4 ms·

I feel like journalists are just trying every way possible to create an anti-tech sentiment. Crazy how fast things can change from all hail the tech titans to o

I feel like journalists are just trying every way possible to create an anti-tech sentiment. Crazy how fast things can change from all hail the tech titans to oh these tech companies are creating a dystopia. Theres way too much noise in every aspect of information these days to help society focus on the problems that actually matter.

nkrisc 9y ago
I think the tech companies themselves are doing a fine job of creating anti-tech sentiment on their own.
- cbHXBY1D 9y ago
  Public sentiment has turned at this point. Tech companies are no longer the intrepid, utopic little guy fighting the good fight -- they are the incumbents. I would bet serious money that one of the hallmarks of the next presidential election is regulation of big tech. The backlash is building. That wave will have some mainstream politicians calling to break up big tech.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> from all hail the tech titans to oh these tech companies are creating a dystopia Uber's sexual harassmentpalooza together with Twitter and Facebook's arrogant performances at their respective Congressional hearings did most of the work.
dj-wonk 9y ago
You say that journalists are "just trying every way possible to create an anti-tech sentiment". You are implying motive here, it appears. On what basis? I view it from this lens: journalists have both a professional code and a desire to have people read what they write. As a result, many journalists want to surprise and even shock people. It doesn't mean what they write is pleasant or what you want to read. There are many other factors in play. For example, cities across the US are scrambling to offer (quite dubious, in my opinion) incentives to Amazon. I really value different perspectives that show the kinds of jobs that Amazon creates. Lastly, I read your last sentence as getting it backwards. It is precisely because of noise that we have to focus on what matters. What you call noise may be someone else's signal. Noise makes it harder to sort through information, that's nothing new. Asking for less journalism in order to get less noise seems backwards. Journalism, to the degree to which it investigates, analyzes, interviews, helps offer different ways of viewing the world. To do so is hardly what I would call noise; rather, good journalism shows researched, sometimes novel perspectives on reality.
_rpd 9y ago
No one reads "everything is okay" stories. Journalists need people to click through to their stories and view their advertisements. It's how they get paid.
gwern 9y ago
The article is another iteration of https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... . OP is unable to find any evidence that Amazon makes the problems worse, aside from innuendo, but since Amazon is there, now it's their fault.
s73ver_ 9y ago
You're saying this like the tech companies aren't actually doing these things. Like they're somehow misunderstood; that they're not really eroding worker protections or anything like that.

nkrisc 9y ago

I think the tech companies themselves are doing a fine job of creating anti-tech sentiment on their own.

cbHXBY1D 9y ago
Public sentiment has turned at this point. Tech companies are no longer the intrepid, utopic little guy fighting the good fight -- they are the incumbents. I would bet serious money that one of the hallmarks of the next presidential election is regulation of big tech. The backlash is building. That wave will have some mainstream politicians calling to break up big tech.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> from all hail the tech titans to oh these tech companies are creating a dystopia Uber's sexual harassmentpalooza together with Twitter and Facebook's arrogant performances at their respective Congressional hearings did most of the work.

dj-wonk 9y ago

You say that journalists are "just trying every way possible to create an anti-tech sentiment". You are implying motive here, it appears. On what basis? I view it from this lens: journalists have both a professional code and a desire to have people read what they write. As a result, many journalists want to surprise and even shock people. It doesn't mean what they write is pleasant or what you want to read. There are many other factors in play. For example, cities across the US are scrambling to offer (quite dubious, in my opinion) incentives to Amazon. I really value different perspectives that show the kinds of jobs that Amazon creates. Lastly, I read your last sentence as getting it backwards. It is precisely because of noise that we have to focus on what matters. What you call noise may be someone else's signal. Noise makes it harder to sort through information, that's nothing new. Asking for less journalism in order to get less noise seems backwards. Journalism, to the degree to which it investigates, analyzes, interviews, helps offer different ways of viewing the world. To do so is hardly what I would call noise; rather, good journalism shows researched, sometimes novel perspectives on reality.

_rpd 9y ago

No one reads "everything is okay" stories. Journalists need people to click through to their stories and view their advertisements. It's how they get paid.

gwern 9y ago

The article is another iteration of https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... . OP is unable to find any evidence that Amazon makes the problems worse, aside from innuendo, but since Amazon is there, now it's their fault.

s73ver_ 9y ago

You're saying this like the tech companies aren't actually doing these things. Like they're somehow misunderstood; that they're not really eroding worker protections or anything like that.