5 ms·

I don't quite get it either, but at the very least, she talked to Vice before they published the article and said she wanted her relationship status and sexuali

by zasz 8y ago

I don't quite get it either, but at the very least, she talked to Vice before they published the article and said she wanted her relationship status and sexuality to not be discussed, and then Vice put in several paragraphs about her relationship status anyway (from the original Vice article at https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kjqdb/naomi-wu-sexy-cyborg-profile-shenzhen-maker-scene https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kjqdb/naomi-wu-s..., "Wu told me she didn’t want to discuss her marital status, but before publishing the piece, I followed up with her. I hoped to discuss the Reddit conspiracy theory that claimed someone she’s in a relationship with was behind her work.") If someone says that X is important and to please not do it, and you do X anyway, that's crappy behavior. edit: found a Twitter thread on Chinese political dynamics. It looks like you can be arrested for simply being a vocal feminist: https://twitter.com/jackiehluo/status/982087205907607552 https://twitter.com/jackiehluo/status/982087205907607552 Yikes. "so now we're back at the vice article. apart from the sexism/racism, what would have been so bad about rebutting the conspiracy theory that she's the "face" of a white man who's really responsible for everything she does?" "i can think of a few potential issues that could tip the scales when it comes to safety concerns. for one, rebutting the conspiracy theory and framing it as a feminist issue may require or imply a more overtly political stance on feminism, which we've seen can be dangerous."

danso 8y ago
> and said she wanted her relationship status and sexuality to not be discussed, and then Vice put in several paragraphs about her relationship status anyway I was confused by the timeline. My impression is that Vice emailed her wanting to ask about the personal accusations. Wu saw this as breaking the agreement and went public before the article was published. The mention of her relationship in the subsequently published article refers only to this dispute between Wu and Vice, and AFAIK it’s not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
- zasz 8y ago
  Ahh, hm, according to this reddit comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/89br5e/whats_going_on_with_sexycyborg_and_vice_magazine/dzb53lm/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=OutOfTheLoop https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/89br5e/whats_...) you're right. It still seems like she said, I don't want to discuss X, Vice said, let's discuss X anyway. Even though that happened prior to publishing the piece, the meta-discussion of X shouldn't have made it into the final piece. If someone says a topic is off-limits, and you continue bring it up anyway, that's kinda douchey. I'm not going to defend attacking Vice on Twitter before the article got published, but the final product is definitely still douchey.
  - laptopchargerae 8y ago
    according to reddit comment https://laptopcharger.ae/apple.html https://laptopcharger.ae/apple.html you are right Dunno what going on,then.
  - pulisse 8y ago
    > It still seems like she said, I don't want to discuss X, Vice said, let's discuss X anyway. Even though that happened prior to publishing the piece, the meta-discussion of X shouldn't have made it into the final piece. I don't quite buy that. The subject of an article can dictate the terms of an interview (in this case, what subjects they're willing to discuss), but it's not part of journalistic practice to allow a subject to dictate what goes into the article itself. A journalist who allows themselves to bound that way isn't doing something in principle different than PR for their subjects. And Koebler never agreed to keep the 4chan/reddit rumors out of the piece. He agreed not to ask Wu about it in their interview, and he broke the spirit of that agreement if not its letter by only bringing the topic up in a subsequent email exchange instead of the interview itself, so he doesn't come out of this looking great. But he wasn't under an obligation to avoid writing about the controversy (which I think is pretty clearly ginned up nonsense) in the final article.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - zasz 8y ago
      In this case, we're talking about a country where even the phrase #metoo is censored and outspoken feminists end up in jail, so, Vice should've listened to Naomi Wu about what could and could not go into the article.
    - hackinthebochs 8y ago
      > but it's not part of journalistic practice to allow a subject to dictate what goes into the article itself. It should be when such information can have serious repercussions for the subject of the article, and these facts are mentioned and agreed upon before the interview takes place. It's ridiculous to hide behind journalistic standards to justify unethical behavior.
blakekrifg 8y ago
That thread from Jackie was nothing but tying datapoints, worn cliches of the big bad ccp, and conjecture. They have cut SSH before and tracked down 'subversive' elements but can't shut down someone who stands out in any crowd? Doesn't add up. I likely bet they figure she is good PR for Shenzen/China

by zasz 8y ago

danso 8y ago

> and said she wanted her relationship status and sexuality to not be discussed, and then Vice put in several paragraphs about her relationship status anyway I was confused by the timeline. My impression is that Vice emailed her wanting to ask about the personal accusations. Wu saw this as breaking the agreement and went public before the article was published. The mention of her relationship in the subsequently published article refers only to this dispute between Wu and Vice, and AFAIK it’s not mentioned elsewhere in the article.

zasz 8y ago
Ahh, hm, according to this reddit comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/89br5e/whats_going_on_with_sexycyborg_and_vice_magazine/dzb53lm/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=OutOfTheLoop https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/89br5e/whats_...) you're right. It still seems like she said, I don't want to discuss X, Vice said, let's discuss X anyway. Even though that happened prior to publishing the piece, the meta-discussion of X shouldn't have made it into the final piece. If someone says a topic is off-limits, and you continue bring it up anyway, that's kinda douchey. I'm not going to defend attacking Vice on Twitter before the article got published, but the final product is definitely still douchey.
- laptopchargerae 8y ago
  according to reddit comment https://laptopcharger.ae/apple.html https://laptopcharger.ae/apple.html you are right Dunno what going on,then.
- pulisse 8y ago
  > It still seems like she said, I don't want to discuss X, Vice said, let's discuss X anyway. Even though that happened prior to publishing the piece, the meta-discussion of X shouldn't have made it into the final piece. I don't quite buy that. The subject of an article can dictate the terms of an interview (in this case, what subjects they're willing to discuss), but it's not part of journalistic practice to allow a subject to dictate what goes into the article itself. A journalist who allows themselves to bound that way isn't doing something in principle different than PR for their subjects. And Koebler never agreed to keep the 4chan/reddit rumors out of the piece. He agreed not to ask Wu about it in their interview, and he broke the spirit of that agreement if not its letter by only bringing the topic up in a subsequent email exchange instead of the interview itself, so he doesn't come out of this looking great. But he wasn't under an obligation to avoid writing about the controversy (which I think is pretty clearly ginned up nonsense) in the final article.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - zasz 8y ago
    In this case, we're talking about a country where even the phrase #metoo is censored and outspoken feminists end up in jail, so, Vice should've listened to Naomi Wu about what could and could not go into the article.
  - hackinthebochs 8y ago
    > but it's not part of journalistic practice to allow a subject to dictate what goes into the article itself. It should be when such information can have serious repercussions for the subject of the article, and these facts are mentioned and agreed upon before the interview takes place. It's ridiculous to hide behind journalistic standards to justify unethical behavior.

blakekrifg 8y ago

That thread from Jackie was nothing but tying datapoints, worn cliches of the big bad ccp, and conjecture. They have cut SSH before and tracked down 'subversive' elements but can't shut down someone who stands out in any crowd? Doesn't add up. I likely bet they figure she is good PR for Shenzen/China