by an Events post that went up an hour later, unbeknownst to me and my co-editor Matthew Panzarino.
That post announced that Tinder CEO Sean Rad would be speaking at Disrupt SF, which was a decision made a month ago. Unfortunately, the timing of that post made it look like this event was tied into the just-published story.
Since those two posts went out, I personally have received a threat on my safety, and the writer has had to deal with unfair accusations that we traded TechCrunch coverage for a Disrupt spot for Rad. I cannot be more clear: That is not what happened.
What did happen? Some incredibly bad blog timing coupled with an issue as incendiary as gender in tech. I apologize for the mistake, and the mistaken perception of our editorial mission and team.
“What really freaks me out is when he’s at a giant stadium and performs it and there’s 60,000 people screaming your name. I want to crawl under a rock because I’m actually very, very, very shy and no one ever believes this! I really am very shy.”—Tom Ford on the eponymous Jay Z song.
Users of social communication networks yesterday (whether they be television or Facebook or a barstool) could not avoid the tragic news of “socialite” Peaches Geldof’s death.
My experience with Geldof is thus, once, in my 20s, I clicked on a link to a posting of nude photos of her on Gawker and came to the conclusion that a) the folks at Gawker had nothing better to do with their time b) there was someone famous whose body looked like mine.
No One Really Knows Why There Aren't More Women In Tech
If you ask almost any guy, why there aren’t more women coders, the answer you’ll get will likely be generalized and/or superior. If you ask a woman, and she didn’t give you a personal reason, the answer would probably be just as generalized, except with less superiority in tone, obviously.
The reason this happens is that no one really knows why; All answers to the “Why aren’t there more women in technology?” question are imperfect. It’s basically a chicken and egg problem. There are not that many because there are not that many, if there were more, there would be more i.e. with more visible programmer role models younger women would view coding as a normal thing and perhaps pursue it as a profession.
It’s when the superiority of one gender versus another gets projected onto this malleable phenomenon that things get ugly.
For what it’s worth: I am not a programmer (yet) because no one told me why programming was important until it was a lot harder to learn. Hopefully this will be different for my daughters and my daughters’ daughters.
Also for what it’s worth, if we’re going to stretch the chicken and egg metaphor, in this case the women did come first.
“Is TechCrunch a trade publication? Not entirely, though it does perform similar announcement-type functions. I would argue that we’re a hybrid of a trade pub, journalistic organization and plain old Internet blog .”—Yes, I’m testing out Medium
3. Talking about being an average student in college and getting fired from Salomon Brothers. He was an EE major and student body class president. And that firing came with a $10 million severance package.
For those of you that followed and helped me get through my car wreck around this time last year: This week, arbitration ruled that the guy who ran a red, injured me and totaled my car was 100% at fault (he denied responsibility at the scene of the accident).
So almost year later, I get some closure. And a check.
Pro tip: Never get hit by a car. It messes with you.
Thank you again friends and family and especially my team at TechCrunch for making this terrible experience slightly less terrible. Thank you.
I’m tired of writing about general interest news on TechCrunch. Namely because I’m tired of debating what *is* a tech story and having to have a hardcore filter thus, because of optics and the prominence of our publication.
In the course of this weekend I’ve read the Society of Professional Journalism’s "Code of Ethics" three times, just to figure out if in actuality I am a journalist. As far as I can tell, I am not one. Because I have a huge problem with other people approving of and being comfortable with what I write. Because I don’t think conflicts of interest are avoidable. And many more reasons.
Also, as hard as it it is to admit, I would probably go ballistic if I had to subscribe to the approval mechanisms that exist in other, more traditional, news organizations, or more than ephemerally have deal with the kind of postgame holier-than-thou judgment and analysis that is par for the course in the traditional media industry, which very clearly hates itself.
I once met Gloria Steinem. In 2006, I worked as a temp receptionist at the fancy New York City hair salon where she got her hair done.
After I checked her in for her appointment, I asked her, having read about the seemingly insurmountable obstacles she faced in trying to accomplish her life’s work, “Why did you do it? Why did you fight so hard for what you believed in? Did you just persevere or something?”
And she responded, “I did it because it was better than the alternative.”
What other businesses can we expect to emerge in analog-data-driven, central-intelligence queue marketplace businesses? Some interesting ones are probably already being built: a market for private neighborhood security (off-duty cops)? An auction for short-term patent licenses (litigator included)? Technology already enables efficient redistribution for your spare change: it’s Kickstarter and AngelList. We will definitely see dynamically-priced queues for confession-taking priests, and therapists!
People deal with shock in different ways. While most of us sit at our desks waiting for the Internet to insufficiently answer our questions as to why the Sandy Hook shootings happened, many of us are also dealing with the banalities of day-to-day work on a pre-holiday Friday; “It is terrible what happened in Connecticut. Did you get my email about Monday’s meeting?”
These types of conversations around tragic events, both online and offline, cause existential discord: There are very few people who wouldn’t agree that the shooting of children (children!) is an extremely horrific event. We are definitely in the majority.
But it is okay to talk about work right now just like it’s okay to be extremely distraught over this news. Humans have very strange and different ways of processing sadness.
When I found out what is possibly some of the saddest news I’ve ever received, I drove from Huntington Beach to LA and sat silently in my car in the parking lot of a public library for 3 hours. And then drove back. Inexplicably.
And no, I did not tweet about it and won’t post what it is here — Because I prefer to deal with some things privately.
But it’s fine if you want to tweet about your feelings regarding the Connecticut shooting, or anything really. Or not. And if some of you don’t feel like writing or sharing a story about a photosharing app (or do) for the next couple of hours, that’s okay too.
"There is also a privacy issue with Twttr. Every user has a public page that shows all of their messages. Messages from that person’s extended network are also public. I imagine most users are not going to want to have all of their Twttr messages published on a public website.”
"Go build awesome stuff and change the world so we can write about it and change the world even more. Because between life and death there is meaning, even if it’s what we create: The value of a role model is that they teach you what’s possible.”