The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage • Hacker News Board

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#131

Post by mensetmanusman » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:48 PM UTC

_zgx0 wrote: post #2

>Instead of covering the [tech] industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair. ... >Tech executives and investors mostly did not like this change, for understandable reasons. And I mostly agree with them on the merits. The author agrees - that the tech industry should not be subject to inv…

“Tech now is the most wealthy and powerful industry in the US.”

Industries more powerful:

-Finance -Banking -Defense -Oil&Gas

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#132

Post by bigfudge » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 7:09 AM UTC

testHNac wrote: post #99

bigfudge wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if a conventional media source published a quote from someone impersonating a public figure, and discovered this, they would publish a correction. Big tech companies wash their hands if this kind of responsibility. That degrades the value of our public spaces.

Note - I am not an American. From what I have read in American News Media I see so many things that have been blatant lies published by respected News Media like NYT and WaPo. But I don't think I have come across corrections regarding such national and international stories. Regarding your statement - " ... degrades the value of our public spaces." I believe even your mainstream news media is guilty of the same.

I don’t disagree with this, but it is a form of whataboutism so it doesn’t really undermine the original point that some MSM are also terrible actors. Press in the UK is bad, but I don’t yet see it as this bad.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#133

Post by vietthan » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #122

vietthan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would need to look at the ethnicity statistics across C-level executives. Rishi Sunak is the British PM but I can say "UK politics and government is still dominated by Whites" and the British Parliament would agree with me [1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01...

That document says that Britain is 87% white I mean I don't know what you expect.

yes, that's exactly what I meant. I was demonstrating that just because the top guy is a member of the minority group does not mean that organization is "influenced" by minority group.

Edit: I finally read the context again. Yes the top guy is a member of a minority group, and of course he will have some cultural influence. But people will disagree whether the minority group is _at the right level of influence_.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#134

Post by _djo_ » Tue, Nov 08, 2022, 12:42 PM UTC

imron wrote: post #88

nickthegreek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being downvoted, but the news just broke that this is true. No id verification will take place for the $8. Just a cc.

A credit card is tied to your ID through your bank or other cc provider. If you abuse the rules your payment account and your Twitter account will be banned [0]. Maybe you have more than one CC, but keep playing shenanigans and you’ll eventually run out. An $8 disincentive is also enough of a bar to knock out 95% of the problem. 0: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587853006699401216#m

That would only be true if scammers and other professional criminals were not already easily able to obtain stolen CCs and other payment methods. And that's who you're trying to protect against, not the average person.