4 ms·

I would have liked to see a story from the journalists on how easy it was for them to find the guy and then they had responsibility alerted the person on those

by tonmoy 9y ago

I would have liked to see a story from the journalists on how easy it was for them to find the guy and then they had responsibility alerted the person on those points w/o revealing his name (you know like what security researchers do)

ConceptJunkie 9y ago
So you expect journalists to be something other than whores? Good luck with that.
- sctb 9y ago
  Please comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    A "slang" term for a perfectly legal profession (where I'm from) used in a derivative but substantive manner--it's obviously short for the phrase "attention whore" (which is really the main reason why you shouldn't have moderated this remark) and this type of journalist is doing it just for the attention to make money, which is relevant because it sheds light on their motivation behind their questionable actions. The phrase couldn't be more on-point, actually. Which leaves the "civil" part. Because he said "whore" instead of "prostitute". Certainly from now on, you'll be moderating people for using the ugly word "hacker" instead of "security consultant/researcher", right? It really (still) has the same bad name among people not well-acquainted with the biz. And no, it doesn't matter that some people chose to wear the "hacker" title with pride, because guess what? So do most whores. To add substantively to the discussion myself, here's an open question. I'm having a real hard time coming up with a phrase two words or less, that communicates this aspect of journalism as accurately as "attention whoring". How would you say it?
    - kentrado 9y ago
      Reading your reasoning. The mod is certainly on the wrong here. But what can you do about it \_(ツ)_/¯
    - grzm 9y ago
      I think you may be missing the forest for the trees by focussing on a single word as the cause for 'sctb's comment. He specifically mentions that comments should be civil and substantive. That phrase is often used to describe the goals for discussion on HN, and they're both important. The comment 'sctb responds to has very little substance, adding little to the conversation other than castigating its parent for assuming that people (journalists in particular) ever strive to do anything other than follow their basest instincts, that all journalists only seek attention. You add some nuance ("this type of journalist") which is entirely lacking in the original. The phrasing is also aggressive and does not invite further civil and substantive responses—hallmarks of comments that are not appropriate for HN.

by tonmoy 9y ago

ConceptJunkie 9y ago

So you expect journalists to be something other than whores? Good luck with that.

sctb 9y ago
Please comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tripzilch 9y ago
  A "slang" term for a perfectly legal profession (where I'm from) used in a derivative but substantive manner--it's obviously short for the phrase "attention whore" (which is really the main reason why you shouldn't have moderated this remark) and this type of journalist is doing it just for the attention to make money, which is relevant because it sheds light on their motivation behind their questionable actions. The phrase couldn't be more on-point, actually. Which leaves the "civil" part. Because he said "whore" instead of "prostitute". Certainly from now on, you'll be moderating people for using the ugly word "hacker" instead of "security consultant/researcher", right? It really (still) has the same bad name among people not well-acquainted with the biz. And no, it doesn't matter that some people chose to wear the "hacker" title with pride, because guess what? So do most whores. To add substantively to the discussion myself, here's an open question. I'm having a real hard time coming up with a phrase two words or less, that communicates this aspect of journalism as accurately as "attention whoring". How would you say it?
  - kentrado 9y ago
    Reading your reasoning. The mod is certainly on the wrong here. But what can you do about it \_(ツ)_/¯
  - grzm 9y ago
    I think you may be missing the forest for the trees by focussing on a single word as the cause for 'sctb's comment. He specifically mentions that comments should be civil and substantive. That phrase is often used to describe the goals for discussion on HN, and they're both important. The comment 'sctb responds to has very little substance, adding little to the conversation other than castigating its parent for assuming that people (journalists in particular) ever strive to do anything other than follow their basest instincts, that all journalists only seek attention. You add some nuance ("this type of journalist") which is entirely lacking in the original. The phrasing is also aggressive and does not invite further civil and substantive responses—hallmarks of comments that are not appropriate for HN.