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

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

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 584 posts

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

#401

Post by mst »

memexy wrote: post #396
mst wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am entirely fine with you believing that there are better ways to make those arguments - in fact, given any specific argument is almost certain to be imperfect, one would assume that there are. But I would note that "there are better ways to make those arguments" is quite a distance from your original position.

What was my original position? More precisely, what did you think was my original position?

> 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.

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

#402

Post by mst »

memexy wrote: post #169
nkurz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he clearly intended to rile up his followers into a frenzy and get them to attack the reporter that was going to write the piece I find this an interesting reaction. Could you defend "clearly intended"? I feel familiar with Scott's writing, and familiar with his audience, and I think his clear intention was exactly what he said --- "please be polite" and "I will be very sad if you are a jerk". I could understand if…

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 (in fact the comments would take his ideas to their natural conclusion and I did not like what was in the comments and the people that were writing them). If he did not intend his followers to attack…

It is notable that, having dicussed things at length, memexy's postition was refined from "coded writing" and "very sinister" to

> Then there are better ways to make those arguments.

which, yes, there quite possibly are. There are always better ways to make any given argument.

But memexy's claim that Scott's work was bad because

> I don't need to argue for freedom of speech and equal rights and justice for all because in my world those are givens.

fails, in my opinion, to understand that there are many people for whom, sadly, those things aren't givens and that arguing that they should be is a lot of Scott's thing.

I would love to live in a world where those things are givens.

I appreciate Scott for making principled arguments for why, ideally, we would live in a world where those things are givens, and I appreciate Scott for, however imperfectly, trying to move us towards such a world as best he can.

(note, this is my (opinionated) summary of the thread that ensued from my sibling comment; if unsure whether I've captured things accurately, please read that whole thread and draw your own conclusions)

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

#403

Post by memexy »

mst wrote: post #401
memexy wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was my original position? More precisely, what did you think was my original position?

> 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.

Yes, and you provided an example of such associations with "youth", "stupidity", "anger", "fear", "transphobia", "homophobia", "atrocity", "anger at others", "anger with self", "dislike of others", "opposition to others", etc.

> When I was young and stupid, I used to believe that transgender was really, really dumb. That they were looking for attention or making it up or something along those lines.

> And then I grew older and wiser and learned – hey, transgender isn’t stupid at all, they have very important reasons for what they do and go through and I was atrociously wrong. And I said a mea culpa.

> The point is not "accepting people different than me", it's "having suitable principles to still fight in favour of people I might otherwise rightly or wrongly dislike".

> You completely removed the part where he not only didn't act antagonistically towards them but actively opposed other people doing so as well.

What word other than "sinister" would you use to characterize the cluster of words I quoted which are implicit in the writing I quoted?

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

#404

Post by malandrew »

causalmodels wrote: post #356
fewaw2322 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment makes no sense. The companies that are upending old media, Facebook and Google, also have an ads-driven model. Youtube is ads-driven. Even Spotify runs ads if you aren't a subscriber. And Joe Rogan has sponsors.

I believe what they were referring to was the death of news subscription model

The debate I had with someone at work is that these days I can only ascribe legitimacy to an individual that have demonstrated that they are acting in good faith and being intellectually honest. The keyword here is individual. The NYTimes and most subscription news media publishes content by many individuals of varying quality.

In the past, this model had value and individuals like A.M. Rosenthal made a point of carefully curating the individuals that were hired to publish in the NY Times. It's become increasingly clear that as news organizations have faced declining revenue, they've begun to compromise on this curation. The fallout from this starts small and people continue to consider content from the NY Times to have some mark of quality, but eventually it will reach the point where those with integrity will realize that the tools for them to go it alone are out there and they are better off not associating with the individuals the NY Times has hired that do not meeting the historical bar for integrity it once had.

It's not so much that subscription news is dying at the hands of new sources of information, but that it is committing reputational suicide in response to disruptive innovation that allows individuals with integrity to stand on their own.

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

#405

Post by malandrew »

zozbot234 wrote: post #153
arwhatever wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I detected the same shift in blog content, but figured (or, assumed) it was due to caution given the current political and social climate, more than lack of inspiration.

Yes, the blog author did say as much. The idea that he would want to take his whole blog down because he wasn't feeling "inspired" seems preposterous.

The current climate should be plenty inspiring for those with the capacity to form heterodox ideas.

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

#406

Post by zozbot234 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #399
fmajid wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Alexander only recently moved to the Bay Area, and as a clinician, he is very unlikely to be associated with any tech companies, although many techies read his blog, of course. The NYT behavior here was despicable. Not quite Wen-Ho Lee yellow-baiting despicable, but despicable nonetheless. The New Yorker shares the same envious hatred of tech companies most of the New York media scene seems to evince, not surpr…

>The New Yorker shares the same envious hatred of tech companies most of the New York media scene seems to evince, not surprisingly as their livelihoods are evaporating. You really got to love how thin-skinned all the tech bros here are if they even receive the tiniest amount of scrutiny. You legitimately sound like Donald Trump ranting about the "failing New York Times", mocking people's livelihood evaporating? What…

There were lots of very clear warnings about the whole Theranos situation at places like HN, well before the story hit the most elite media. The red flags were quite visible, and people did point them out. For that matter, Scott Alexander and the rationalist community in general are more insightful than even the most famous policy wonks and pundits. They don't do paid-for investigative journalism? Maybe, but so what - public policy commentary is just as impactful on its own terms.

