A Rebuttal to Techcrunch
Techrunch rags on http://www.payperpost.com, but it’s more interesting to analyse the comments left on his post and on digg. Out of 67 comments on the Techcrunch post, here’s the breakdown:
Positive Comments: 24
Negative Comments: 23
Irrelevant Comments: 20
Clearly the landslide “this is evil vote” that Techcrunch expects is not there. Michael Arrington’s problems with the service stem from two clauses in the ToS:
There does not appear to be any requirement that the payment for coverage be disclosed. There is a requirement that PayPerPost.com must approve your post before you are paid. Wow.
Neither of these cause ethical blogging issues. If you use PayPerPost to supplement your blogging income by writing stories for it that you would have written anyway, or that are true to your actual opinions, disclosure is not needed, because you are not blogging differently because of the money. And, of course, Pay Per Post needs to keep an eye out for spam, or shoddy submissions. So, where’s the problem here?
A commenter on digg writes:
maybe I’m just new to this medium but it seems to me that a lot of these negative reactions are coming from Bloggers who feel threatened. Bloggers who are probably already getting paid to write via sponsors/advertisers. If that is not the case, then good for you.
For most bloggers, this is a good things. For bloggers whose earnings depend on relationships with various advertisers, it’s a bad thing. Big blogs–like big magazines–probably sit closely with the subjects they write on in a behind the scenes agreement. Now, small blogs can automatically tap into that revenue flow. Is it impossible that Techcrunch might feel threatened? Other blogs will be earning $105 for writing their own Pay Per Post reviews.
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pm and is tagged with michael arrington, irrelevant comments, revenue flow, pay per post, digg, negative comments, rebuttal, landslide, rags, clauses, bloggers, disclosure, tos, advertisers, earnings, submissions, relationships, spam, magazines, blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback.
6 Responses to 'A Rebuttal to Techcrunch'
Leave a Reply
Fresh, related resources:
- Wired and TechCrunch are still at it
Clearly pissed, Arrington posted a rebuttal, basically outlining that he does have a few modest investments, but that he and TechCrunch take their credibility seriously. MikeA also makes the point that surely Wired is put out by the ... - Ok, Wired, Let’s Do This.
Wired’s Betsy Schiffman wrote “We’ve got nothing against TechCrunch, but it seems crazy-crazy to us that the Washington Post, a paper known for the sort of reporting that can take down US presidents, is publishing content written by a ... - Comment on Tripwolf Beta: 200 Free Invites For TechCrunch Readers ...
You offer no intellectual argument or rebuttal to my comment and your belittling of a dedicated reader’s opinion who has done nothing more than ask for innovation, does little to promote what this blog aims to achieve. ... - We Can’t Afford Even One E-Voting Morris Worm
Mike already pointed out some problems with Shamos’s analysis, and you can check out Dan Wallach’s post for a comprehensive rebuttal. But I found one of Shamos’s comments particularly striking. He says: ... - Carsonified, which runs Silicon Valley-style UK events, attacks a ...
I’ll respond more fully on TechCrunch UK in due course. Personally, I would also have liked to have gone to this week’s conference in Kiev because I think UK startups should be making lots of connections across Europe as well as the US ...
on July 1st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
If you don’t mind, would you comment some more on your Cari.net dedicated server experience.
I am looking for a good dedicated server provider and came across your blog.
How’s Cari.net’s:
* Uptime
* Service
* # of outages
etc…
I am looking to host a web application that will take credit card transactions, of course SSL. Would you recommend Cari.net. If not, who would you recommend.
Thanks in advance.
Tom
on July 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Cari.net so far’s been great. It’s never gone down, except when I do something stupid as root, the service is 24.7 and very competent, and the price can’t be beaten!
on July 1st, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Elliott
Thanks for suck a quick reply. It sounds like Cari.net is good. My main concerns is that other than you, I can’t seem to find anyone who has used them except for a person on some message board complaining that Cari.net’s 24/7 service is not really 24/7 (www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/thread/487413-1.html).
Does Cari.net have a good reputation? They seem to be a small web host. Is that correct?
Also, do they have any type of hidden fees?
Thanks again.
Tom
on July 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pm
No hidden fees, as far as I know. They offer some kind of 99.99% uptime SLA, and I’ve called tech support twice and gotten instant results at various times of the day and evening. They have a bad rep because they don’t care who uses their servers (i.e. spammers), but that doesn’t bother me.
on July 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 am
[…] 3) Disclosure is ALWAYS needed when you take advertising. At least to keep your credibility. Elliott Back of PayPerPost doesn’t agree. Well, if I find out someone is getting compensated for what they are writing and doesn’t disclose that it will earn an immediate unsubscribe from me and will probably get a post questioning everything that blogger wrote. […]
on April 4th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Cari.net’s service is great?!?! They are ALWAYS getting hacked and attacked.
They charge like $150 for bandwidth overage charge of 100MB while godaddy charges $20 for 500 GB.
And I’ve heard from another site that the owneris a neantherdal who has lied to some customers, and actually CUSSED one guy out on the phone!!!!
cari.net blows.
I used to use them last year. Their servers are maybe $10 or $20 cheaper than the competition, but their billing system doesn’t work, and their custome service really sucks.
You get what you pay for, when it comes to everything, even servers.