Comments on: TechCrunch’s DataPortability Conflict of Interest?

By: From the Pipeline - 4.16.08 — Shooting at Bubbles

From the Pipeline - 4.16.08 — Shooting at Bubbles — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:45:20 +0000

[...] TechCrunch’s DataPortability Conflict of Interest? :: The Drama 2.0 Show – some interesting questions being asked about the charity donations to organizations that technically may not be charities. [...]

By: Did TechCrunchIT Co-Editor Nik Cubrilovic Rip Off His Omnidrive Investors? : The Drama 2.0 Show

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:18:20 +0000

[...] discussed Arrington’s lack of journalistic ethics in the past (as have others) and if there was still any debate over this subject, it’s [...]

By: DataPortability Still Doesn’t Exist, Did Michael Arrington Lie? : The Drama 2.0 Show

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:46 +0000

[...] ago on the subject of “data portability” (hey, he’s busy), I was reminded of the issues I raised about DataPortability and TechCrunch’s relationship with [...]

By: An Urgent Plea for Help : The Drama 2.0 Show

An Urgent Plea for Help : The Drama 2.0 Show — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:45:19 +0000

[...] Although I have not yet formed a non-profit to accept donations, that should not matter. [...]

By: Is Disclosure Meaningless in the Blogosphere? : The Drama 2.0 Show

Is Disclosure Meaningless in the Blogosphere? : The Drama 2.0 Show — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:40:54 +0000

[...] conflicts of interest is standard practice for professional journalists. And it has been a real problem for bloggers (amongst other [...]

By: Another Non-Existent Non-Profit, the Open Web Foundation, Launches : The Drama 2.0 Show

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:03:07 +0000

[...] in April, I criticized DataPortability for presenting itself (and allowing others to present it) as a legitimate [...]

By: TechCrunch Gets into Copy and Paste Press Release Journalism : The Drama 2.0 Show

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:42:41 +0000

[...] position on mainstream journalism and have also pointed out that his own standards are often quite lacking (more than [...]

By: Introducing Blogger Entitlement : The Drama 2.0 Show

Introducing Blogger Entitlement : The Drama 2.0 Show — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:09:23 +0000

[...] It’s obvious that in the circle jerk called the technology blogosphere, conflicts of interest are a minor inconvenience and accuracy is optional. [...]

By: David Novakovic

David Novakovic — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:53:27 +0000

We’ve already gathered how qualified your judgments of common sense are, based on the overwhelming response to your narky and sensationalist post. Yet again your response belies your complete lack of understanding of DP. The mailing list is not “mine” any more than it is yours. But, you are finally right about something, you should have posted it there, then this could have been a constructive discussion instead of an exaggerated browbeating.

Which leads me to believe this article is just a form of advanced trolling. No more serious than your other parody pieces.

Let’s find some other hairs to split, the only point you have to argue now is pretty weak.

You riled a few egos, sparred with Mr Arrington, brought some big names to your blog. Well done sir, a success all round.

By: Drama 2.0

Drama 2.0 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:04:11 +0000

David: the point of this article was that TechCrunch failed to accurately report that a “donation” to a “charity” was not a donation to a charity and that an appearance of a possible conflict of interest has been created.

As for Chris Saad, he may very well be a great person who has the best of intentions, but if he’s going to run around as the “Chairman” of a “non-profit” with “1001-5000 employees” (according to his LinkedIn profile) that does not even exist but is still willing to accept “donations,” you were living in a dream world if you don’t think that somebody was eventually going to point out the fact that it’s highly unprofessional and calls into question the “credibility” of Saad and his “organization.”

This has nothing to do with the goals of DataPortability and the importance you think it has to the Internet community. It has everything to do with acting in a professional manner and not telling people that you’re something you’re not (especially when it relates to the sensitive issue of tax-exempt entities).

That said, I absolutely should have posted the following on your mailing list:

Hey guys,
If we’re going to tell people we’re a non-profit organization, we might actually want to form one. I think we might have some problems if we tell people that we’re a non-profit when we’re not, and it doesn’t make us look very credible anyway.

I’m sorry I assumed that at least one person within your “organization” had common sense.