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

#511

Post by abvdasker » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #492

Maybe Silicon Valley really should have a war against the media. Because right now the media is waging a one-sided war against Silicon Valley. Media coverage of tech has become almost uniformly negative—the way the media used to talk about fracking or Wall Street. Silicon Valley needs to realize that being somewhat liberal on social issues will not protect it from a media that has set its sights on the kind of intell…

One-sided? Have you seen what has happened to revenues of news publications since the advent of Google and Facebook? The idea that the tech sector is seriously threatened by the news media is silly. All this fretting about negative coverage basically amounts to persecutory delusion from what is easily the most powerful sector in the US economy.

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

#512

Post by tripletao » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #509

tripletao wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Where did you get the "potent and beleaguered" from my comment? Heterodox doesn't mean good or bad or strong or weak, just that it's outside the norm. Lots of heterodox ideas are bad and deserve only criticism and rebuttal, including many of Alexander's. They don't deserve doxxing from the NYT, though. The New Yorker reporter criticizes Alexander for calling on his audience to lobby…

I mean 'doxxing', 'mob', 'harm', 'cheerful indifference'. None of this has happened. All of it is based on the framing Alexander has given it - which is neither corroborated nor is he a disinterested party. It very much smacks of grandiosity and sense of grievance.

Sorry, in what sense didn't the NYT propose to "doxx" Alexander? As far as I can tell, everyone involved agrees that the NYT intended to publish his real name. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or are you trying to draw a distinction between publishing his real name and publishing other identifying details like his address or phone number? But the word "doxxing" is widely used for both, and in this case it's clearly the former that would cause most of the harm.

Or are you doubting that the doxxing would have harmed him? A lot of his phrasing is creepy even to me--the word "like" goes poorly with "eugenics", regardless of one's views on anything. I haven't read his blog extensively, but from the full context of what I've seen I'd attribute that to autistic-style disregard for social conventions rather than any intent to cause harm; but I do believe an article quoting selectively from his writing and including his real name had a decent chance of making it impossible for him to continue in his present career. A Mexican-American utility worker just lost his job for resting his hand out the window of his van in a shape that the Twitter mob thought implied white supremacy. Would the sins they perceive in Alexander not be much, much worse?

Or are you just pointing out that thanks to Alexander's stunt, the NYT seems to have held off (for now)? But unless you're saying that the NYT was never actually going to publish his real name (which I see no reason to believe) or that threats of harm are fine until you act (which would make life easier for extortionists, but which I don't believe is a serious argument), I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Or is it just that you want to see him harmed for the views he expressed, but you consider yourself too nice a person to actually say that? "Alexander wrote stuff under a pseudonym that's so bad he should be forced to abandon his career as a psychiatrist, and if the NYT can make it happen then I'll be glad" is at least a consistent and honest position; so if that's what you think, why not say it?

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

#513

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

memexy wrote: post #484

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please note that Scott Alexander is a psychiatrist , not a psychologist. The two professions are quite different.

Yes, thanks for pointing it out. Both types of professionals receive training in understanding the human psyche so my point remains unchanged > A psychiatrist is a physician who specializes in psychiatry, the branch of medicine devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study, and treatment of mental disorders. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, unlike psychologists, and must evaluate patients to determine whether their s…

Yes, I am aware of the difference.

I have a doctorate in psychology, which gives me a PhD. It does not qualify me to prescribe drugs and save the lives of people on airplanes, which is something that a psychiatrist could be reasonably asked to do.

While psychiatrists spent time understanding physical and mental disorders, psychologists spend time understanding cognitive and behavioural aspects of humanity and running experiments (most of which are extremely difficult to control).

They are completely different things, like.

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

#514

Post by SilasX » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #510

Just_a_simple_q wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are EY and RH?

They're prominent members of the rationality community, who also happen to be mentioned in the article in connection with the same.

I think they were asking for someone to expand the abbreviations and save others from having to dig for all the EY/RH people mentioned.

EY = Eliezer Yudkowsky, I don't immediately recognize an RH.

Edit: Ah, Robin Hanson, I guess?

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

#515

Post by memexy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #513

memexy wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, thanks for pointing it out. Both types of professionals receive training in understanding the human psyche so my point remains unchanged > A psychiatrist is a physician who specializes in psychiatry, the branch of medicine devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study, and treatment of mental disorders. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, unlike psychologists, and must evaluate patients to determine whether their s…

Yes, I am aware of the difference. I have a doctorate in psychology, which gives me a PhD. It does not qualify me to prescribe drugs and save the lives of people on airplanes, which is something that a psychiatrist could be reasonably asked to do. While psychiatrists spent time understanding physical and mental disorders, psychologists spend time understanding cognitive and behavioural aspects of humanity and running…

Which part of my statement about being trained in the human psyche was incorrect? Also, I didn't ask about your credentials and they're irrelevant to whatever point you're trying to make. I have a graduate degree in math. Have we dispensed with the credentials now?

