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

NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 130 posts

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#101

Post by sametmax »

mr_t wrote: post #89
sametmax wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except netflix will probably die and you'll get the choice between 2 bullies : amazon and disney. Also I have a hard time feeling sorry for the traditional press. They spend decades killing their own reputation and now paying the price. They could have had web sites so reputable, so popular, that they would have been the news hub. Instead they turned internet into the bad guy, kept publishing political agendas and se…

Naive question: What makes you think that Netflix will probably die?

Amazon and disney just have more firepower. Amazon has the expertise in hosting, disney in content making. Amazon can drain customers with prime, and disney with the existing portfolio. Both have infinite cash to aquire and create new licences.

No matter how good I think netflix is, and despite their now long and good track record, they are entering a new fight bare handed against machine guns.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#102

Post by leereeves »

sametmax wrote: post #101
mr_t wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive question: What makes you think that Netflix will probably die?

Amazon and disney just have more firepower. Amazon has the expertise in hosting, disney in content making. Amazon can drain customers with prime, and disney with the existing portfolio. Both have infinite cash to aquire and create new licences. No matter how good I think netflix is, and despite their now long and good track record, they are entering a new fight bare handed against machine guns.

Amazon doesn't seem to be seriously trying. Prime Video is a wasteland.

And Disney doesn't own all the content. Netflix need only be the streaming provider other content makers choose.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#103

Post by blablabla123 »

> and the figure quoted by the Times—without any critical assessment whatsoever—appears to be based almost entirely on questionable mathematical extrapolation from a comment made by a former Google executive more than a decade ago

They definitely have a point, without putting a tremendous effort into this, one must have to use very speculative mathematical extrapolation. Although I'm not sure whether it would ever be worth to put additional mathematical rigour into this because that would be a lot of work.

Speaking of myself, for many years Google News has been my starting point for using the internet and self-speaking for getting myself a news update. News sources have become replaceable and I was always thinking: oh nice, so I'm always reading articles from various sources/perspectives, so this must eliminate virtually all bias.

But what has happened in reality is this:

- many news companies closed down/were merged into other companies

- often agency news (Reuters, AP, ...) are copy&pasted into articles

- some online newspapers mostly put bot generated news that seems to be automatically assembled from agency news and correspondent's; the quality and readability of this is almost 0

So for me a tipping point has been reached and I switched back to going directly to news magazine/paper websites. Also I've subscribed to 2 paid subscriptions. I feel much better informed with more relevant information.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#104

Post by PlasticTank »

remarkEon wrote: post #65
noetic_techy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your concern about the SJW label and the charged political context its often used, but it is to me accurate, since this it what they would call themselves. Take a look at this Joe Rogan + Johnathon Haidt podcast clip that talks about SJW cultural origins in northeastern and western elite liberal arts colleges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e9VYf9FKHo NOTE: Jonathan David Haidt is an American social ps…

It's fascinating to watch comments like this get downvoted. Everything you noted is accurate, and is reflected in recent high-profile hires at NYT (Sarah Jeong the most recent). All organizations can go through preference cascades like this, where hiring for certain views becomes self reinforcing to the point where the organization doesn't even realize it has a bias toward them. It can be especially acute when the vi…

“It's fascinating to watch comments like this get downvoted.” Honestly not anymore, there is an overriding current of well SJWism on this site currently, of course they'll never admit it to themselves. If you ever find yourself downvoting a comment because you disagree with it on an emotional level, you might be the problem.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#105

Post by realityrunner »

v7p1Qbt1im wrote: post #98
haditab wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but many think that Disney's launching it's streaming service will kill Netflix since it will pull all of it's content from Netflix and other streaming sites.

Hyperbole much? Granted I‘m not most people but what keeps me subscribed and using a streaming service is steady new content. Nobody does that better than Netflix. At least for now. Have you seen Prime Video? It‘s basically barren. I can count on one hand the originals they put out this year. Hanna, Good Omens and Homecoming (I think).

