Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media • Hacker News Board

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#241

Post by waon » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

memexy wrote: post #196

waon wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was pointing to the appropriate channel for reporting such an issue. How else do you think people can signal objections? At least not by writing in their own diaries for sure.

Suppose I have a big following. Suppose I know that some of those followers are prone to exaggerating some things that I "suggest". If you know those two facts, would you have written the same letter? I'm not saying your interpretation is incorrect. I'm saying, knowing what I know about SSC, I know that certain people would interpret his letter differently and cause problems for the editor and the original jouranlist…

> Suppose I have a big following. Suppose I know that some of those followers are prone to exaggerating some things that I "suggest". If you know those two facts, would you have written the same letter?

By your standards, any form of activism is a harassment campaign unless you can control the actions of every single individual in your group. I see this line of argument a lot recently, but frankly it’s nonsense.

> Even in this thread, any kind of actual discussion is almost impossible. The general opinion is very skewed by very specific interpretations of Scott's persona (which I don't think is actually valid because in my opinion he was not a benevolent person).

We’re talking about non-debatable facts here. You keep saying that the blog take down post “suggested” people to harass NYT. That post is there in plain view, and it clearly does not.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#242

Post by mst » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

memexy wrote: post #225

mst wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to explain but his intention in much of his writing was coded. He would consistently use certain keywords and phrases to make certain associations and when you follow through the logic it becomes very sinister. This reads to me like "his words were perfectly polite but I've decided that he must have intended a certain subtext and the subtext I believe that he intended is evil". Which ... I mean, you can c…

I don't think his words were polite, in fact I think it was quite the opposite. If I wanted a civil discussion I would not have listed any contact information about anyone. I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we mak…

That seems like an "I would have said" based on your assumption that those "inferences" are the subtext that you believe to exist. I continue to believe that Scott did not believe any such subtext existed, so that would make no sense from his point of view.

I'm also unsure why you believe that providing the contact information of the correct person to contact given an issue with a potential article to be published by their department is a bad thing.

Are you sure you're not just starting with a belief that Scott is malicious and then reasoning backwards to find a way that his actions in this case could have been malicious? I'm quite probably missing something, but I find myself unable to follow your logic any other way.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#243

Post by millettjon » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #155

JoblessWonder wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, the Internet Archive is willing to remove content if you can prove you are the owner and request it using the proper methods.

It's so funny how this community falls squarely on the "Opt-out is bad!" side except for the internet archive!

Websites are public. The act of publishing on one is an explicit opt-in.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#244

Post by memexy » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

waon wrote: post #241

memexy wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose I have a big following. Suppose I know that some of those followers are prone to exaggerating some things that I "suggest". If you know those two facts, would you have written the same letter? I'm not saying your interpretation is incorrect. I'm saying, knowing what I know about SSC, I know that certain people would interpret his letter differently and cause problems for the editor and the original jouranlist…

> Suppose I have a big following. Suppose I know that some of those followers are prone to exaggerating some things that I "suggest". If you know those two facts, would you have written the same letter? By your standards, any form of activism is a harassment campaign unless you can control the actions of every single individual in your group. I see this line of argument a lot recently, but frankly it’s nonsense. > Ev…

What are my standards? If you can list them then we can argue about them.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#245

Post by nullc » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #170

" Alexander’s plea for civility went unheeded, and Metz and his editor were flooded with angry messages. " Surprise! The rationalist community is made up of human beings after all.

I'm sure they were exceedingly efficient at constructing a convoluted pseudo-logical rational at how their abusive behaviour constituted a "winning" strategy.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#246

Post by lliamander » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

avivo wrote: post #85

As someone who works at the intersection of technology and journalism, it hurts to see how many misunderstandings there are in these comments and elsewhere. The tech world (and HN in particular) deeply needs a solid explainer on how journalism works. So many misunderstandings! (Of course, many/most journalists also need an explainer about the tech world. And that is not to say that some of the more nuanced critiques…

> As someone who works at the intersection of technology and journalism, it hurts to see how many misunderstandings there are in these comments and elsewhere. The tech world (and HN in particular) deeply needs a solid explainer on how journalism works. So many misunderstandings!

Are there one or two insights you could share that would make this article seem less bad than many people here perceive it to be?

