I have to say, he handled it very well considering the circumstances. I don't think Divvyshot was at fault here either, his responses to Daniel were perfectly understandable.
It almost sounds like what happens in sexual harassment cases. The victim will often not give a straightforward refusal, because they're trying to avoid the consequences confrontation may lead to. It's not particularly admirable, but it is totally understandable.
I've lived in a few different countries and cultures and one thing I've learned is that the reply "Maybe later" is a polite way of saying "I will definitely not do it but I want to avoid any confrontation." It's actually quite surprising how universal this is.
Yes, good point - perhaps, because of Daniel's age and inexperience, he didn't know about this social cue and kept on pushing it when he should have read between the lines.
I'm sure we've all done dumb stuff in our youth we'd like to forget.
Actually does he not admit he doesn't give a straightforward refusal because the idea of the coverage actually makes him think its worth it? rather than the consequences of the confrontation.
The consequences feature in his thinking about if and when to report it to techcrunch a bit later on
Not meaning this as criticism of Daniel though who comes across fine - massive, massive difference between considering doing something unethical and actually doing it.
When talking to technology industry journalists, I'm not surprised that bribery starts to seem like a halfway good idea. Because most of it is bribery, of an indirect sort.
In this industry, people are allowed to fly journalists to exotic locations, throw them massively expensive parties, comp them entry to conferences, entertain them, take them out to fabulous restaurants, give them enormous amounts of their valuable time, allow them sneak previews, team t-shirts and other tchotchkes, etc. etc. etc. And that's the stuff that's on the books.
If you look at it as a simple ROI calculation, bribing a journalist seems like a good deal, and not tremendously different from all the other stuff you would have had to do anyway.
I'm not sure that it's simple ethics that makes us all recoil from bribery. Because we're obviously okay with all the other indirect, soft bribery.
I think, at a deeper level, people realize that once journalists offer direct quid pro quos, then there will be no end to their demands. So giving in to one will hurt all of one's colleagues (and oneself) in the future.
