3 ms·

I still wonder to this day who is paying WSJ authors to write hit pieces against YouTube. It's uncanny how the WSJ is persistent in its attacks on top YouTube p

I still wonder to this day who is paying WSJ authors to write hit pieces against YouTube. It's uncanny how the WSJ is persistent in its attacks on top YouTube personalities for the purpose of getting advertisers to leave the platform, see adpocolypse.

assblaster 8y ago
My best guess is Amazon/Facebook, for the purpose of boosting Twitch and Amazon video, though I also suspect Fox/Hulu.
danso 8y ago
How is it “uncanny”? Because the WSJ tech reporter has found an issue and decides to keep reporting on it, as new developments and revelations are made? Who do you think paid the WSJ reporters who kept on writing “hit pieces” on Theranos until Theranos collapsed?
- shard972 8y ago
  I don't even see how the two can be compared... Who broke the law on youtube? Who even lied about something? Oh yea, someone yelled nigger in a video game. Totally worth those investigational journalists getting to the bottom of wether or not pewdiepie is racist.
  - jshevek 8y ago
    It seems less distasteful to me if you at least put that word your are quoting in quotation marks.
harmmonica 8y ago
I don't mean to be cheeky, but I think the owner of the WSJ is paying them. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118589043953483378 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118589043953483378 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-02/murdoch-seeks-to-dent-google-s-ad-dominance-after-youtube-revolt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-02/murdoch-s...
dirkgently 8y ago
Not only WSJ, but a lot of anti-google articles by other publishers are doing rounds of YN and most of them get upvoted right here. The only balanced coverage I find is nytimes. Sure, they are critical of Google when there is a reason to be, but they aren't printing them either because somebody paid them to do it, or for hype train click-baits. Also, they are the only ones who has balls to call out Apple.
- bunnycorn 8y ago
  > the only ones who has balls to call out Apple. So courageous!

assblaster 8y ago

My best guess is Amazon/Facebook, for the purpose of boosting Twitch and Amazon video, though I also suspect Fox/Hulu.

danso 8y ago

How is it “uncanny”? Because the WSJ tech reporter has found an issue and decides to keep reporting on it, as new developments and revelations are made? Who do you think paid the WSJ reporters who kept on writing “hit pieces” on Theranos until Theranos collapsed?

shard972 8y ago
I don't even see how the two can be compared... Who broke the law on youtube? Who even lied about something? Oh yea, someone yelled nigger in a video game. Totally worth those investigational journalists getting to the bottom of wether or not pewdiepie is racist.
- jshevek 8y ago
  It seems less distasteful to me if you at least put that word your are quoting in quotation marks.

harmmonica 8y ago

I don't mean to be cheeky, but I think the owner of the WSJ is paying them. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118589043953483378 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118589043953483378 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-02/murdoch-seeks-to-dent-google-s-ad-dominance-after-youtube-revolt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-02/murdoch-s...

dirkgently 8y ago

Not only WSJ, but a lot of anti-google articles by other publishers are doing rounds of YN and most of them get upvoted right here. The only balanced coverage I find is nytimes. Sure, they are critical of Google when there is a reason to be, but they aren't printing them either because somebody paid them to do it, or for hype train click-baits. Also, they are the only ones who has balls to call out Apple.

bunnycorn 8y ago
> the only ones who has balls to call out Apple. So courageous!