The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
61–70 of 134 posts
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#62New York Times is a rag, imo. Maybe it's just because I'm a leftist and NYT absolutely loathes the idea of leftists even having the ability to discuss non "radical centrist" ideals, but I've never found much worth reading there. Some anemic both sides opinion pieces, some inflammatory diversity pieces, etc. (And I'm an extremely pro b diversity, equity, inclusion person). It's just not a great paper unless you are a…
I agree. Other commenters seem to think the NYT actually does proper tech investigative journalism, which is completely untrue beyond sensationalistic coverage, surface-level coverage of antitrust critiques, an obsession with social media misinformation, and whining about techbros. Their acquisition of Wirecutter has made their coverage even worse, filling it with "tech advice" blogspam. The idea that the NYT holds the powerful to account is risible.
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#63>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. I thought weapon and pharmaceutical industries beat the tech.
On power, probably (at least lobbying power - direct influence on us is the opposite); but on wealth, Apple + Microsoft is enough to make the tech sector the wealthiest.
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
That boat sailed a long time ago. And while yes, there is a lot of interesting tech news out there, we've had tech companies become the largest corporations on the planet gobbling up every bit of information on every person, well it gets political really quick.
Information technology companies have a lot of information you say? And I guess you mean a long time ago measured in months. These are soap operas to hook a million or so like-minded people, not real news. Certainly not going to change the minds they want to change. Generally I think that's a problem with modern society, everyone thinks the biggest "problem" that needs fixing is each other and wastes their "civic imp…
Step away from it for 6 years and I think it will look incredibly unnerving to anyone concerned with healthy public discourse, or who values a shared sense of community.
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#65I feel like people are forgetting the real value of verification. If you aren't verified, someone will pretend to be you on Twitter. Prominent people aren't paying $8 to get a check, they're paying $8 to make sure they can't be easily impersonated, which I think is really worth it.
We have sold our public spaces for big tech companies to monetise, but basic functions like preventing fraud must now be paid for again?
It’s a form of blackmail. Don’t want to be impersonated in an important public forum? Pay up!
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Identity theft is a crime. If a platform facilitates this, it should be liable.
Identity theft is a crime when used to commit fraud. Just claiming to be someone but not otherwise defrauding anyone is fine.
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.
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#67>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.
Nowhere near as powerful as media. Wealthy sure.
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can suggest that coverage is inaccurate or unfair, but suggesting that tech should not be covered with an investigative lens is hard to argue. That's because he's being very charitable to what is happening. In fact, under the guise of aggressively investigative coverage, the media is constantly propagating false memes about the industry. Biggest example is the idea that it's dominated by a culture of white tech…
Too on the nose. When I worked at faang almost my entire org was Indians.
The generalisation of "Indians" in the tech sector is doing a lot more harm than one may think.
India is a massive country, with some of the most diverse range of cultures and people. The fact that most FAANG CEOs are Indians should speak volumes.
Negative stereotyping hurts everyone, only by acceptance and embrace our differences can we move forward.
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#69>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. Nowhere near as powerful as media. Wealthy sure.
media == tech these days. twitter, Instagram, TikTok, FB, they are media, YouTube is media.
Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage
#70Musk's acquisition of twitter was, among many other things, an attempt to use his wealth to steer the marketplace of ideas. The man lives in a world where he can freely attempt to destroy anyone who tells him "no" without consequence. The New York Times, then, would seem to have been fully warranted in their apprehension regarding social giants like twitter.
> The man lives in a world where he can freely attempt to destroy anyone who tells him "no" without consequence.
That's Tuesday for the NYT -- they live in a world where they can freely attempt to incite wars and overthrow governments.