3 ms·

Can someone explain what happened here? These Twitter threads, like most of them, don't make any sense to me.

by jwilk 8y ago

simcop2387 8y ago
This person did one of the best summaries of the whole situation that I've seen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw I can't vouch too much for the veracity of everything in the video but there's nothing I know of that she got wrong. EDIT: Just saw that Wu has actually responded to the video in the comments too, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9bE88NmF4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b...
cyphar 8y ago
The short version is that Naomi Wu was asked to give an interview to Vice. Before doing the interview, she asked that a few ground rules be followed -- as far as I'm aware the main one was that her relationship with her partner not be discussed (as far as I understand the concern was related to a conspiracy theory that Naomi doesn't do her projects herself -- and that her foreign partner does them for her -- which could cause massive political problems for her in China). Vice decided to ask her questions about it anyway, and included those questions in the article (and apparently Naomi didn't know they were going to include them). Naomi then went on to talk about how this was (in her view) a massive breach of ethics, and how it endangered her safety within China (something that she apparently explained to Vice before accepting the interview). Once the article came out, Naomi tried to get them to remove that section of the article and they didn't respond to any of her emails. She then went on to "dox" one of the reporters (though I have heard that the information she posted was available just by searching his name online). Sarah Jeong basically attempted to counter this criticism of Vice by saying that she has asked around, and Naomi's concerns are ill-founded (Sarah used to work for Vice, so you could argue that she isn't exactly impartial on this topic). And obviously most media outlets focused on Naomi's doxxing (which to be clear -- is something that shouldn't have been ignored) rather than the original situation with Vice. This evolved into a pretty big argument, and Naomi appears to have come to the conclusion that almost all western media is unethical. Later Vice apparently asked Patreon to close Naomi's account (as a response to her doxxing one of their employees), and Patreon followed their instructions -- cutting Naomi off from one of her sources of income for her videos. It's apparently very hard to get donations into China (crypto-currencies don't help because you cannot convert them into real money inside China easily). Hopefully I've explained the situation without letting my position poison the summary.
- hitekker 8y ago
  Also, it's worth mentioning that Naomi was screwed over by MakerBot's founder before, who publically questioned her existence, describing her as "many personas or persons" The truth is that these people took one look at Naomi, assumed she was a ditz, a slut, or some kind of animal, and figured they could do whatever they wanted to her. Because, hey, it ain't a crime to slaughter a sow. They forget too easily that treating people like animals, means becoming an animal. What a way to lose your humanity.
- quantumwoke 8y ago
  To be clear, I can't find anything in the Vice article that actually talks about Naomi's relationship, marital status or sexual orientation beyond a cursory question about the conspiracy theory. It seems that Vice followed her wishes up until the point that the conspiracy theory was mentioned (which in Naomi's defense would obviously be upsetting).
  - cyphar 8y ago
    So here's the quote from the article[1]: > In the past few years, she’s been forced to fend off vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career I think that the main concern is that they refer to it specifically as being a foreign man masterminding her career -- not just a general conspiracy theory. While I understand them wanting to say it's wrong (which is what they are saying), according to Naomi[2] the idea of a "foreign puppet-master" is a dog-whistle in China (which, from what I've heard, has an incredibly protectionist culture). The idea of a figurehead of Shenzhen's maker culture being controlled by a foreigner would apparently not end well for Naomi. [1]: I'm not going to link it here, just Google "Naomi Wu vice". [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9bE88NmF4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b... -- I don't like this particular YouTuber, but Naomi responds in the comments.
    - nebulous1 8y ago
      I'm not seeing how what Vice printed (conspiracy theory) goes against what she asked them not to question her about in the tweet screenshot (relationships/orientation). They might have removed it when she asked, but I don't see how they broke the original agreement. Also, do I understand that Jeong's only involvement with this was that she commented on the situation after the fact? Or did she have something to do with the original article?