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

#516

Post by adamsea » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #500

adamsea wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I insulted the New Yorker article and reporter, but I accompanied that with an argument for why they deserved it This. It’s a really easy trap to fall into online, but, the whole idea of someone deserving an insult is, 99.9% of the time, toxic.

What's your opinion of your grandparent post's description of my comment as "grandiose", "strident", and "hyperbolic"? Are you saying those are fine (without explanation), but "ugly", "disingenuous", and "stupid" (with explanation) aren't? Are you sure that you're not focusing on language to avoid engaging with an argument that would lead you to a conclusion that you find undesirable (i.e., that the NYT intended harm…

I actually agree with the grandparent post, and, I'd originally tried to explain why I thought your previous comment was kinda grandiose, but I kept writing snarky things so ultimately decided to pivot ; ).

And, I don't think I'm doing that other thing you're saying but am all ears if you feel that's the case.

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

#517

Post by adamsea » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:30 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #504

adamsea wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article isn’t about Scott Aaronsen. Also I mean your phrase “uncritical childhood exposure to radical literature” is .... weird. “Childhood exposure to radical literature”? “radical literature” almost sound like a disease.

Just because he wasn't the subject doesn't mean it's okay to make materially false statements about him... > Also I mean your phrase “uncritical childhood exposure to radical literature” is .... weird. Well, I'm not qualified to write for the New Yorker, but surely they could have written a sentence that wasn't false. Maybe you could read a more detailed account on The Atlantic, and decide for yourself how it could b…

That's a great article!

FYI it mentions Andrea Dworkin though -- not Judith Butler, who you mentioned earlier. Not an expert but think they're fairly different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin

I dunno, just seems like emotions are running high. To be fair, mine included. Sigh ...

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

#518

Post by pvg » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:35 PM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #512

pvg wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean 'doxxing', 'mob', 'harm', 'cheerful indifference'. None of this has happened. All of it is based on the framing Alexander has given it - which is neither corroborated nor is he a disinterested party. It very much smacks of grandiosity and sense of grievance.

Sorry, in what sense didn't the NYT propose to "doxx" Alexander? As far as I can tell, everyone involved agrees that the NYT intended to publish his real name. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or are you trying to draw a distinction between publishing his real name and publishing other identifying details like his address or phone number? But the word "doxxing" is widely used for both, and in this case it's clea…

I don't think we need to parse the precise meaning of 'doxx' or even agree on whether it would be ethical or not for the NYT to publish his name. The only thing that has happened to so far is an NYT writer started writing a piece on SSC and called some people.

This has caused Scott Alexander to faint on the couch and the response that warrants is probably smelling salts, not the mobilization of all legions west of Cappadocia. The only thing we have so far is his side of the story, his prone frame on the couch and his call for the mobilization of all legions west of Cappadocia.

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

#519

Post by wskinner » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:36 PM UTC

Just_a_simple_q wrote: post #506

zozbot234 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott is extremely popular in the rationalist community (second only to EY and possibly RH), and has a sizeable following outside of it. He doesn't need to "pretend[] that his hand was forced" to get any sort of "future opportunities" he might want; he just needs to ask. This whole kerfuffle doesn't exactly help him, even from that POV.

Who are EY and RH?

Eliezer Yudkowsky and Robin Hanson.

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

#520

Post by vslira » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:47 PM UTC

jollofricepeas wrote: post #451

vslira wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article is just more propaganda in the evolving war of words between SV and journalism. There's no war between SV and journalism, theres a feud between technologically and business savvy content companies and decaying content companies. Op-eds, moral posturing and long forms are not journalism. Journalism is a truthful representation of facts with analysis added for context to inform the readers, which the NYT…

Along with the rest of HN, you have no idea what journalism is. When has journalism ever stuck to “facts”? When has the “news” and “history” been more than short stories and opinion? Hint: Never Read: A History of News by Mitchell Stephens https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1854941W/A_history_of_news Read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism Read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_journalis…

I understand where you're coming from, and while I do understand the value of institutionalized "debating and dissenting" parties (I even believe political parties in a democracy should have declared mouthpieces), there's absolutely no way one can say with a straight face that that is the role mainstream media (and by mainstream I include Al-Jazeera and other "non-allied" traditional-style newspapers) paints itself as having. The term "Newspaper of record" doesn't scream "One voice between many".