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

NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 368 posts

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

#141

Post by [deleted] »

macspoofing wrote: post #99
xoa wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

>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. That's your definition of free speech and censorship. Others use those terms in a more broad sense. But even if you don't like that they do that, you should invoke the principle of charity and actually argue the point that is being m…

[deleted]

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

#142

Post by throwaway20875 »

throwaway20875 wrote: post #49
throwawaysea wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the reminder on subscribing. I agree good journalism is extremely important, and a diverse set of sources is important as well. I've been feeling like we need alternatives to massive mainstream news media houses that increasingly seem like a battleground for ideological war in the newsroom. Are there any other independent journalists you would recommend?

Matt Taibbi is pretty good.

I'm getting downvoted for recommending a journalist. We're headed for interesting times.

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

#143

Post by AnimalMuppet »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #104
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, but having seeing the flip side of anonymous, unverified, amplified and maliciously orchestrated communication of lies by unknown actors myself over the past few years This is a strange lesson to take away, not least of all because we've seen a lot of egregious, potent, and dangerous lies from credible, verified institutions including the former PO…

To paraphrase C. S. Lewis: They say that unregulated speech is destructive. I do not contradict them. But I oppose speech regulation because I see nobody fit to be trusted with regulating it.

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

#144

Post by marcus_holmes »

dcolkitt wrote: post #117
randomfool wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This. The main things we have to decide in the next decade or so is "who gets to decide what the truth is?" and "how can we allow creative dissent from that truth?"

We have to allow people to dissent, or we will have destroyed our own civilisation.

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

#145

Post by eitland »

Spivak wrote: post #106
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…

> It seems to seriously scare some folks that there are places where they cannot deplatform whoever they want for anything. Jeez. At least give your opponents a charitable take on their argument. This stuff isn't some make-believe silencing of online Socratic circles that just happen to have "non-approved" viwes or "wrongthink". I don't think you get how scary some of these mobs are. They're online witch-hunts fueled…

> Like this problem is hard. I want free and open communication as much as the next person it's not so easy.

I want free and open communication as long as it does inconvenience me or those in power?

Also remember: public groups and channels on Telegram are public. You can join them and report them if you want.

What you cannot is join my family group and start judging my kids based on what they said one afternoon when they were angry.

The problem here is that because of journalists like these we now have to prepare to defend Telegram against authorities, because some well connected journalists said it was the next evil thing after Parler.

People believe this, just like they believe that MeWe is an alt-right hotspot (it is mostly ex-googleplusers discussing chili growing, general gardening, sharing landscape photos etc - unless maybe I haven't searched for the magic string that unlocks all the evil..?)

The result is that ordinary people shy away from newer, better technology and fall back to/stick with abusers line Facebook.

Yep. Facebook, the place that has hosted much more hate speech than any alternative platform I know of.

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

#146

Post by betwixthewires »

astrange wrote: post #122
stonogo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good journalism is extremely important but much of what we see today is a mix of extreme bias, outright lies and outrage manufacturing. I haven't seen Greenwald do much other than outrage manufacturing in some years. I guess it's paying the bills.

[flagged]

When are you guys going to figure out that this doesn't work anymore?

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

#147

Post by kgog »

betwixthewires wrote: post #132

If NYT or any big dinosaur media company has any shred of integrity left they'll fire and blacklist every single so called journalist engaging in this sort of behavior. They represent your brand, their behavior is your behavior. It reflects on every other employee you have, including any presumably honest ones. If you're an honest journalist and you work for one of these companies, know that their behavior makes me a…

Does that mean your employer should fire you for your HN comments and tweets from personal accounts?

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

#148

Post by arpa »

da_big_ghey wrote: post #111
newacct583 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I found it ironic that in screenshot it says both "r-word" and "DeepFuckingValue". Zeitgeist, i guess.

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

#149

Post by afavour »

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.

> Never confuse social media for real life.

Maybe that was true years ago but I really don't know that it is today. Social media is the primary means of communication for a lot of people and in a very real sense it is real life. I'd argue the Capitol riot in January is an example of social media becoming very real. Even the topic at hand - /r/wallstreetbets and $GME - shows the same.

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

#150

Post by kgog »

S_A_P wrote: post #68

Greenwalds tactics aside, do we really consider someone saying the word "retard" in a private discussion newsworthy? More importantly it wasnt even reported correctly and appears to be the result of Taylor Lorenz having an axe to grind with Marc Andreessen.

To me, the bigger story (like the one NYT actually published) is around content moderation. Clubhouse has risen fast - in terms of users and valuation - but has done very little vis-a-vis moderation.

Every single social platform started out where they started and eventually had to moderate bad actors and bad actions.

Greenwald used to do good journalism. And now sells subscriptions to dog-whistles.

Post reply on HN