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

The Disinformation

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 87 posts

Re: The Disinformation

#11

Post by sillysaurus2 »

tptacek wrote: post #7

I can't imagine how this situation could resolve itself in a way that will make The Information look good. If you weren't aware, it's a publication that asks for more than $30/mo, in exchange (literally, this is the point) for not running clickbait and keeping the signal/noise positive. I was happy to pay a buck a day for that service, but to pay for it and then see them run misleading clickbait makes me feel dumb fo…

What made The Information's value proposition so alluring? It seems like an opportunity for another publication to step up and eat their lunch, whatever it was.

I guess their promise of high-quality tech coverage was a welcome change. Seems like a good idea; hopefully someone else will deliver it.

Re: The Disinformation

#12

Post by caprad »

Good to see people coming out in support of this horrible editing, and I hope the trouble makers see that it is taking the discussion away from what is important.

Why attack someone like pg over this? Is the attempt to shame him into being more women hacker friendly? Isn't he already going out of his way to support women?

Re: The Disinformation

#13

Post by HCIdivision17 »

tptacek wrote: post #7

I can't imagine how this situation could resolve itself in a way that will make The Information look good. If you weren't aware, it's a publication that asks for more than $30/mo, in exchange (literally, this is the point) for not running clickbait and keeping the signal/noise positive. I was happy to pay a buck a day for that service, but to pay for it and then see them run misleading clickbait makes me feel dumb fo…

Would a retraction/apology combination be effective here? Or is this just too egregious an error?

I, in turn, feel dumb asking, as I would have liked a subscription to a service like that. I wouldn't want to encourage this sort of nonsense, either.

Re: The Disinformation

#14

Post by [deleted] »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #3
jmduke wrote: post #2

It’s extremely frustrating to have your words rearranged, edited and taken out of context to make it seem like you’re saying something you aren’t. This is absolutely absurd, coming from Arrington, who twisted Jamie Zawinski's words from an anti-crazy-work-hours rant into rallying cry for gullible programmers to "work hard, cry less, and make history": http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-se...

Arrington didn't literally twist and reshape jwz's sentences, as pg's were. Even still, it's hard to see how Arrington metaphorically twisted anything jwz wrote. From the article: He's telling you the story of, "If you bust your ass and don't sleep, you'll get rich" because the only way that people in his line of work get richer is if young, poorly-socialized, naive geniuses believe that story! Without those coat-tai…

[deleted]

Re: The Disinformation

#15

Post by barry-cotter »

jimrandomh wrote: post #5
jmduke wrote: post #2

It’s extremely frustrating to have your words rearranged, edited and taken out of context to make it seem like you’re saying something you aren’t. This is absolutely absurd, coming from Arrington, who twisted Jamie Zawinski's words from an anti-crazy-work-hours rant into rallying cry for gullible programmers to "work hard, cry less, and make history": http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-se...

The orignal post accuses The Information of publishing a false quote. The article you linked to looks like two authors having a factual and philosophical disagreement, carried out in the normal way. They're on opposite sides of a bright line.

I can see why you might think that but consider it from pg's pov. It is technically true to describe the incendiary passage in the Information's article as incorrect. pg never said what he is alleged to have said. If the information and implication were the same from what he actually said it would be no harm, no foul.

Given that pg was giving background information, not an interview and that his words were misquoted and stripped of context perhaps you can see why people have decided never to give the Information the benefit of the doubt ever again.

It was marketed as quality journalism but it's just Valleywag with a subscription.

Re: The Disinformation

#17

Post by pchristensen »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #11
tptacek wrote: post #7

I can't imagine how this situation could resolve itself in a way that will make The Information look good. If you weren't aware, it's a publication that asks for more than $30/mo, in exchange (literally, this is the point) for not running clickbait and keeping the signal/noise positive. I was happy to pay a buck a day for that service, but to pay for it and then see them run misleading clickbait makes me feel dumb fo…

What made The Information's value proposition so alluring? It seems like an opportunity for another publication to step up and eat their lunch, whatever it was. I guess their promise of high-quality tech coverage was a welcome change. Seems like a good idea; hopefully someone else will deliver it.

The headlines I've seen on their Twitter feed are very compelling topics that I haven't seen covered anywhere else, e.g. news on what Scott Forstall has been doing since he left Apple. I haven't subscribed so I haven't read them so I can't vouch for the quality.

Re: The Disinformation

#18

Post by gesman »

"Power relationships" is about an influence to not publish a story to begin with.

Need to "kill a story" (including an ability to kill it by paying) is a sign of lost power.

From both sides.

Re: The Disinformation

#19

Post by michaelochurch »

gesman wrote: post #18

"Power relationships" is about an influence to not publish a story to begin with. Need to "kill a story" (including an ability to kill it by paying) is a sign of lost power. From both sides.

To add to your remarks on power: VC-funded tech is a world where everyone feels like a loser and is disempowered.

The VCs want to be working on billion-dollar private equity deals and crashing third-world currencies, not flipping measly $200-million startups. They're happy with their $17-million California mansions... until they go to their MBA-school reunions and are the only ones in their social groups without private jets and who don't live in New York or London.

The founders want to be VCs, the engineers want to be founders. Neither transition is likely at all. The non-engineers want to be engineers. Where that transition is likely, watch out.

The tech press is pretty light on ethics because of the false poverty effect. Few people in tech proper are poor, but they all feel poor, and when you conceive of yourself as poor, pissed-on, and generally cheated, you're more willing to do some cheating yourself.

That is why there are so many unethical and shoddy people in VC-funded technology. Watching total fucking idiots like Lucas Duplan get million-dollar welfare checks only adds to it.

Then there are the stray weirdos like me who are in tech because we really like the work, but we don't last long in VC-istan.

Post reply on HN