NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur • Hacker News Board

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#111

Post by da_big_ghey » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:02 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #102

vorpalhex wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Greenwald points out, these journalists work at major outlets and have huge followings which they can use - and have used - to shut down speech. Cancel culture is real and we must not allow it to be tolerated. I've been told that I'm "problematic" and should reconsider blogging... because I recommended a $40 pair of hair shears. Greenwald is being a bit melodramatic, but his substance isn't wrong. A reporter lied…

> A reporter lied and attempted to slam a public figure That... seems kinda spun. The source material isn't so damning. Taylor Lorenz was on the call, and tweeted: "@pmarca just openly using the r-slur on Clubhouse tonight and not one other person in the room called him on it or saying anything" Then later when she was corrected that it wasn't Andreessen but someone else, replied: "Thanks for clarifying that it was F…

Retarded is not a slur. Never was. People keep picking arbitrary words and saying they're "offensive", but there's no reason why. I have heard kids call each other "mentally challenged" and "developmentally delayed", I kid you not. Younger kids have trouble pronouncing those, so maybe that's something? Anyway, I refuse to partake in the euphemism treadmill.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#112

Post by duxup » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #84

renewiltord wrote: post #55

It must surely be some Internet Law that people who spend most of their time in bubbles where they converse with the worst of their opponents make the worst arguments to people outside the bubble. So, if you take an otherwise decent smart person and place her in a spot where all her enemies are vitriolic morons, she will start to apply vitriolic rhetoric. Bring this person out of that universe and into the normal wor…

"He who battles with monsters must take care that he does not become one..." - Nietzsche Social media incentivizes controversial takes. Real people tend to be more in the middle. Never confuse social media for real life.

>Social media incentivizes controversial takes.

I worry it is trending to all media now.

The local media around me keep covering someone who 'may run for governor' and his ignorant antics... Sometimes it's the same 'thinking of running' story again and again. As far as I can tell he hasn't even taken step 1 to actually run, other than wrap the media around his finger to give him free attention.

Beyond that anyone else who might run, no coverage at all...

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#113

Post by easterncalculus » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #80

ryanSrich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

You're comparing discussion of the past with predictions for the future here.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#114

Post by throwaway894345 » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

xoa wrote: post #66

endymi0n wrote: post #15

It's interesting how polemic Greenwald has become, bringing with it the same magnitude of reality denial as the actors he is going after. A title like "The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows" coming from an investigative journalist like himself really sounds like a sore loser's version of "investigative journalism needs to die if it doesn't share my narrative and polit…

> I used to be a free speech absolutist myself back in Snowden times FWIW, there is no reason you shouldn't still be a Free Speech absolutist (I still am) so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences. When individuals or other fully private entities decide they don't like someone's speech and choose to not associate or support that person/entity any longer,…

> other fully private entities

While I agree, I think it's possible for those entities to become so massive that they become de facto public entities and ought to be regulated as such. The prominent example being social media: such a tiny handful of companies are responsible for such an enormous portion of our collective speech that they are de facto public squares. In such cases, these technically-private entities should be broken up or regulated appropriately. This social media example is particularly relevant since since it's often the subject of "freedom of association for private institution" arguments.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#115

Post by klyrs » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #52

babesh wrote: post #23

Earlier 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.

Greenwald calls the targets of his ire "Stasi agents". This is completely unhelpful hyperbole. Where are the political prisoners? The concentration camps? I'm not sure how much good faith should be extended to somebody who isn't arguing in good faith to begin with.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#116

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #77

kevin__ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

[deleted]

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#117

Post by dcolkitt » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

randomfool wrote: post #79

eitland wrote: post #6

>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 familie…

I'm not necessarily saying this point is incorrect, but the structure of the argument bears a striking similarity to the same justification for laws against heresy and blasphemy in the time of Galileo.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#118

Post by tootie » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

kansface wrote: post #105

tootie wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has absolutely always been like this. His rambling screeds used to be posted to reddit pretty constantly long before he published Snowden. This NYT reporter made a mistake and posted an incorrect accusation on her twitter, that she later corrected. Big mistake, but she owned it. And here he is calling the situation "Stasi-like".

A NYT reporter posted an ostensibly private conversation of absolutely no newsworthy value for the sole purpose of ruining some peoples' lifes, got the facts completely wrong, posted a non-apology, and then played the victim. At best, this is bad tabloid journalism. > And here he is calling the situation "Stasi-like". He is calling it stasi like because people routinely get blacklisted when this happens to them - the…

Doesn't seem the conversation was private at all. Nor did the Stasi traffic in ruining reputations for perceived bad behavior. They arrested political dissenters by the thousands. Andreesen is a billionaire who would, at worst, have to apologize on twitter and continue his life of total freedom. Did anyone consider Donald Sterling to be a victim?

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#119

Post by genericone » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #102

vorpalhex wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Greenwald points out, these journalists work at major outlets and have huge followings which they can use - and have used - to shut down speech. Cancel culture is real and we must not allow it to be tolerated. I've been told that I'm "problematic" and should reconsider blogging... because I recommended a $40 pair of hair shears. Greenwald is being a bit melodramatic, but his substance isn't wrong. A reporter lied…

> A reporter lied and attempted to slam a public figure That... seems kinda spun. The source material isn't so damning. Taylor Lorenz was on the call, and tweeted: "@pmarca just openly using the r-slur on Clubhouse tonight and not one other person in the room called him on it or saying anything" Then later when she was corrected that it wasn't Andreessen but someone else, replied: "Thanks for clarifying that it was F…

Are you kidding? 1 public figure, a freaking journalist, reads something and immediately decides they need to do a hot-take-cancel-op on a public figure they didn't like, libeling him in the process. Greenwald takes a much more measured approach, he writes a blog, like 1000 words, explaining his thoughts. There's a non-thinking person on one side and an articulate person on the other, and you want to denounce the articulate one?

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#120

Post by marcus_holmes » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #89

ryanSrich wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a substack? That's perfectly fine by my standards. You hold Glenn Greenwald's newsletter to the same standards as the NYT?

I do think Greenwald should follow the standards he wants to enforce on fellow journalists, yes.

Opinion vs News. Greenwald is clearly expressing his personal opinion on his personal blog/page/substack.

Newspapers generally mark Opinion columns as Opinion. In the case of the NYT article, it's not marked Opinion, but you could reasonably infer it as opinion because it's written as a dialog between two people. However, it's not explicitly marked as opinion, which it should be in order to make it clear that this is just the reporters' opinions.