> And that is not to say that some of the more nuanced critiques on journalism or its implementation are not on point — as many journalists would agree! e.g. Jessica Lessin... and Taylor Lorenz

The criticism isn't limited purely to monetary considerations. There are prestige and partisan political issues at stake here as well. The author touches on the political lens by bringing up the red/blue/grey tribe distinction. As for the prestige, it's worth noting how many prominent figures signed that petition. Some of the public comments of these individuals give me the impression that they trust SSC more than the NYT. My perception (in my own bubble at least) is that even if NYT's subscription revenue is doing OK, the NYT's position as the "paper of record" is in jeopardy.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#247

Post by astine » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #222

darawk wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Read Scott's own reasoning on the situation here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-... In short, he's not worried about dedicated antagonists finding him. He's worried about his psychiatric patients finding his blog, and that interfering with his relationships with them. Deleting the blog makes it moderately more difficult for them to do that.

I don't understand. Publishing his name in the NYT will surely already cause any of his patients who read that to realize it's an article about their doctor. Surely that's where the interference would come from ("whoa, my doctor has been writing about his practice on a public blog for years"), not from the patient visiting the blog. If the patient wants to find the blog, I'm sure they will be able to.

Right, that's why he's trying to stop the NYT from publishing his name. The game isn't that he thinks that by deleting the blog he'll prevent people from finding him even if he's mentioned in the NYT, it's that by deleting the blog it'll make it untenable for the NYT to publish his name. He's gamblng that the NYT will blink.

He might at some later date decide that he needs to erase his iInternet presence entirely, but I don't think that's his current game.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#248

Post by NicolasGorden » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #230

NicolasGorden wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An over-reaction is by definition the result of an emotional response. Pretending that it's not is being just as emotional even if they're pretending to be objective. Over-reacting is not 'by definition the result of an emotional response'. I'm not sure why you feel the need to make things up. My immune system over-reacts to many external stimuli and causes allergic reactions. These are not emotional. So you're sta…

> Over-reacting is not 'by definition the result of an emotional response'. My immune system over-reacts to many external stimuli and causes allergic reactions. These are not emotional. So you're stating things that are easily and demonstrably wrong. This is the epitome of disingenuous. The dictionary definition of overreaction is "a more emotional or forcible response than is justified". You're attempting to use the…

> You're attempting to use the clinical definition of an overreaction

Someone can 'overreact when driving' and flip the car on a turn. I regularly over react when playing video games and miss a jump. Companies over react to data and make bad choices.

So not just in a 'clinical definition'. I've given you plenty of examples of over reacting being non-emotional. Even your definition, the one you quote, says that over reactions can be non emotional. An over reaction can be, by the very definition of the word, a reasonable miscalculation of risk/reward without having to imply emotion.

> This would be an emotional reaction to me defining the term overreaction correctly.

Actually, it's quite reasonable that if someone says demonstrably false statements, the next thing they say is put into question. If you choose to see this reasoning as inherently emotional, that's your prerogative, but it seems quite baseless.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#249

Post by memexy » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

mst wrote: post #242

memexy wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think his words were polite, in fact I think it was quite the opposite. If I wanted a civil discussion I would not have listed any contact information about anyone. I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we mak…

That seems like an "I would have said" based on your assumption that those "inferences" are the subtext that you believe to exist. I continue to believe that Scott did not believe any such subtext existed, so that would make no sense from his point of view. I'm also unsure why you believe that providing the contact information of the correct person to contact given an issue with a potential article to be published by…

We are all entitled to our beliefs. I merely outlined an argument for why I think how I do. Maybe Scott is a perfectly nice person but his writing is full of associations that say otherwise. I did not know anything about SSC when someone first introduced me to the blog, I did not even know who Scott was or what the blog was about but the more I read the more I noticed certain patterns. I did not start with a specific conclusion, I reasoned my way to one.

I already stated several times that if my intent was for civil discourse then I would not have used the language that was used in the letter because it is full of contradictions. It outlines victimhood and becomes a rallying cry for those that identify with Scott and that's exactly what has happened. Everyone discussing the post assumes the position of a victim. I think this is odd because if Scott is so smart then why is everyone making him out to be the victim? Even the logic used to justify Scott as a persona is contradictory, he's a victim and yet he's not a victim.

The letter is deceptive and that's why I attribute malice to it. It's intention and the words used are misaligned.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#250

Post by basch » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #100

baddox wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that also mean the very act of "deleting" the blog is disingenuous? If deleting the blog doesn't meaningfully impede accessing the blog articles, then what's the point, other than drawing attention to the situation?

It obviously does meaningfully impede access. Delisted from google, all existing links broken. Viewablity of articles will be down 99.99%.

Exactly. It's absolutely more than a stunt, despite it drawing its own kind of Barbara attention. Dedicated people will still be able to find it, but the lowest effort attackers wont put in the work to dig. It silences a chunk of outrage culture who will just move on to the next target, rather than investigate broken links.