It’s not really hyperbole when they’re actually going to be facing a massive content drought in the near future and won’t be able to justify price increases while offering less. There was a quote from the Wall Street Journal even saying “the three companies launching new streaming services have created TV shows and movies that make up nearly 40 percent of the viewing minutes on Netflix.“ Netflix may seem to put out content frequently, but it’s 100 miles long and two inches deep.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#106

Post by sametmax »

leereeves wrote: post #102
sametmax wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon and disney just have more firepower. Amazon has the expertise in hosting, disney in content making. Amazon can drain customers with prime, and disney with the existing portfolio. Both have infinite cash to aquire and create new licences. No matter how good I think netflix is, and despite their now long and good track record, they are entering a new fight bare handed against machine guns.

Amazon doesn't seem to be seriously trying. Prime Video is a wasteland. And Disney doesn't own all the content. Netflix need only be the streaming provider other content makers choose.

Netflix has been at it for a decade. Give it 5 years.

I don't expect the GAFAM to play fair. They are going to arm wrest the industry to go through them.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#107

Post by Shivetya »

ralph84 wrote: post #56

Any time I see an article in a "mainstream" news outlet on a topic I'm familiar with, the inaccuracies make me cringe. The more familiar I am with the topic, the more inaccuracies I spot. The charitable interpretation is that news outlets have been so decimated by changes in their business model that they can't afford good editors. There are plenty of less charitable interpretations.

tl;dr we are entering an election cycle and many articles appearing in the main stream press are nothing more than trial balloons for campaigns fishing to see what sells. If you find issues with subjects you are familiar with then you should assume subjects you are not well versed in have the same issues.

You should apply that same process to any article they publish even on statements you agree with but don't actually have full knowledge of. It is not they cannot afford editors it is that they are politically aligned and floating trial balloons for ideas spouted by favored candidates. We will have a flood of stories submitted that if you look under the covers are no more than talking points you can walk right back to a candidate.

Expect the upcoming year to be full of stories directed to make you think the whole process is unfair, how you have no voice, how your rights are being eroded, how someone or some company has wealth they don't deserve, but if you just hand it all over to the politicians they will fix it.

All they will do is secure their people into money making positions and sell you a bill of goods under a law with a nice sounding name that does very little of what it implies and a whole lot more under the covers you never would have wanted.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#108

Post by moorhosj »

luckylion wrote: post #96
maceurt wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they usually say that it is its "street value", and is pretty accurate of how much money is being taken away from the drug economy.

Will it be taken away though? Wouldn't the prices just adjust to the supply that is now significantly smaller?

I’m not sure drugs are that perfect of a market. The buyer doesn’t really have visibility into price/quality across sellers and drug buyers are not always rational, two conditions for perfect competition.[1]

Actual economics is far more complex than the simple supply/demand curve taught in 101 classes.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#109

Post by luckylion »

moorhosj wrote: post #108
luckylion wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will it be taken away though? Wouldn't the prices just adjust to the supply that is now significantly smaller?

I’m not sure drugs are that perfect of a market. The buyer doesn’t really have visibility into price/quality across sellers and drug buyers are not always rational, two conditions for perfect competition.[1] Actual economics is far more complex than the simple supply/demand curve taught in 101 classes. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Sure, it certainly won't immediately adjust perfectly, but when authorities close some route or bust a large shipment, there will likely be some price change because of limited supply, increased risk (and cost) for transportation, right. It's not like drug buyers will just say "oh, you don't have any this month? okay, see you in six weeks".

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#110

Post by MagnumOpus »

leereeves wrote: post #102
sametmax wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon and disney just have more firepower. Amazon has the expertise in hosting, disney in content making. Amazon can drain customers with prime, and disney with the existing portfolio. Both have infinite cash to aquire and create new licences. No matter how good I think netflix is, and despite their now long and good track record, they are entering a new fight bare handed against machine guns.

Amazon doesn't seem to be seriously trying. Prime Video is a wasteland. And Disney doesn't own all the content. Netflix need only be the streaming provider other content makers choose.

> Disney doesn't own all the content

But they own about half (Disney Studios, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar, 20th Century Fox, Searchlight, NatGeo, and I am sure I forgot a dozen others), and they might never licence it to a "competitor" again unless they are forced to do under some sort of FRAND unbundling of content and distribution.

Post reply on HN