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

The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 261 posts

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#171

Post by rdl »

contingencies wrote: post #139
rdl wrote: post #84

This doesn't seem worth the brand damage it causes. I actually love the Economist "special advertising sections" about countries ("Mongolia: Open for Business", etc.). Those are clearly identified and also not damaging. Maybe Mongolia isn't worthy of 16-32 pages in the Economist on its own, but the content they do publish about it tends to be at least somewhat legitimate. Not sure if that's even possible to do about…

I read a whole issue like that on Libya on a trans-Atlantic (no pun intended) flight for a Christmas party in London. Couldn't decide where to go for the break, so figured I'd hit Libya, but it was too opaque trying to sort out how to acquire a visa, so I went to Tunisia instead. Then the revolution and the whole Arab Spring kicked off, hah!

I almost went to North Africa and the Middle East in September, 2001, just because it would have been a fun and obscure trip (probably would have skipped Libya, but Tunisia/etc. for classical reasons).

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#172

Post by illuminate »

madiator wrote: post #32
jacalata wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you go watch the 'upvote' count on his comment, it is flickering rapidly, up two, down one, up one, down two - fascinating.

I don't know understand why its going down? The downvotes should be displayed separately and should not affect the upvotes, unless the upvotes are getting deleted (by somebody or by the upvoters themselves)

Because either the Atlantic is moderating the comments or the COS employs a lot of sockpuppets (my guess on the latter.)

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#173

Post by illuminate »

smacktoward wrote: post #146
smoyer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His comment is now gone ... it was by far the most up-voted and I'm a bit shocked that Disqus is in collusion with The Atlantic.

"Collusion" seems like overstating the case a little to me. I'd be more shocked if the opposite were true -- if the site publisher wanted to remove a comment, and Disqus, for whatever reason, wouldn't let them. Disqus isn't supposed to be making editorial decisions on their customers' sites; if someone wants to be an idiot and moderate out non-cheerleading comments, it's not Disqus' place to override that decision.

""Collusion" seems like overstating the case a little to me."

Aren't they editing the comments for their customer?

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#174

Post by marshray »

ohjeez wrote: post #96
shrikant wrote: post #78

Oh the irony. In July 2012, " CNN's Effusive Coverage of Kazakhstan Is Quietly Sponsored by Its Subject " - http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/cnn... Edit : looks like their Twitter feed ( http://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/ ) is attempting some damage control by tweeting about a "the truth about Scientology" book. Heh.

I'm guessing that it's how the editors are fighting back. Remember, the sponsored content is managed by the sales team. Editorial has no input or control over that. Just think how those reporters feel.

So white supremacists or the Taliban (or even... Wikileaks!) could buy placement in The Atlantic and the paper's owners would have no problem with that?

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#175

Post by TillE »

sk5t wrote: post #123
pekk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, but it is socially unacceptable to say such things about thugs in other religions, just Scientology - and they may be freely promoted in the press with equal quantities of distortion - this bothers me a great deal.

Haven't you noticed the relentless pounding the Catholic church has been taking for years and years now? Or listen to Penn Jillette's or Louis CK's remarks on Mormonism, or a great deal of George Carlin's material... many religions prey on the powerless, but we are offended by the efficiency with which Scientology drains its' adherents bank accounts and their will.

There's also no shortage of criticism for Islamic fundamentalism / Sharia law.

People generally don't have much patience for rhetoric that calls all religious belief evil, but specific accurate criticism usually has a place in public discourse.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#176

Post by mindslight »

dsl wrote: post #153
mindslight wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a mindfuck, go to sears.com. Product results include, by default, items from Amazon affiliates. These dinosaurs truly have no clue what parts of their businesses could still have value.

I was trying to find a place that had 30 round magazines in stock before the looming ban, and ironically sears.com was the one retailer that had them in stock (by way of some small mom and pop affiliate).

I'll see your implausible useful-Sears story and raise you mine - I bought some welding electrodes that Home Depot doesn't even carry at a physical brick and mortar Sears! Admittedly Lowes might have had them, but I was already in the area.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#177

Post by dinkumthinkum »

tnorthcutt wrote: post #150

I've asked PG to ban/delete links to theatlantic.com: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5058360

I think this is just way overreaction. I'm not happy about it and think the Atlantic should revise their policies but I don't think we should ban all links because of this. It's basically just an advertisement that has been allowed to parade itself as an article; nevertheless it does not take very long to realize it is a sponsored article.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#179

Post by cheald »

illuminate wrote: post #149
cheald wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This site reads an awful lot like a bunch of left-wing conspiracy nutters. I don't know if it actually is or not, but that's the impression I get after scanning through it a bit. Not exactly a bastion of journalistic neutrality.

There's some anger there, but it calls out shills as it sees it. It's not a "left wing conspiracy" if those being targeted are literally being paid to sell a narrative.

Certainly - I'll readily admit that I didn't dig deep enough to form a solid opinion. It was just my impression after a quick scan through several pages. It's also worth noting that I didn't call it a "left wing conspiracy" - I said "left-wing conspiracy nutters", which is quite different!

I can appreciate the desire to call out shills, but if you're going to pin someone to the wall for being biased, it's best to try to do it in as unbiased and neutral a way as possible, IMO. Otherwise, you just end up looking like any other fringe whacko with a bone to pick with the people they don't like.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#180

Post by GauntletWizard »

ChrisClark wrote: post #98
mindslight wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a mindfuck, go to sears.com. Product results include, by default, items from Amazon affiliates. These dinosaurs truly have no clue what parts of their businesses could still have value.

So they are sending customers to their competitor just because they want to make a few dollars? Losing a customer must cost them more than the affiliate payment they get.

But, much like Kris Kringle recommending Woolworths to Macy's customers in "Miracle on 34th Street", getting you the item you want elsewhere doesn't lose Sears a customer - It makes certain they'll check Sears first in the future.
Post reply on HN