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

#407

Post by memexy »

mst wrote: post #402
memexy wrote: post #169

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 (in fact the comments would take his ideas to their natural conclusion and I did not like what was in the comments and the people that were writing them). If he did not intend his followers to attack…

It is notable that, having dicussed things at length, memexy's postition was refined from "coded writing" and "very sinister" to > Then there are better ways to make those arguments. which, yes, there quite possibly are. There are always better ways to make any given argument. But memexy's claim that Scott's work was bad because > I don't need to argue for freedom of speech and equal rights and justice for all becaus…

I did not make such a concession and I'm quoting you so the record is clear (quote is from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23786584)

> I [mst] am entirely fine with you [memexy] believing that there are better ways to make those arguments - in fact, given any specific argument is almost certain to be imperfect, one would assume that there are.

> But I [mst] would note that "there are better ways to make those arguments" is quite a distance from your original position.

You [mst] made that conclusion, I did not. So I would appreciate it if you refined the phrasing to properly reflect the understanding that you are reaching the conclusion, not me.

I will also note the sophistic device being used here by mst of jumping up the thread to shortcircuit the evaluation of the actual evidence. This is quite deceptive.

My actual final response (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23786943) is now hidden away behind "more" button and unlikely to be visible so posting it here for visibility.

--

Yes, and you [mst] provided an example of such associations with "youth", "stupidity", "anger", "fear", "transphobia", "homophobia", "atrocity", "anger at others", "anger with self", "dislike of others", "opposition to others", etc.

> When I was young and stupid, I used to believe that transgender was really, really dumb. That they were looking for attention or making it up or something along those lines.

> And then I grew older and wiser and learned – hey, transgender isn’t stupid at all, they have very important reasons for what they do and go through and I was atrociously wrong. And I said a mea culpa.

> The point is not "accepting people different than me", it's "having suitable principles to still fight in favour of people I might otherwise rightly or wrongly dislike".

> You completely removed the part where he not only didn't act antagonistically towards them but actively opposed other people doing so as well.

What word other than "sinister" would you use to characterize the cluster of words I quoted which are implicit in the writing I quoted?

--

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

#408

Post by brokensegue »

zozbot234 wrote: post #75
nullc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really want to paint SSC in a negative light the optimal tool isn't the posts-- it's the comments. Some of the posts were pretty cringe worthy but the comments were far more reliably cringe worthy.

Plenty of cringe worthy comments on HN, too. I mean, usually they're greyed out but still.

i think they mean comments by Scott Alexander on his own blog.

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

#409

Post by [deleted] »

mrkurt wrote: post #168
nkurz wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's published his full name multiple times (even on his own blog). I'm almost certain this is untrue. Are you possibly mistaking his pseudonym "Scott Alexander" for this full name? If not, and you understand that Scott and Alexander are his first and middle names, could you please provide a link to an example of where he has published his last name on his blog (or at this point, on the relevant archive.org page)?…

I'm cool with saying "revealed". I don't want to link directly to it because I think it's kind of an asshole thing to do, but you can find a last name on a bunch of posts on Raikoth.net in archive.org. He reposted most that without the reveal on SSC.

[deleted]

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

#410

Post by SquishyPanda23 »

tripletao wrote: post #322
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, thanks for responding. I really didn't intend for my comment to derail a discussion so far into the weeds. > I doubt the character of the journalist because of the disingenuous nature of his arguments, not the other way around. I believe you experienced it that way. But I don't believe that was communicated well. IMO you intended to make a case against the article but ended up actually make a case against the…

Thanks, and I agree that there's an increased and harmful tendency to assume bad faith in political and other discussion--we should engage as much as possible with the arguments presented, regardless of what motivations we think exist behind them. I try to avoid suspecting bad faith myself, but in this case I didn't see how. > For example, the reporter obviously has access to several of SSC posts. If the reporter bel…

> why do you think it's possible that he'd delete his blog in order to dodge/mitigate bad press due to content that a journalist might uncover there

This is a reasonable question. I don't honestly know enough about the topic to make even a hypothetical argument that such a thing is likely. But it does seem possible any time a high profile blogger shuts down in the face of a news story, that this is one of the reasons for the shut down.

For example, Alexander gives one reason it's possible on his blog: "If there’s no blog, there’s no story." The NYT doesn't really have an incentive to run a story about an ex-blog. So by shutting down, he puts pressure to shut the story down altogether.

Regarding the Streisand effect, I'm not sure. But I think, based on his blog post, that he thinks the story is less likely to run now.

Plus, accessing the blog is now at least an order of magnitude harder. Can you access some of the pages? Sure. Will NYT readers? No, probably not. Search doesn't work, it's painfully slow, only some URLs are snapshotted. It may even be that most readers probably don't even know about the Archive.

So yeah at least to me it seems possible. For example, he's come out as saying he likes eugenics. It's reasonable to fear that if a NYT story ran giving his surname and saying he supported eugenics, then he may have a hard time practicing as a psychiatrist.

Post reply on HN