[gyardley]

Why she left Hunch is really none of your business or mine.

Mike Arrington may or may not have received some information from someone who may or may not have been telling the truth, which he then chose to describe in a blog post as 'sordid'. That still doesn't make idle gossip and speculation appropriate.

[Jun8]

Pardon my naivete (or nosiness, perhaps) but, why isn't it our business? When a well-known co-founder leaves a company they started, isn't it news? Why isn't it in this particular case? When Jobs leaves people dissect the event to its constituent quarks, admittedly Fake is not that big, but still, she is well-known. So isn't it natural for people to be curious?

Other than idle curiosity, isn't news of this kind important for investors? If you were to invest $10M in her next startup, wouldn't you want to know why she left the previous one, heck, isn't the first questions one gets asked in an interview "Why are you leaving your previous company"? Do you counter those by saying it's nobody's business?

[gyardley]

The group of people that have a relevant reason for discussing her departure from Hunch (which could potentially include future investors, future co-founders, future business partners, and future employees) can ask her and/or Hunch about it directly. That subset of people is considerably smaller than TechCrunch's (or Hacker News') readership.

It is natural for people to be curious, which is why gossip exists, and why there's a market for publishing it. However, our tendency to gossip is something we should resist and overcome.

There's a large distinction between Fake and Jobs (or Schmidt, or Bartz). The former was an executive of a small private company. The latter was the CEO of one of the largest public companies on earth, owned in part by many thousands of investors, all of whom have a financial interest in his health. Executives do have to explain things to their investors, and in a public company, the investors and the public are the same.

TechCrunch and similar publications have long tried to treat Silicon Valley and high-tech entrepreneurship in general as 'Hollywood for geeks', and the founders of startups as the equivalent to entertainment figures. But entrepreneurs aren't politicians or movie stars, no matter how much the tech press (and certain entrepreneurs!) might like it to be so, and subjecting their private lives to the same amount of scrutiny is repugnant.

[Jun8]

This is an interesting discussion and I agree with some of your comments. As guidelines for interest you seem to prescribe (i) company size and (ii) public-private (this fails for intensely polarizing people like Zuckerberg, though, guy had a movie made on him). Fair enough.

You blame TechCrunch (and its ilk) for pumping the "Hollywood for geeks" culture, which is of course true. But this, as any Hollywood star knows, is a two way street. Many of the geeks thrive on their stardom, with thousands of people following their Twitter feeds and blogs. This in turn leads to investment in their companies (and appearances and book deals, etc.) I'm not saying that all geeks (or Fake) employ such Kardeshian-like tactics to get attention, but some do. TechCrunch is a channel for these people to get and focus attention (although Arrington's style does sometime get crude). It's the same dynamic as movie/TV stars and late night shows, if you're in that business you have to do the rounds.

Now, in the case of Fake, I don't know why leaving the company is her "private life" but most people here seem to think so. Arrington in his blunt way hints that there is "juicy" bits to this. If that is the case, I have no interest. My question was not to pry into Fake's dating life per se. I am much more interested in understanding the thought patterns (or the downvoting patterns) on HN than this issue.

[bkudria]

How much did you invest in Hunch?

[Jun8]

Hmm, so you filter reading and discussing posts on TC, HN and others by the companies you invest? Either you are very rich or you don't get to read and discuss much.

[bkudria]

Not what I implied at all. You said that investors would have a right to know why Fake left Hunch. You also expressed entitlement to know. So, I assumed you were consistent in your positions.

Or, are you saying you'd like to know just because you want to? Do you feel you have a right to know? Is the world being unfair to you?