We Need a Sceptic

[Update: some of the links that were below don’t work anymore, so I’ve removed them]

Dead 2.0 is a funny tech blog. The author posts anonym­ously under the name ‘Skeptic’, and enjoys deflating the hype around Web 2.0 startups with posts like ‘Funding the Web 2.0 gravy train’ and ‘Secret to why you should invest in Dogster revealed’. One of his main targets has been Michael Arrington’s Techcrunch, the most prom­inent news source about these startups.

Now Nik Cubrilovic has dis­covered Skeptic’s identity, and so has Arrington. Apparently, he’s a VP at a prom­inent tech company that’s raised some serious funding.

Arrington’s under­stand­ably not happy about the Dead 2.0 ‘attack blog’, as he calls it. He writes, regarding the con­sequences of Skeptic’s possible unveiling:

Will his blog neg­at­ively affect people’s per­cep­tion of his startup?

Yes.

Would he have written these things under his real name?

No.

Given that he’s an exec at a high profile startup, should he have thought twice before writing a blog that attacks and ridicules other startups, some­times unfairly?

Yes.

Did he exercise good judge­ment and think about the best interests of his company when he did this?

No.

Should Will he be fired?

???

My guess is that this will blow over, and that we’ll see somewhat more measured and thoughtful posts on dead2.0 in the future. Freedom to say what you want is a good thing — but it’s also nice to see who it is that’s saying it.

To date, Skeptic has not yet been outed, but there’s what reads to me like a veiled threat in that last para­graph that he will be if he doesn’t tone down his comments.

In an earlier post, Skeptic’s mum asked him, “Are you worried people will find out you write your dead-​​twenty blog?”. After snorting coke out through his nose, he concluded:

…for those of you won­dering why I don’t just ˜out myself” I really do have a reason that has nothing to do with who I am as an indi­vidual. In fact, there’s probably quite a bit of incentive to come forward at this point, as I haven’t really offended too many people and all. I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit.

At this point, I think I have a lot more cache writing anonym­ously. See, if I am just some guy, then whatever I write here gets colored by that. If I am some industry guy, then my writing becomes asso­ci­ated with what I work and what I do for a living. Fundamentally, I would become a lot more boring than I already am. If you disagree, comment below, I’m curious to hear other view­points on this one.

So for now, I think I’ll just be ‘the dead-​​twenty skeptic’ and take it day by day.

So the Skeptic persona is just that. He wants people to take his writings at face value, without pre­con­cep­tions about his agenda based on his bio­graphy. Yes, it allows him to poke fun in a way that if he wouldn’t if he was known as the VP of Megacorp. But a little fun, and a little scep­ti­cism is undoubtedly a good thing. It keeps the system balanced. I think that the ‘Dead 2.0′ name and the Skeptic moniker make it pretty clear that this is supposed to be a satir­ical blog. And it’s not as though Skeptic threatens or ser­i­ously insults anyone — he backs up what he says or presents it as his own opinion. Skeptic has also main­tained contact through comments and email. People who don’t like what he says can debate or email him. If what he did was simply shower insults on people, then nobody would read the blog in the first place and what he said wouldn’t matter.

To me, anonymous blogs — even attack blogs — fortify the con­ver­sa­tion. They allow ques­tions to be asked that oth­er­wise would not be. They provide checks and balances.

Alfred Korzybski: “There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking.”

Dead 2.0 readers don’t seem to think his identity is an issue:

Share this post:

Possibly related:

• links for 2006-​​​​10-​​​​17
• Hacks and combinators
• Web 2.0 video from Techcrunch