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

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: The Disinformation

#61

Post by gfodor »

vertr07 wrote: post #41
Tohhou wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a newbie to the Internet? Been living under a rock? What do you want me to do cite each example with what Social Justice Warriors say they want?

I'm not new to the internet, but you are definitely new to HN. Well-reasoned and supported arguments are valued here, not baseless and fragmented conspiracy theories. E.g. Aliens are controlling politics! Proof: http://reddit.com/r/ufos

This isn't a conspiracy theory, go click around the SJW corners of the Internet a bit. There are tons of people who think this way. It's prevalent enough that I'd not blame anyone for not providing a bibliography.

Re: The Disinformation

#62

Post by calibraxis »

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…

You "can't imagine"? When posting that, did you yet do the research and determine whether or not Paul Graham threw Jessica Lessin under the bus... common when one feels personally attacked and doesn't think as critically as they should?

What's interesting, at least on this thread, is that people aren't analyzing the raw transcript for themselves: (http://jessicalessin.com/2013/12/31/on-the-information-and-h...) Or did I miss someone doing that, under the weight of all the fluffy, useless rhetoric?

One poster's brief, lucid point about journalistic practices is buried by lots of useless rhetoric. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6989348)

Everyone should know this is true here even on technical topics. People commonly point out a lack of critical thinking on HN, weak at discussing tradeoffs.

Reading the raw transcript, seems to me Paul's comment about "these women" doesn't show him in a better light. But even if you disagree, doing the analysis is important, rather than echo Michael Arrington's and Paul Graham's rhetoric.

Re: The Disinformation

#64

Post by mkr-hn »

Tohhou wrote: post #34
vertr07 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take your conspiracy theories back to the red pill chief.

Yeah, totes there are no people like this, and the attack on PG was not agenda fueled. http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction

You've gone down the spectrum from TiA sensibility, way past AVFM-esque MRA, and into the darkest pits of TRP.

Re: The Disinformation

#65

Post by bagosm »

I am really surprised that none has actually read the transcript. Here is a quote from the next question in the transcript:

Eric: What you’re saying is that they’re not out there to be found?

Paul: I don’t think so. I don’t think so. It is changing a bit because it’s no longer so critical to be a hacker

So PG's views are actually exactly that - in general no suitable female startup founders exist in the world. That isn't bad per se as an opinion, or makes him misogynist, I'm just surprised how people that have a positive outlook of someone can defend them even in a clearly wrong situation.

Btw I'm not affiliated with that news website in any way, just couldn't bare to see a community - that is normally so ornithological - go crazy over defending someone who doesn't deserve it.

Re: The Disinformation

#66

Post by bambax »

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…

I really liked Arrington's post; but most fundamentally, what is the value of the so-called "tech press"?

Like so many things, free press in general is being disintermediated, since "leaks" happen without it, outside of it, and many times despite its best efforts to ignore them.

Still, one can imagine there's value to the business of keeping the government accountable -- if the business gets done.

But in tech? What secrets are there to uncover? As this story shows, the only "secrets" left are those made up by the press to try and justify its existence.

Re: The Disinformation

#67

Post by James_Duval »

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.

I get the appeal of a premium service, but what's wrong with ArsTechnica or The Register?

I'm constantly impressed by the quality of these site's articles (although I find The Register difficult to get on with for the same reasons I find Private Eye difficult to get on with).

Re: The Disinformation

#68

Post by [deleted] »

gfodor wrote: post #61
vertr07 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not new to the internet, but you are definitely new to HN. Well-reasoned and supported arguments are valued here, not baseless and fragmented conspiracy theories. E.g. Aliens are controlling politics! Proof: http://reddit.com/r/ufos

This isn't a conspiracy theory, go click around the SJW corners of the Internet a bit. There are tons of people who think this way. It's prevalent enough that I'd not blame anyone for not providing a bibliography.

[deleted]

Re: The Disinformation

#69

Post by jasonkester »

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…

Indeed. Especially in light of their response to this article, paraphrased:

"It's not that we were trying to be malicious. It's just that we're incapable of parsing spoken English"

Followed up in a tweet with "To clarify, even after reading several detailed explanations of the spoken English in question, we're still unable to parse it".

So either way, malicious or dim, it's hard to imagine considering them a trustworthy source of news after this.

[Note: some of the above quotes have been edited slightly for compactness and clarity, as is common practice in such things.]

Re: The Disinformation

#70

Post by jason_wang »

bagosm wrote: post #65

I am really surprised that none has actually read the transcript. Here is a quote from the next question in the transcript: Eric: What you’re saying is that they’re not out there to be found? Paul: I don’t think so. I don’t think so. It is changing a bit because it’s no longer so critical to be a hacker So PG's views are actually exactly that - in general no suitable female startup founders exist in the world. That i…

So PG's views are actually exactly that - in general no suitable female startup founders exist in the world.

That's not what pg is saying at all.

Eric's question wasn't if female founders can be found. Eric is asking if there are non-hackers out there, just waiting to be found, so they can start the next Facebook. pg is saying you can't just go out and find non-hackers and turn them into the next Mark Zuckerberg.

On a side note, I think the transcript is poorly transcribed. Many sentences are missing keywords allowing sentences to be easily interpreted in different ways.

Post reply on HN