8 ms·

Can we talk about the NYT's fairly open anti-tech bias at this point? What feels like every day, they come up with some pre-text to write (or publish, in the ca

• mieseratte 7y ago
  > This entire editorial is essentially content free. I dream of a world free of editorials, or at least a HN front page without them. Seems an uptick in flame bait editorials as of late.
  • writepub 7y ago
    Internet killed the paper star. Before news went online, good, reliable content was paid for with subscriptions. Going online, paired with the rise of social media changed what it meant for content to be "good" - redefined it to share worthy and click based, monetized mostly by ads. Now, no one, including the famed NYT does good classical journalism - they do what gets them shares and clicks. On closer examination of social media demographics, you can see why news has pivoted to opinion - because millennials share and click more of it, especially the opinions they approve of. A demographic shift in HN user base is also likely the reason for more opinion making it to the top of the charts
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • imgabe 7y ago
      Subscriptions were never the only revenue source for newspapers. They have always had ads.
      • Fnoord 7y ago
        There was a time when subscriptions had little to no ads, and ads were clearly marked as such. Now we have ads all over the place, videos autoplaying, and "influencers" (read: shady salesmen). Now, before "the internet" (read: its commercial, world-wide success), in-depth research was costly, and it could not be copied easily. Newspapers had a reputation to hold up. It was easier to compete on information. Now the competition is much more fierce, and many people make/share news gratis, so it ends up competing with "free" is difficult. As for NYT, there's some good people working there like Runa Sandvik, but I guess it works like every large news organization...
  • TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    You can just click Hide and move on.
    • mieseratte 7y ago
      There a button to hide all editorials?
      • T3OU-736 7y ago
        Is asking for an [editorial] to be included in the title, similar to how we tend to ask for "year published" data unreasonable?
        • TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
          That's a good point. The linked page even has Opinion prior to the title. Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through?
          • mieseratte 7y ago
            > The linked page even has Opinion prior to the title. Yes, in a font smaller than and above the title that is very light against the background and reasonably easy to miss. > Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through? Perhaps it's a clickbait title with real substance, or perhaps a great research piece. The only way to know is to read it.
        • mieseratte 7y ago
          That would be, IMHO, a great addition!
      • TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
        Sure, why not? In your mind, you can choose not to engage with them, yes. I get that reading is involuntary for literate adults, but I believe it is possible to not engage with the words beyond that.
• mertnesvat 7y ago
  I totally agree it reminds me apocalypse movies they're almost always the same because people wants to watch it as now in the NY case they tend to write anti-tech all the time.
• jakobegger 7y ago
  The point of an editorial is not to report new facts. An editorial is typically just an opinion piece on a currently relevant topic, and that's exactly what this is. Not every article needs to be an in-depth feature with peer reviewed analysis.
  • mayankkaizen 7y ago
    So how do you rate the quality of such editorials? How do editorials from likes of NYT differ from some "garbage, third rate" editorials?
    • ljcn 7y ago
      Subjectively. By the quality of the argument.
• Jyaif 7y ago
  All the tech people are sharing and reading those, so they NYT is probably making more money than average with those articles.
• ramphastidae 7y ago
  Unfortunately the NYT has proven itself totally out of touch these days. Whether it’s lavishing praise on Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudi elite, cheerleading the Iraq war, reporting as if the #MeToo movement was somehow localized entirely in Hollywood and not experienced by normal people, desperately bolstering Hillary with Bernie hit piece after Bernie hit piece, adding constant fuel to the dumpster fire that is the US culture war, or totally clueless tech reporting, it has been become worse and worse with each passing year in my opinion. I was a subscriber for many years and recently cancelled and it’s been wonderful to distance myself from the clickbait.
• aviraldg 7y ago
  Facebook and Google are both sources of "free" news these days (the quality and neutrality may vary though.) This represents a major challenge for newspapers which are struggling to monetize their content. Adtech has also impacted their ability to earn from ads. It's easy to see why they might have such a bias.
• haunter 7y ago
  It's the author, look at his writings https://www.nytimes.com/by/charlie-warzel https://www.nytimes.com/by/charlie-warzel "Before that, he was a senior technology writer at BuzzFeed News" (that alone explains a lot) And almost all of these are posted here
• addicted 7y ago
  Maybe Tech should stop being so terrible with our data and privacy. There are maybe 2 or 3 major companies (Mozilla, Apple?) that have shown any interest in protecting their users privacy and not abusing and mining all the data they collect from their users, who have unsurprisingly not understood the implications of the massive amount of data that can be collected over the past decade or so.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • Lio 7y ago
    It would be nice if aggressive tax avoidance closely resembling money laundering schemes weren’t quite so central to the FAANG business models too. Especially when they’re in competition with bricks and mortar stores that can’t use “double Dutch” and “double Irish” tax dodges.
