4 ms·

> being two separate entities They aren't really though, they both make money on my privacy with relatively little consent. If that's the bad thing, I'm not s

> being two separate entities They aren't really though, they both make money on my privacy with relatively little consent. If that's the bad thing, I'm not sure I care that one of two parties says "sorry, I know this is bad" while still doing it. This could actually make them the worse of the two parties. > [1]. You really don't want the newsroom killing a story because it makes the practices of the advertising department look bad. this feels like bait, no one is asking for the newsroom to kill the story, they are asking for the newsroom to kill the practices of the advertising department. > Also, demands that the people who expose bad privacy practices have perfect privacy records themselves Its not a demand that they have perfect privacy records. Its kinda just pointing out that these authors have control of who they publish for and that its quite hollow to warn people about a poisonous medium in a way that draws more people through that medium. This isn't to say they are bad people, just that they aren't great for pointing out bad practices they take part in 10 years after society has already baked them in. I do warn that my opinion is colored by a belief that news orgs are responsible for a large part the of the normalization of our lack of privacy and current relationship with marketing. Which I see as sort of proto you-gotta-beleive-me methods. [edit for formatting]

CharlesColeman 7y ago
>> being two separate entities > They aren't really though, they both make money on my privacy with relatively little consent. They are and they aren't: they're two separate parts of one business. The advertising department makes money for the owners, while the newsroom writes the stories (and is hopefully insulated enough from the interests of the owners and ad department that it can be honest). > this feels like bait, no one is asking for the newsroom to kill the story, they are asking for the newsroom to kill the practices of the advertising department. The newsroom doesn't really have that authority. The firewall is there to protect the newsroom from the advertising department, because the ad department is naturally more powerful (due to newspapers being businesses and the ad department being the part that actually collects much of the revenue). > Its kinda just pointing out that these authors have control of who they publish for and that its quite hollow to warn people about a poisonous medium in a way that draws more people through that medium. The world is more complicated than that. It's more poisonous to distract from the warnings just to point out they weren't published in some low-reach niche publication whose privacy practices satisfy some random internet commenter. If you actually care about privacy, you should celebrate these articles because they might reach a wide-enough audience to actually cause real action to fix the problems.
- closedgrave 7y ago
  > The advertising department makes money for the owners, I may be missing something here but they make money for the reporters as well right? I don't know, if the firewall involves the money as well, my opinion of the authors would change mildly as the benefits are less obvious/direct making it a easier mistake to fall into though I think the criticism stands either way. > news department .... hopefully insulated enough from... > to protect the newsroom from the advertising department Right and I get that in most cases this works out. In this case the dynamic seems to insulate the marketing department actions from the meaningful critique given by the news room, and the news room from the moral/ethical implications of benefiting from those actions. This moral/ethical insulation is the thing I am questioning. > The newsroom doesn't really have that authority. Thats why the Chinese firewall thing felt like bait, no one wants the newsroom to kill the story, and the news room as a corporate entity can't kill ads. The people creating the content though, the individuals... they could start producing content for people who don't do this sort of stuff. I mean I'm not even saying they should boycott the benefits and winfall of the system that every one around them is deeply embedded in already. I'm saying that as content creators, who are now aware of the situation, they are close to the only people who could populate a different system with content and users. > It's more poisonous to distract from the warnings This is not what is going on, the warning stands, people who are mad at the reporters for reporting this stuff like its a new hot scoop are not mad because they want to have no privacy... they seem to be mad because its been yelled about for years. By both reporters and security experts, and the trend has only accelerated. At least that's what im mad about. Its not a "your bad" but a "stop claiming your so good please" > celebrate these articles I do, and have since they started coming out years and years ago (I even try and local archive them)... but I celebrate the article, and remember that the author could do better. This is why I see the comment about wanting it "both ways" as valid. It sounds harsh but its not a claim that the reporters are the evil ones and shouldn't talk about privacy, its only the acknowledgment that they could take more steps not to be enablers and that they could actually bootstrap an alternative. It's not really even a claim about this specific author or mainstream outlet. > actually cause real action to fix the problems. I don't think they will, I think they will just keep doing what they are doing (and have always done) then participate in the change (if it ever happens), and claim its what they wanted from the start, which brings me back to the idea of wanting it both ways.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

>> being two separate entities > They aren't really though, they both make money on my privacy with relatively little consent. They are and they aren't: they're two separate parts of one business. The advertising department makes money for the owners, while the newsroom writes the stories (and is hopefully insulated enough from the interests of the owners and ad department that it can be honest). > this feels like bait, no one is asking for the newsroom to kill the story, they are asking for the newsroom to kill the practices of the advertising department. The newsroom doesn't really have that authority. The firewall is there to protect the newsroom from the advertising department, because the ad department is naturally more powerful (due to newspapers being businesses and the ad department being the part that actually collects much of the revenue). > Its kinda just pointing out that these authors have control of who they publish for and that its quite hollow to warn people about a poisonous medium in a way that draws more people through that medium. The world is more complicated than that. It's more poisonous to distract from the warnings just to point out they weren't published in some low-reach niche publication whose privacy practices satisfy some random internet commenter. If you actually care about privacy, you should celebrate these articles because they might reach a wide-enough audience to actually cause real action to fix the problems.

closedgrave 7y ago
> The advertising department makes money for the owners, I may be missing something here but they make money for the reporters as well right? I don't know, if the firewall involves the money as well, my opinion of the authors would change mildly as the benefits are less obvious/direct making it a easier mistake to fall into though I think the criticism stands either way. > news department .... hopefully insulated enough from... > to protect the newsroom from the advertising department Right and I get that in most cases this works out. In this case the dynamic seems to insulate the marketing department actions from the meaningful critique given by the news room, and the news room from the moral/ethical implications of benefiting from those actions. This moral/ethical insulation is the thing I am questioning. > The newsroom doesn't really have that authority. Thats why the Chinese firewall thing felt like bait, no one wants the newsroom to kill the story, and the news room as a corporate entity can't kill ads. The people creating the content though, the individuals... they could start producing content for people who don't do this sort of stuff. I mean I'm not even saying they should boycott the benefits and winfall of the system that every one around them is deeply embedded in already. I'm saying that as content creators, who are now aware of the situation, they are close to the only people who could populate a different system with content and users. > It's more poisonous to distract from the warnings This is not what is going on, the warning stands, people who are mad at the reporters for reporting this stuff like its a new hot scoop are not mad because they want to have no privacy... they seem to be mad because its been yelled about for years. By both reporters and security experts, and the trend has only accelerated. At least that's what im mad about. Its not a "your bad" but a "stop claiming your so good please" > celebrate these articles I do, and have since they started coming out years and years ago (I even try and local archive them)... but I celebrate the article, and remember that the author could do better. This is why I see the comment about wanting it "both ways" as valid. It sounds harsh but its not a claim that the reporters are the evil ones and shouldn't talk about privacy, its only the acknowledgment that they could take more steps not to be enablers and that they could actually bootstrap an alternative. It's not really even a claim about this specific author or mainstream outlet. > actually cause real action to fix the problems. I don't think they will, I think they will just keep doing what they are doing (and have always done) then participate in the change (if it ever happens), and claim its what they wanted from the start, which brings me back to the idea of wanting it both ways.