God I love the "R" word. It has just the right amount of edge that people's ears perk up just a little bit when you say it and then they start paying attention.
NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
71–80 of 368 posts
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
A classic strategy is to attack the messenger instead of the message. You are doing this. There isn’t one fact in your statement. Pure opinion and feeling. Greenwald peppers his article with disgust but he also backs it up with facts.
I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted and flagged. The point is valid. This is an ad hominem attack with non sequiturs too like "He clearly holds disgust for his subject, which ruins his ability to speak" It's contentless and cheap. I'd like to hear some counterarguments to Glen's points instead.
It's only an ad hominem if I say he's wrong because of who he is. This can't be an ad hominem if I don't actually address the argument he puts forward, which I did not do (for better or for worse).
The content I've added is, "This article is hard for me to read because of its tone." Agree or disagree, I found it difficult to get through, and hard to see what Glenn was trying to point out as a result of the tone he chose.
Am I not allowed to comment on an article's tone?
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#73>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…
>Edit: I've been planning to subscribe for a while. I do now.
>Do it if $5 is pocket money for you. If not for this then for something else he have done.
Thanks for the reminder. I'd forgotten to after the mess at The Intercept.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#74>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…
> It seems to seriously scare some folks that there are places where they cannot deplatform whoever they want for anything.
If it's really possible for "some folks" to deplatform "whoever they want" "for anything", why is this power not available to me or anyone I know?
I know it's glib, but... come on folks. The anti-anti-anti-cancel-culture hyperbole is officially out of control. It should be possible to have a legitimate conversation of whether or not Lorenz is correct about Andreesen, and whether or not the accusation constitutes behavior that should be condemned, without resulting to this kind of culture war screaming.
If you really want good journalism, do you really believe the stuff you quoted from Greenwald qualifies? "Stasi notebooks", really?
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#75>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…
The "Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?" article doesn't actually demand (or even propose) censorship as asserted by Greenwald, as far as I can tell. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t... > So what’s your take? Are you concerned? > KEVIN Honestly, not really? and > I’m not as worried about Signal. Similar to WhatsApp, Signal set a limit so that you can forward messa…
Regardless of substance, journalists should have enough integrity to not title an article "Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?".
"Misinformation" is among the list of grossly overused words in online discourse. It has no meaning, other than to exist as the boogyman.
"Hot Spot". Another sensationalist phrase used to scare readers into thinking anyone that even slightly disagrees with their point is out there somewhere planning another attack.
The title also points to the continuation of painting tech as evil. As if "Private Messaging Apps" have anything to do with the primary concern, "Misinformation". It's a poorly written article with an even poorly written title. If you don't think articles like this are written specifically to inadvertently call for the censorship of more voices, it's going to be hard to find common ground.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#76And ironically, Greenwald stoops low on their level to fight in the mud with pigs instead of focusing on more relevant things. The internet and Twitter have amplification feedback loops which means that the best way to handle this stuff is to not interact and promote it by giving it more eyes. Ever since a feminist gamer started pointing out sexist oddities from video games and my fellow video game enthusiasts got th…
> ...my fellow video game enthusiasts got their panties in a bunch and started a hate machine against her...
It's really hard to resist the temptation to fight in the mud isn't it? Flippantly casting aspersions like this one is so easy.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#77The tone of this article is atrocious, if Glenn had a point it was completely lost when he peppered this article with snark and derision. He clearly holds disgust for his subject, which ruins his ability to speak impartially about this topic. This is an attempted hit piece and he's not subtle about it, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised, he's never been very adept at objectivity or impartiality. I'm honestly surpri…
If nothing else, it shows the value of having an actual editor. I'm assuming Glenn's writing has always been this ridiculous, but that decent editors were preventing his worst instincts and tendencies from actually making it into the published version.
He literally quit The Intercept because he was furious that someone tried to give him edits. He said that he founded the site with the explicit agreement that no one would be allowed to edit his words.
EDIT: Resignation letter here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int...
"The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week"
You can click through and the article in question was Greenwald attempting to give oxygen to GOP propaganda about Hunter Biden.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#78>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…
It blows my mind that someone would read > 'the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram.' and then decide this was good quality, unbiased journalism worth paying for. And then go on to post that sentence as evidence of its goodness. Looks like anger porn to me.
Journalism doesn't have to be boring.
It is not a requirement. It doesn't even always have to be unbiased. But it should stick to the facts, something he does if you can ignore the witty parts.
Besides, that decision was made after reading more of the post, not just that part.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#79>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…
One side of it is deplatforming, but the other side is protecting more vulnerable family and community members.
The fact is that there are pied-pipers of disinformation on these platforms leading vulnerable members of our communities down rabbit-holes to who-knows-where. Normally we would address this with in-person confrontation but I think people are struggling to find the tools to protect their friends and families.
People are being preyed upon and the victims may not be the ideal rational individuals that we aspire to.
I'm not trying to say that censorship is a good thing, just that the tools that we may have once used to protect our communities are not adapting to the new environments.
Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?" article doesn't actually demand (or even propose) censorship as asserted by Greenwald, as far as I can tell. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t... > So what’s your take? Are you concerned? > KEVIN Honestly, not really? and > I’m not as worried about Signal. Similar to WhatsApp, Signal set a limit so that you can forward messa…
Regardless of substance, journalists should have enough integrity to not title an article "Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?". "Misinformation" is among the list of grossly overused words in online discourse. It has no meaning, other than to exist as the boogyman. "Hot Spot". Another sensationalist phrase used to scare readers into thinking anyone that even slightly disagrees with their poi…
> Regardless of substance, journalists should have enough integrity to not title an article "Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?".
How about this one:
"The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows"