4 ms·

Do you agree with @harryh that the article is marketing material? Also, @achompas's sibling post was the appeal to authority, not yours, sorry for the confusio

Do you agree with @harryh that the article is marketing material? Also, @achompas's sibling post was the appeal to authority, not yours, sorry for the confusion.

grzm 10y ago
Do you agree with @harryh that the article is marketing material? I don't know what answer you're looking for beyond what I've just expressed above: I disagree with the contention that the Pearl Automation article is a paid post or "obviously paid content marketing material". If you consider good press to be marketing material, then yes, but I don't think this is an proper understanding of "marketing material". Or is it the idea it wasn't paid for? Even then, I don't think this article is the result of anything unethical, which I understand the label "marketing material" to imply. If you know of actual evidence that indicates such, I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
achompas 10y ago
I'm baffled as to how my comments can be read as appeals to authority. A brief Google search surfaces clear comments by the NYT itself on its native ad policy. I also think you're suffering from the conflation of marketing and advertising material.
- grzm 10y ago
  I believe 'Hydraulix989 is interpreting the following as such: [T]he NYT is a traditional institution with strong publishing process and serious concern for "separation of church and state, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13313026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13313026 I think they're saying that they can't be trusted to be honest about their own intent. I'm not sure if that's actually an fallacious appeal to authority, as I think that entails referencing some unqualified third party, but I may very well be mistaken. Regardless, if 'Hydraulix989 doesn't trust the NYT, I can't imagine anything short of an audit by a trusted third-party would be convincing on this issue. To be fair, I would only be convinced that the Pearl Automation article is a marketing piece if there were some concrete evidence of unethical behavior along these lines.
  - achompas 10y ago
    Ah, I get you. I could understand that if, say, someone had not read comments from the NYT's public editor. One example: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/as-print-fades-part-4-native-advertising-on-the-rise/?_r=0 http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/as-print-fa...
    - grzm 10y ago
      Thanks for the link! I fear that in today's polarized environment, distrust of the media, and the serious missteps made by the NYT in recent years, the fact that the public editor is a NYT employee and published in the NYT would make them untrustworthy to a great many people. And that seems to often taint those who would give them the benefit of the doubt. And I don't see this as an issue that's unique to any one political persuasion. The level of automatic distrust if not suspicion of bad intent all around greatly concerns me. I find myself actively and repeatedly checking myself to extend the benefit of the doubt and charity. We're increasingly and alarmingly encouraged to view things in a binary fashion, bucketing everyone into one or the other, rather than recognizing there's a wide range of values on all different issues, and that we share many even when we disagree on others. </soapbox>

Do you agree with @harryh that the article is marketing material? Also, @achompas's sibling post was the appeal to authority, not yours, sorry for the confusion.

grzm 10y ago

Do you agree with @harryh that the article is marketing material? I don't know what answer you're looking for beyond what I've just expressed above: I disagree with the contention that the Pearl Automation article is a paid post or "obviously paid content marketing material". If you consider good press to be marketing material, then yes, but I don't think this is an proper understanding of "marketing material". Or is it the idea it wasn't paid for? Even then, I don't think this article is the result of anything unethical, which I understand the label "marketing material" to imply. If you know of actual evidence that indicates such, I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

achompas 10y ago

I'm baffled as to how my comments can be read as appeals to authority. A brief Google search surfaces clear comments by the NYT itself on its native ad policy. I also think you're suffering from the conflation of marketing and advertising material.

grzm 10y ago
I believe 'Hydraulix989 is interpreting the following as such: [T]he NYT is a traditional institution with strong publishing process and serious concern for "separation of church and state, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13313026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13313026 I think they're saying that they can't be trusted to be honest about their own intent. I'm not sure if that's actually an fallacious appeal to authority, as I think that entails referencing some unqualified third party, but I may very well be mistaken. Regardless, if 'Hydraulix989 doesn't trust the NYT, I can't imagine anything short of an audit by a trusted third-party would be convincing on this issue. To be fair, I would only be convinced that the Pearl Automation article is a marketing piece if there were some concrete evidence of unethical behavior along these lines.
- achompas 10y ago
  Ah, I get you. I could understand that if, say, someone had not read comments from the NYT's public editor. One example: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/as-print-fades-part-4-native-advertising-on-the-rise/?_r=0 http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/as-print-fa...
  - grzm 10y ago
    Thanks for the link! I fear that in today's polarized environment, distrust of the media, and the serious missteps made by the NYT in recent years, the fact that the public editor is a NYT employee and published in the NYT would make them untrustworthy to a great many people. And that seems to often taint those who would give them the benefit of the doubt. And I don't see this as an issue that's unique to any one political persuasion. The level of automatic distrust if not suspicion of bad intent all around greatly concerns me. I find myself actively and repeatedly checking myself to extend the benefit of the doubt and charity. We're increasingly and alarmingly encouraged to view things in a binary fashion, bucketing everyone into one or the other, rather than recognizing there's a wide range of values on all different issues, and that we share many even when we disagree on others. </soapbox>