3 ms·

Probably attempting to prove ARS journalism isnt slanted nor impaired on account of their new ownership They were recently acquired by new management as a resu

Probably attempting to prove ARS journalism isnt slanted nor impaired on account of their new ownership They were recently acquired by new management as a result of peter thiel and hulk hogan successfully suing and shutting down gawker, their prior owners. Any time a news sit changes ownership theres likely some skepticism in the air over if journalistic integrity is preserved or not especially when it creates conflict of interest with an owner.

jchw 9y ago
Wait... what? When was Ars Technica owned by Gawker? I thought it was Conde Nast for a long time. If true, though, wow, it definitely never affected them before.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Sounded odd to me, too, so I checked. Conde Nast since 2008, privately owned until then, per Wikipedia. I think it's optimistic to suggest that Ars Technica, a site with no qualms publishing e.g. a great big steaming pile of baseless AI scaremongering under a banner photo of a movie Terminator, is concerned that being under the same umbrella as a snake oil peddler might damage its brand. What other purpose might the mobilization of your contempt at this time serve?
  - Theizestooke 9y ago
    They probably know already most of their readers are in the science camp, so it's just catering to their base. Plus, as the other poster pointed out, it's a way to show independence from their owners. (Conde Nast likely just happy they're able to profit from both sides)
  - everyone 9y ago
    I think ars technica writes bad articles, but on a very wide range of subjects. Very few of the writers seem to be have specialized insight into a particular area rather than a general engineer / nerd bent. For me as a game developer, I find their game reviews to be the worst. Every now and again they will have one and they are always massively unbalanced. Just a regular guys unfiltered opinion, may as well go on any random message board and get hundreds of equally or more valid 'reviews'. They'll often pan a good game because they thought it was hard, you can hear their 'frustrated cus bad at vidya games' coming through in the article. I think its obvious that one of the writers was playing the game anyway and decided 'hey I can milk an article out of this' .
- Kurtz79 9y ago
  "When was Ars Technica owned by Gawker?" Never. Parent is mistaking them for Gizmodo, or is just wrong.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jchw 9y ago

Wait... what? When was Ars Technica owned by Gawker? I thought it was Conde Nast for a long time. If true, though, wow, it definitely never affected them before.

throwanem 9y ago
Sounded odd to me, too, so I checked. Conde Nast since 2008, privately owned until then, per Wikipedia. I think it's optimistic to suggest that Ars Technica, a site with no qualms publishing e.g. a great big steaming pile of baseless AI scaremongering under a banner photo of a movie Terminator, is concerned that being under the same umbrella as a snake oil peddler might damage its brand. What other purpose might the mobilization of your contempt at this time serve?
- Theizestooke 9y ago
  They probably know already most of their readers are in the science camp, so it's just catering to their base. Plus, as the other poster pointed out, it's a way to show independence from their owners. (Conde Nast likely just happy they're able to profit from both sides)
- everyone 9y ago
  I think ars technica writes bad articles, but on a very wide range of subjects. Very few of the writers seem to be have specialized insight into a particular area rather than a general engineer / nerd bent. For me as a game developer, I find their game reviews to be the worst. Every now and again they will have one and they are always massively unbalanced. Just a regular guys unfiltered opinion, may as well go on any random message board and get hundreds of equally or more valid 'reviews'. They'll often pan a good game because they thought it was hard, you can hear their 'frustrated cus bad at vidya games' coming through in the article. I think its obvious that one of the writers was playing the game anyway and decided 'hey I can milk an article out of this' .
Kurtz79 9y ago
"When was Ars Technica owned by Gawker?" Never. Parent is mistaking them for Gizmodo, or is just wrong.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]