Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 175 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#91

Post by eggie »

MK999 wrote: post #31
RankingMember wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT? Really? I would agree if you were describing Huffington Post or various other left-wing rags, but the NYT is pretty far from a Democratic Propaganda paper.

12 Trump hit pieces in one day alone. More like establishment propaganda paper, I don't think they would have given Jeb Bush or Rubio such a hard time.

What if these aren't establishment propagandists, but are regular people who are seriously concerned? What should they do?

What would the right response of the paper be to a demagogue?

In retrospect, fake news might have been the most effective thing. But they're part of the establishment so they won't allow themselves to do that.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#92

Post by losteverything »

We are so so so much better now that newspapers matter less and that the network news is not the main game in town. How does more sources make democracy worse even if it's "buyer beware?" it's arrogant to think truth is always hidden.

We had a choice of candidates that was leftovers or diner food for Thanksgiving. That was the problem

Do you really think the NYT will say good things in an op-ed about it's nimble young competitor?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#93

Post by dictum »

mc32 wrote: post #9

I think it's too early to tell if these fake stories had any effect on people's political leanings, so diving in without knowing much about it is a bit of a different kind of fake news. It's hunches and opinions without critical examination. Now it's definitely a question to ask but I'm afraid it's being asked as a way to explain Hillary's loss because it's easier to find a scapegoat than look introspectively --and D…

To be honest, considering how no one (or very few commentators, that I missed) was talking about the fake news phenomenon before, this debate does feel like a talking point being propped up.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#94

Post by usefulcat »

MK999 wrote: post #31
RankingMember wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT? Really? I would agree if you were describing Huffington Post or various other left-wing rags, but the NYT is pretty far from a Democratic Propaganda paper.

12 Trump hit pieces in one day alone. More like establishment propaganda paper, I don't think they would have given Jeb Bush or Rubio such a hard time.

I agree they probably wouldn't have been as critical of Bush or Rubio, because it's unlikely that either of those two would have provided them with anywhere near as much material to be critical of.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#95

Post by ThomPete »

jimbokun wrote: post #90
ThomPete wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about making the case that it did happen because of misinformation instead of focusing on my comment history? I have said a lot of things on both sides and is hardly just some troll. We all have our triggers, this is one for me so whats wrong with that?

Because you arguing that rampant misinformation is not a threat to a well functioning democracy is so manifestly nihilistic and trollish there's really no point in even discussing it further.

Thats your argument?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#97

Post by mr_spothawk »

BeetleB wrote: post #85
ThomPete wrote: post #11

I don't believe he is in denial at all. In fact the article strikes me as more of the same reason why so many voted for Trump. The people who write these articles just can't accept the idea that people didn't vote for Trump unless they were tricked into it, or were fed lies. The idea that because they have a different reality they based their votes on never occurred to them. What fake news do is reinoforce what peopl…

>The people who write these articles just can't accept the idea that people didn't vote for Trump unless they were tricked into it, or were fed lies. I agree with what you're trying to say, but you are being overly broad. Talk to Trump supporters prior to the election, and with the exception of "anti-establishment", most of them will give reasons that they were tricked into believing. Go to fact checking web sites an…

> most of them will give reasons that they were tricked into believing.

what makes you think they were "tricked" any more than supporters of some different as-yet-uninstalled president.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#98

Post by eggie »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #81
eggie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you characterize the disconnect you found a bit more?

Mostly dealing with our military operations (e.g., civilian casualties), that we are savior of the free world, how life in other countries is so much worse than in the USA (large dose of American exceptionalism). The USA is a great place, but there are also many other countries that are also great places.

Someone was talking about how, when you use existing systems to translate an poem written in arabic by a ten year old it comes out unintelligible, but the same process is flawless for descriptions of terrorist attacks.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#99

Post by eggie »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #81
eggie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you characterize the disconnect you found a bit more?

Mostly dealing with our military operations (e.g., civilian casualties), that we are savior of the free world, how life in other countries is so much worse than in the USA (large dose of American exceptionalism). The USA is a great place, but there are also many other countries that are also great places.

Someone was talking about how, when you use existing systems to translate an poem written in arabic by a ten year old it comes out unintelligible, but the same process is flawless for descriptions of terrorist attacks.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#100

Post by TorKlingberg »

VLM wrote: post #5

The Times is in denial that anyone considers it anything other than a mixture of Democratic party propaganda and clickbait legacy media. The stats are not looking good for them and dying industries always lash out reflexively and ineffectively at random opponents.

I am tired of seeing this argument over and over with no alternative news source presented. The New York Times is a whole lot more accurate than various extremist sites, your Twitter feed, Facebook or the frontpage of Reddit. With the NYT, at least there is somebody to accuse of bias.

Social media people are happy to peddle outright lies one day, never follow up when they are proved wrong, and get on their high horses about "mainstream media".

Post reply on HN