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

331–340 of 368 posts

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

#331

Post by throwaway894345 »

ardy42 wrote: post #265
throwaway894345 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

There's no reason to believe that this is going to do any good with respect to reducing far-right speech or preventing far-right violence; to the contrary it's going to push them out of public view into increasingly difficult-to-monitor places and fuel a persecution narrative. But much worse than that, we're embracing a precedent that it's okay for a corporation to hold dominion over a significant volume of our collective speech, unregulated. If you would have told me ten years ago that this would be a popular progressive opinion I would have laughed.

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

#332

Post by Person5478 »

mint2 wrote: post #323
prepend wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it lessons other, more hurtful, words that are used as slurs. Look, we should be polite and not use offensive words, but be consistent. The referenced word is rude and offensive but in no way the same room as words that have resulted in lynching, genocide, systematic oppression. If we want to go all polite and ban all “slurs” then we’ll be getting butthurt over calling someone “stupid” or “idiot.” And of cour…

Here’s the thing, it’s not less bad than whatever others you’re thinking of. You’re just confusing your own familiarity with acceptability. Just because you’ve heard the word and are used to it, and maybe used it without your bubble caring, doesn’t mean it’s less hurtful than other words. As the other words fell out of general acceptance, many people who were familiar with the words said many of the same arguments yo…

I could just as easily claim only a pedophile could hold the opinion you hold, but that would probably be a tad unfair.

So how about you refrain from it as well, eh?

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

#333

Post by orestarod »

perl4ever wrote: post #276
betwixthewires wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be much easier to take this argument seriously if the most recent example of "deplatforming" (and the prime example in the very article we are discussing in this thread) wasn't a bunch of well funded publications coming to the defense of hedge funds and calling meme culture aware day traders evil Nazis. Seeing as of late the only prominent examples of the terrible behavior you describe are by exactly the peo…

WSB wasn't all that alt-right/Nazi/whatever before the GameStop insanity, but after some clickbait articles equating them with Trump supporters, something like 6 million new people descended on them, some noticeable number of them being Trump/QAnon cultists. I suspect it was a self-fulfilling thing.

No Trumpists were spotted - people just wanted a piece of the pie and say fuck you to the criminals at Wall Street - but it seems the media did their job.

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

#334

Post by mint2 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #321
mint2 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait I’m misunderstand you, right? Reading your comment it almost seems like yours saying that the r word isn’t a slur or isn’t that bad of one?! It’s a word that takes a whole class of people and uses them as an insult when talking about other people. Are you seriously going to try to pull some narrow technical originalist definition to argue that in this specific edition of this specific dictionary it defines “slur…

If retarded is a slur, then so is moron, idiot, imbecile, cretin and other past accepted medical terminology for the cognitively disabled that were adopted by the public as slurs. If you look up the history, "mentally retarded" was itself coined to escape the negative connotations of those previous terms. It's unfortunate but inevitable that referents to the cognitively disabled will continue to be abused, no matter…

You had to make a throwaway to post that? Stand behind your words if you believe in them.

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

#335

Post by mint2 »

Person5478 wrote: post #332
mint2 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the thing, it’s not less bad than whatever others you’re thinking of. You’re just confusing your own familiarity with acceptability. Just because you’ve heard the word and are used to it, and maybe used it without your bubble caring, doesn’t mean it’s less hurtful than other words. As the other words fell out of general acceptance, many people who were familiar with the words said many of the same arguments yo…

I could just as easily claim only a pedophile could hold the opinion you hold, but that would probably be a tad unfair. So how about you refrain from it as well, eh?

Your analogy makes no sense. I don’t know what else to say. It flat out makes no sense.

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

#336

Post by throwaway894345 »

thesteamboat wrote: post #277
throwaway894345 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The NLFSA doesn't necessarily want speech regulated, or regulated by the government, or by corporations. They may not have any particular solution in mind (though some might think they have one). The NLFSA sees a problem without necessarily seeing a solution. It seems like the appropriate posture is being positively in favor of the best thing we've got (free speech) while acknowledging the limitations. Which is a l…

I largely agree with you and think that my views fall closer to yours than the GPs. I'd endorse free speech absolutism as probably the best system in the vein of "Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others". That being said > Even if, like me, you think conservative ideas are generally worse than liberal ideas, you should want conservatives to rally around the best, most respectable conserv…

> I fully agree with this sentiment, but I think it misdiagnoses the biggest problem facing speech on the right. As I see it, the main problem is not ring wing views being drummed out of centrist publications (though this undoubtedly does happen and is a problem). Rather, it is instead 'respectable' conservative ideas being driven out of rightwing circles in favor of anti-intellectualism and conspiratorial nonsense.

