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

151–160 of 368 posts

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

#151

Post by sulam »

ryanSrich wrote: post #75
ceejayoz wrote: post #14

Earlier 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" is the new "regardless of intent" apparently.

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

#152

Post by throwaway894345 »

tootie wrote: post #47
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…

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".

> And here he is calling the situation "Stasi-like".

The original quote was "Stasi-like citizen-surveillance", which is important additional context. It's "Stasi-like" in that he's remarking on an industry of people who are policing the speech of their fellow citizens for ideological transgressions. Of course you can dispute this characterization, but let's be clear about what is actually up for dispute.

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

#153

Post by throwaway894345 »

tootie wrote: post #87
93po wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between making a mistake and not having journalistic integrity

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure this was squarely a mistake. I'm not sure you can even assign journalistic quality controls to a personal twitter.

It's hard to trust a reporter when they behave abhorrently on Twitter, especially when their Twitter persona is based on their occupation as a journalist.

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

#154

Post by kansface »

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,…

> but meanwhile in America Twitter bans people or the NY Times refuses to publish literally anything anyone sends so they're censoring too!"

more realistically, a Twitter mob harasses your employer until you are fired, unemployable in your industry, and lose all of your friends.

> so long as you don't fall for the disinformation that Free Speech means freedom from social consequences.

There are consequences, like correcting someone or mild social opprobrium, and then there is the current endeavor of removing people from society for saying the wrong thing. I'd argue the later is almost always completely disproportionate to the offense. The accused have no recourse - they are judged by a jury of the most outraged people on the Internet and then destroyed for sport. No, Twitter does not literally shoot or beat would be dissidents, but it is routinely and purposefully weaponized to merely ruin peoples lives. That's certainly better than China... but regardless of the definition of Free Speech, lets not do that?

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

#155

Post by betwixthewires »

newacct583 wrote: post #74
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. 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 leg…

>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.

You don't give equal weight to blatant lies. There's no legitimate conversation to be had on this topic other than to point out the blatant lies, attempted character assassination based on fabrication, and complete abandonment of any shred of journalistic integrity or standards. You don't give legitimacy to clear malevolent liars by arguing their points as if they are valid.

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

#156

Post by parsimo2010 »

Some thoughts on the bigger picture-

1: Really? Do you have to write "r-word" instead of "retard" when you're writing about someone saying something? What if Marc literally said "r-word" and I'm vastly underestimating how woke this reporter is? Wait, I have a solution. Use the actual word that a person said when quoting them. Just write the exact sentence where you think Marc said the word retard. Nobody should prosecute you for quoting someone without endorsing their opinion. Obfuscating your reporting to avoid a word is bad writing style.

1.5: Otherwise, the above seems to limit us to 26 taboo slurs in the English language. A-word, b-word, c-word, ... There are other rude words, but there can only be a single r-word so bad that I mustn't spell it. To prevent confusion, I have to completely spell/say the rest of the r-words. What I'm getting at is whole thing of not saying a word is silly. Everyone knows that the c-word means cunt (at least in the USA). If this wasn't common knowledge then you couldn't say c-word and have everyone know what you meant. (Who decided that cunt was a worse word than chink anyway? That's marginalizing Chinese people and totally not-woke. /s)

2. There are people that exaggerate and sensationalize something to get more views. Some people are even fine trying to ruin someone's reputation. But we are getting wise to these sorts of things. If it's an isolated event these things kind of go away. Even if Marc is on record once saying "retard" he's probably not a bad guy. Just from growing up in the 90's I've easily said it a thousand times. If I start to hear several other instances accusing Marc of using a slur and saying it in a hurtful manner then I'll revisit the issue.

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

#157

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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…

There's a lot of people, myself included, who do approach the issue in the way you're describing. But there's also a vocal set of people who... well, it's hard to come up with a charitable view of what their position is. If Taylor Lorenz is legitimately concerned about the dangers of online witchhunts, what in the world is she doing posting names and photos of everyone who was in the room at the time of this incident?

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

#158

Post by kgog »

jhpriestley wrote: post #101

"They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers" funny line in a story that's basically just twitter/clubhouse drama

Imagine writing 3000 words - while simultaneously decrying that you're censored - because you're mad at someone's tweet.

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

#159

Post by kenjackson »

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.

Retarded can definitely be used as a slur. And, in general, you don’t need to be offended for a word to be offensive to others.
Post reply on HN