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

261–270 of 368 posts

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

#261

Post by throwaway20875 »

NearAP wrote: post #167
throwaway20875 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can click through and the article in question was Greenwald attempting to give oxygen to GOP propaganda about Hunter Biden. Photos of drug fueled sex romps with prostitutes by the president's son are newsworthy. Same goes for his investments and work in foreign countries. The lack of investigative journalism into Hunter Biden is the product of something far worse than what Greenwald is covering. This has zero to…

The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not. The argument was - if your article is saying/implying that the then former VP was complicit in a financial scheme to benefit him after publicly saying he wasn't, then you should show proof and not innuendos (leave innuendos to tabloids). Or if you are saying journalists are choosing to ignore the story, then show how

>The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not.

That's an interesting take. Articles and mentions were suppressed near IMMEDIATELY on Facebook and Twitter followed by waves of accounts bannings. Mandarins of the US security apparatus (some of which who draw compensation from media companies) were waltzed out to claim it was Russian disinformation (lol).

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

#262

Post by voldacar »

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"

Idk, I think he supported that claim pretty well

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

#263

Post by deathlight »

eplanit wrote: post #107
jacquesm wrote: post #41

Flagging this. Greenwald has totally lost the plot.

In the spirit of the article, shouldn't he be banned or fired?

But also, isn't criticizing him an example of latent homophobia? Is this a medical condition we can get people labeled with so they can be involuntarily committed for expressing views we don't agree with?

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

#264

Post by meowfly »

mbg721 wrote: post #166
kansface wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cor…

There's also the question of why employers think that caving to Twitter outrage is good or necessary for business.

You touch on a good point. The irony here is that "cancel culture" only works because labor's power is poor.

If it is expensive (e.g Joe Rogan - Spotify deal) or difficult (e.g Steven Pinker - tenured) to fire people it seems much more difficult to cancel someone.

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

#265

Post by ardy42 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #247
ardy42 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not size, but power. Twitter's curation algorithms have massive unilateral influence on public opinion (reaching far beyond its own user-base) probably including the ability to sway national presidential elections. I'm not aware of any utility companies with such power. And most of the cases I'm aware of where they've used that power is to suppress viral lies, which is a good thing . Even then they were late p…

> And most of the cases I'm aware of where they've used that power is to suppress viral lies, which is a good thing. Even then they were late pulling the trigger. Why on earth would you suspect that the handful of incidents that they advertise are a remotely representative sample? Of course the highest profile censorship is going to be agreeable, but we have no idea what lurks below the surface because we have no tra…

>> And most of the cases I'm aware of where they've used that power is to suppress viral lies, which is a good thing. Even then they were late pulling the trigger.

> Why on earth would you suspect that the handful of incidents that they advertise are a remotely representative sample? Of course the highest profile censorship is going to be agreeable, but we have no idea what lurks below the surface because we have no transparency.

I'm not so concerned about that, because it's far from the most pressing issue. My impression is that the people who typically complain bitterly about Twitter's "censorship" are complaining about the stuff you call "agreeable censorship" (e.g. driving out Bugaloo Bois, QAnon, COVID misinformation, "stop the steal" cranks, etc.). For instance: the exodus from Twitter to Parler wasn't triggered so much by account closures/tweet deletions, but rather the labeling of election misinformation tweets.

> Or we kill Twitter. :) I say this half in-jest, but some people who are positively terrified about the collapse of democracy seem to take it as an article of faith that Twitter deserves to exist. I think there's some happy medium but if we fail to find it dispatching Twitter seems better than where we're heading.

I agree with this. Social media may be a technology that society should chose to abandon, Amish-style.

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

#266

Post by alentist »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #92
bmmayer1 wrote: post #17

> "But this is now the prevailing ethos in corporate journalism. They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers: the military-industrial complex, the CIA and FBI, the clandestine security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley monopolies, the corrupted and lying corporate media outlets they serve. So settling on this penny-ante, trivial bullshit — tattling, hall monitoring, sp…

Very ironic that this sentence was planted in the middle of a 3000-word screed comparing someone who tweeted a misheard quote to the Stasi.

Stasi-like citizen-surveillance.

And there's nothing ironic about it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070324

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26069728

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070040

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

#267

Post by Dma54rhs »

whakim wrote: post #138
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…

At most news orgs the reporters aren't the ones writing the article titles. I agree that the headline is alarmist, but it's probably just written to be clickbait-y, as far too many headlines now are. I disagree that "articles like this are written specifically to inadvertently call for the censorship of more voices." The article takes on a subject that has been discussed a lot recently, and, on balance, probably push…

It's not an excuse though? If these American journalists want to change the world and force the whole world to follow what they believe in they should deal with their problematic headline guys first.

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

#268

Post by Dma54rhs »

bzbarsky wrote: post #109
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…

To be clear, journalists approximately never get to pick the title. Editors do that. Who should also have integrity, of course, but the clickbait incentives are very strong...

Maybe name and shame and bully these editors out of work then? Unless they are fine with it if course.

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

#269

Post by nate_meurer »

newacct583 wrote: post #204
djrogers wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was completely wrong about who used the word (their voices aren't even similar), and left out critical details about the context in which it was used (it was not used casually - the person who said it was quoting /r/wallstreetbets). And when confronted on it, she said 'thanks for clarifying' and doubled down on the lack of context. No 'whoops, I was wrong', no apology, no retraction. What part of that sounds like…

... it's a tweet. I mean, the whole thing is screaming over detail that you wanted to hear in 280 characters when she was just being pissed off about something and talking about it in public. Isn't exactly what you're doing -- which is to say condemning something for what in normal circumstances would be a mild transgression or simple misunderstanding, and drawing wild conclusions about the speaker that don't seem to…

I really think you need to read the article before you comment any further.

Mr Andreesen doesn't need anyone's benefit of doubt, because he didn't say what Ms Lorenz claimed. And even if he did, the use of the word "retard" was entirely appropriate in its descriptive context in that discussion. There is no reason to assume anything besides good faith on the part of the lady who actually did use the word.

Taylor Lorenz, on the other hand, was caught in a lie. Not a little lie, mind you, but a loud, public slander. When caught, she responded not with an apology, but rather another lie, some sanctimonious excuses, and then she ran and hid. Ms. Lorenz has given us no reason to assume good faith on her part here.

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

#270

Post by tootie »

throwaway20875 wrote: post #261
NearAP wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not. The argument was - if your article is saying/implying that the then former VP was complicit in a financial scheme to benefit him after publicly saying he wasn't, then you should show proof and not innuendos (leave innuendos to tabloids). Or if you are saying journalists are choosing to ignore the story, then show how

>The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not. That's an interesting take. Articles and mentions were suppressed near IMMEDIATELY on Facebook and Twitter followed by waves of accounts bannings. Mandarins of the US security apparatus (some of which who draw compensation from media companies) were waltzed out to claim it was Russian disinformation (lol).

Everything about that story smelled like an OP. That's irrelevant though. If Russian intelligence planted the story in the media but it was substantiated, it would still be newsworthy. As it stands, the story is completely unsubstantiated. So Greenwald trying to treat a fact-free rumor as critical to his reporting is pretty shitty journalism and he really didn't appreciate being called out on it.
Post reply on HN