Can someone explain what happened here? These Twitter threads, like most of them, don't make any sense to me.

by jwilk 8y ago

Can someone explain what happened here? These Twitter threads, like most of them, don't make any sense to me.

This person did one of the best summaries of the whole situation that I've seen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw I can't vouch too much for the veracity of everything in the video but there's nothing I know of that she got wrong. EDIT: Just saw that Wu has actually responded to the video in the comments too, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9bE88NmF4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b...

cyphar 8y ago

The short version is that Naomi Wu was asked to give an interview to Vice. Before doing the interview, she asked that a few ground rules be followed -- as far as I'm aware the main one was that her relationship with her partner not be discussed (as far as I understand the concern was related to a conspiracy theory that Naomi doesn't do her projects herself -- and that her foreign partner does them for her -- which could cause massive political problems for her in China). Vice decided to ask her questions about it anyway, and included those questions in the article (and apparently Naomi didn't know they were going to include them). Naomi then went on to talk about how this was (in her view) a massive breach of ethics, and how it endangered her safety within China (something that she apparently explained to Vice before accepting the interview). Once the article came out, Naomi tried to get them to remove that section of the article and they didn't respond to any of her emails. She then went on to "dox" one of the reporters (though I have heard that the information she posted was available just by searching his name online). Sarah Jeong basically attempted to counter this criticism of Vice by saying that she has asked around, and Naomi's concerns are ill-founded (Sarah used to work for Vice, so you could argue that she isn't exactly impartial on this topic). And obviously most media outlets focused on Naomi's doxxing (which to be clear -- is something that shouldn't have been ignored) rather than the original situation with Vice. This evolved into a pretty big argument, and Naomi appears to have come to the conclusion that almost all western media is unethical. Later Vice apparently asked Patreon to close Naomi's account (as a response to her doxxing one of their employees), and Patreon followed their instructions -- cutting Naomi off from one of her sources of income for her videos. It's apparently very hard to get donations into China (crypto-currencies don't help because you cannot convert them into real money inside China easily). Hopefully I've explained the situation without letting my position poison the summary.

hitekker 8y ago
Also, it's worth mentioning that Naomi was screwed over by MakerBot's founder before, who publically questioned her existence, describing her as "many personas or persons" The truth is that these people took one look at Naomi, assumed she was a ditz, a slut, or some kind of animal, and figured they could do whatever they wanted to her. Because, hey, it ain't a crime to slaughter a sow. They forget too easily that treating people like animals, means becoming an animal. What a way to lose your humanity.
quantumwoke 8y ago
To be clear, I can't find anything in the Vice article that actually talks about Naomi's relationship, marital status or sexual orientation beyond a cursory question about the conspiracy theory. It seems that Vice followed her wishes up until the point that the conspiracy theory was mentioned (which in Naomi's defense would obviously be upsetting).
- cyphar 8y ago
  So here's the quote from the article[1]: > In the past few years, she’s been forced to fend off vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career I think that the main concern is that they refer to it specifically as being a foreign man masterminding her career -- not just a general conspiracy theory. While I understand them wanting to say it's wrong (which is what they are saying), according to Naomi[2] the idea of a "foreign puppet-master" is a dog-whistle in China (which, from what I've heard, has an incredibly protectionist culture). The idea of a figurehead of Shenzhen's maker culture being controlled by a foreigner would apparently not end well for Naomi. [1]: I'm not going to link it here, just Google "Naomi Wu vice". [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9bE88NmF4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b... -- I don't like this particular YouTuber, but Naomi responds in the comments.
  - nebulous1 8y ago
    I'm not seeing how what Vice printed (conspiracy theory) goes against what she asked them not to question her about in the tweet screenshot (relationships/orientation). They might have removed it when she asked, but I don't see how they broke the original agreement. Also, do I understand that Jeong's only involvement with this was that she commented on the situation after the fact? Or did she have something to do with the original article?