291–300 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like the case for the war with Iraq?
If your best criticism is something that is old enough to finish college right around now, and ignores that the Times ran plenty of opposition to that war, maybe they aren’t as bad as you make them out to be?
I mean Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela if 200k dead isn't enough for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you don't remember correctly. The article contains details of how the handled the investigations. You mention "Coinbase's racism" - do you have any additional info about the case providing the basis for this certainty?
Some of the complaints at issue here certainly predate that infamous "please leave your politics at home" post. So while my comment above was made somewhat flippantly, I'm pretty sure it isn't wrong. It's no surprise that Coinbase touts some other changes. But these are made under duress, facing the imminent PR crisis that being called out in the paper of record. As such, they tell you as much about their true convic…
Why is that 'infamous'? It's entirely reasonable to want to avoid political discussion at a workplace, in favour of work.
Especially considering a particular political group (BLM) seems to have been the cause of issues at Coinbase.
> an already incriminating attempt to preempt it
Wanting to have your own say in advance of a newspaper that is objectively creeping towards the left (http://evoweb.net/blog2/20190630-islamophobia-nyt-timelines.... as mentioned elsewhere) writing an article criticizing your company is not evidence of guilt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These aren’t exactly what you are asking about but some recent examples of what I consider to be disingenuous and manipulative: 1. The New York Times published a scathing critique of Google’s 4000 word privacy policy, neglecting anywhere to mention that their own privacy policy was 25% longer and sketchier. 2. The entire handling of the Caliphate podcast and subsequent backpedaling and retroactive reframing. 3. Simil…
#1 NYT's own privacy policy is irrelevant in context. Google's privacy policy affects most of the internet, aka, most of the world. The NYT's privacy policy affects the significantly smaller (and comparatively insignificant) number of people who read the NYT on its website. #3 The adjustments (aka corrections) were not silent. They announced them, and the big corrections even got their own NYT articles, see e.g., htt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes isn't this a rather common strategy, "Be pro-active, not reactive". When the actual story comes out it is not such a big news any more, because it is not news any more. First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake. So even if their response does amplify the story, it might amplify a good story rather than a bad one. So go even so far as to say "all publicity is good publici…
I get that this strategy can work, but are there really that many people who will be swayed by a pr statement from coinbase? I'm primed to assume their version is filled with lies and spin, and I'm waiting for the piece in the NYT to cut through the corporate pr bullshit.
That said, I think Popper specifically has done a decent job with tech stories in the past. So I reserve judgement. But only because of him, not because of the NYT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coinbase has been on the receiving end of news media abusive for a short while (ever since they offered to pay their disruptive employees to leave). I don't really blame them for wanting to preemptively defend themselves.
> news media abusive [sic] Criticism is not abuse. They’re also not doing the best job defending themselves since they offer no concrete proof, testimony, or narrative. Who were these employees? What happened? We don’t know, but are left with some empty promise of a statement that Coinbase “handled it internally.”
I have to wonder to what extent this is just punishment from the establishment for Coinbase’s recent rejection of political activism in the workplace. Of course we will need to see the article from the NYT first before drawing any conclusions, but the timing is pretty suspicious; this implies that the NYT more or less launched this project immediately after that announcement went out.
Coinbase's political non-activism policy announcement at the end of September had no bearing on this article. Investigations into racial discrimination or sexual harassment complaints take months (see for example, at Riot Games, an internal investigation took almost 5 months even though most of the facts were already publicly known at the start of the investigation. https://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/26686134/ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their response contains specific facts, such as information on the number of and their handling of reported complaints. That isn't much-- I agree-- but I doubt that they know enough about the time's intended allegations to respond more specifically. And if they did respond too specifically presumably the times would shift their allegations to different specifics in any case, making a general response the only durable…
Those "facts" are about as relevant to dispelling the allegations as is the "fact" that a table has four legs. The facts are there to support an argument. The fact that only 3 people filed a formal complain isn't strong support of the argument that there wasn't more widespread discrimination, particularly when set against the specific statements of multiple alleged victims that will be published in the story.
I have to wonder to what extent this is just punishment from the establishment for Coinbase’s recent rejection of political activism in the workplace. Of course we will need to see the article from the NYT first before drawing any conclusions, but the timing is pretty suspicious; this implies that the NYT more or less launched this project immediately after that announcement went out.
Coinbase's political non-activism policy announcement at the end of September had no bearing on this article. Investigations into racial discrimination or sexual harassment complaints take months (see for example, at Riot Games, an internal investigation took almost 5 months even though most of the facts were already publicly known at the start of the investigation. https://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/26686134/ho…
I’m skeptical. I’ve worked with the NYT on a few stories; they’re incredibly thorough, and don’t publish unsubstantiated trash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like the case for the war with Iraq?
If your best criticism is something that is old enough to finish college right around now, and ignores that the Times ran plenty of opposition to that war, maybe they aren’t as bad as you make them out to be?