I think we're saying something very similar here? This is what I meant when I said "you should want conservatives to rally around the best, most respectable conservative ideas rather around the worst ideas".

To be clear, I think the "conservatives being driven out of epistemological institutions" (not "centrist spaces") and "the rise of anti-intellectualism in rightwing spaces" are two symptoms of the same phenomena (so while I might agree that one symptom is worse than the other, the cure is the same). Notably, when we regard everything right of far-left as "uniformly evil" then you erase any incentive that would otherwise cause respectable rightwing ideas to rise above unsavory rightwing ideas.

> I'd moderate this statement slightly. We never had objectivity -- that's just an impossible yardstick for humans in human institutions.

Objectivity and neutrality were ideals that we held much like equality, but to your point we never perfected them (I never meant to imply otherwise).

> I don't think people are wrong to point out that the old standards of objectivity were X which is problematic (where X might be white, or male or cis, or christian, or upper middle class, etc.) I agree that, granting this failing, explicitly turning to subjectivity is a bad response. But I think that needs to be explicitly argued to our friends on the left who might be tempted into the left's censorship spiral, and to just sweep it under the rug as an assumption will make them distrust your argument.

Yes, to be quite clear, we have failed at various points in history to perfectly uphold our ideals. The whole deal with "progress" is that we want to advance toward our ideals, and if we're really progressing, the past ought to be less moral than the present. There's merit in pointing out failures to prioritize identity over objectivity, but the left errs on the remedy: in response to prioritizing a white identity politics over objectivity they respond by prioritizing an anti-white identity politics over objectivity. The correct response is to prioritize objectivity over identity politics altogether, at least assuming we want to live in a world that is prosperous, just, harmonious, etc.

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

#337

Post by NearAP »

throwaway20875 wrote: post #313
NearAP wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story. Finally, Greenwald published his resignation letter. Intercept also published their letter to him. It was never about news worthiness. It was a debate on…

>That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story. So the "Collateral Murder" video, by that standard, would be suppressed too? And any mentions of it, even in private messages, would also be suppressed?…

>>because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reactionYou don't have to be rude. I have engaged in a polite conversation with you.

>>And then comes the double standards Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published.

Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked. They were provided (though without his knowledge) by someone who had legal access to it (like Mary Trump and she did say she provided it) but again you can argue a double standard.

His wife's phone conversations were not hacked. One of the participants in the call recorded it and released it (and the state she was in allows one participant to record a call)

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

#338

Post by throwaway20875 »

NearAP wrote: post #337
throwaway20875 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story. So the "Collateral Murder" video, by that standard, would be suppressed too? And any mentions of it, even in private messages, would also be suppressed?…

>>because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reaction You don't have to be rude. I have engaged in a polite conversation with you. >>And then comes the double standards Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published. Also, Trump's tax returns were n…

>Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published.

It absolutely is relevant. There is clear coordination between these organizations to suppress information. You can't look at the bannings occurring across multiple media platforms simultaneously (multiple instances) and not draw this conclusion. Further, there's a revolving door between government agencies and media companies - this industry is carrying water for the powers that be.

>Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked

What is social engineering? You're arguing in trivial semantics and missing the forest for the trees.

Hacked was never a legitimate threshold for suppressing information before someone in power was threatened.

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

#339

Post by whakim »

zepto wrote: post #325
whakim wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“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 think the time for this excuse is long past. There is research showing that headlines matter.

I don't disagree that headlines matter. I don't think it's a good headline. But I was simply stating that I don't believe the headline was written in service of an alarmist agenda to use "misinformation" as boogeyman to push for moderation of private messaging platforms (as the GP stated). I believe it was just written to get more clicks. Even if the result is the same, the intent matters because we need to understand the intent in order to de-incentivize the behavior. (We also need to understand who actually writes the headlines, which the GP missed, which was my other point.)

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

#340

Post by ashtonkem »

Lammy wrote: post #239
ashtonkem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the first time the word "restraint" have appeared near Greenwald's name in a long, long time. Given that he's accusing NYT reporters of being the Stasi, I don't think that "restraint" is the word I'd use to describe him.

I didn't get the impression that he was trying to subtly accuse any reporters of being directly involved in anything like that, but if the incentives of modern journalism align to create the same outcome where inconvenient status-quo-doubters are silenced, why does it matter how we got there?

I have no idea what you're trying to actually communicate.
Post reply on HN