    • short_sells_poo 7y ago
      I wouldn't single out FAANG (or Tech) for this particular issue, because it is not idiosyncratic to these sectors. It is a systemic issue with the corporate culture and regulations. Corporations have an obligation to shareholders and they would be open to lawsuits if they did not partake in this morally questionable but legally A-OK process.
      • falcolas 7y ago
        If they’re doing it, why not call them out for their actions? That someone else is doing it doesn’t make tech companies doing it somehow OK, or less worthy of condemnation.
        • short_sells_poo 7y ago
          Sorry I should've phrased that better. I agree with your point, but we should not target tech specifically for this, rather work on forcing the entire corporate landscape to change.
• pimmen 7y ago
  I think it’s a sign of the times that NYT is willing to hire authors specializing in covering tech with a skeptical perspective. Newspapers would first criticize the government, then during the Industrial revolution they branded the entrepreneurs as ”captains of industry” or ”robber barons” which was a sign of how they wielded huge influence over the population. Now we’re in a similar place with tech. Tech entrepreneurs have been branded as ”disruptors” saving us from the establishment for the better part of two decades but now there’s a bigger diversity of spins on these tech stories, leaning a bit on the negative side. I think the pendulum will swing back to positive if these companies get their act together and do more to protect users, and especially if the governments bust their monopolies. That would maybe generate a lot of sympathy.
• parrellel 7y ago
  I dunno, like when Facebook tried to launch it's own crypto-coin a bit back, it always help to remind the general public - and 'general public' is the key term here - how horrible and untrustworthy Facebook is. If it's not in the public's face at least semi-regularly, they'll forget.
  • vixen99 7y ago
    its own
  • glitchc 7y ago
    Tried? Libra is alive and well, with a release slated for the first half of 2020. Facebook is on a collision course with the US govt.
    • GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      No they are on a collision course with human civilization.
• raxxorrax 7y ago
  I think one should separate tech and big-tech. Companies like Facebook and Google deal with user data and that has significant consequences on their behavior. Many people don't see the implications of sharing information with these large companies. And they might even be correct with that as long as they themselves or anyone in their circle is not something of a broader public interest. Having a digital log of your love life and exchanges can have an impact. That is not an "anti-tech"-assessment. Maybe the article is boring to you, but I see dire need of more NYT is certainly biased and they have have their own mostly economic incentives regarding big-tech. That has nothing to do with technology itself.
• Barrin92 7y ago
  the function of journalism is to speak truth to power. Very few things in the modern world are as unregulated, powerful and a walking privacy disaster as big tech companies, so I'd encourage the NYT to quadruple their output until we've reigned them in. What's more concerning than the NYT fulfilling its primary function is the occasional apologia in the HN comments, by people who (if we want to talk about bias), probably have a stake in perpetuating the state of affairs.
• JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > Can we talk about the NYT's fairly open anti-tech bias at this point? This is an opinion piece. In pretty much every newspaper I skip this section. Broadly speaking, there are large swaths of the population for whom the New York Times (and, on the other side, Wall Street Journal and Fox News) anti-tech “biases” resonate. Not just emotionally, but because big tech has repeatedly and callously burned those groups. They are looking to organise. Finding common arguments and common allies is part of the political process the Fourth Estate catalyses.
  • dnissley 7y ago
    What large groups do you speak of?
    • moate 7y ago
      People who's businesses have been disrupted by Amazon's "not a monopoly" and "totally legal" business practices. People who've had their person information disseminated across social media platforms. People who've had their financial data taken from companies with sub-standard protections in place. People who had their children's data vacuumed up by Youtube and then sold to advertisers. Print media itself who has seen platform after platform erode their ability to stay in business. People who feel that providing platforms to groups they feel are fundamentally damaging to society should not be allowed. People who fear that these companies collect and maintain advanced and comprehensive databases of the general population's interests and behaviors "for advertising purposes" but that those databases could be used by bad actors to perform damage to society. Would you like me to go on?
    • Ozumandias 7y ago
      If you are working in tech and can't think of anyone that big tech has spurned, you need to think about how it's changed the lives of most Americans in the past two decades. Cab drivers: Uber. Small businesses: Amazon. Marketing: Instagram. Hospitality: AirBnB. Restaurateurs: Yelp. Teachers: Moodle/Blackboard. Journalists: Facebook. Really can't think of anyone who might appreciate an anti-tech message? These professions have been forced to abide by the new rules that tech has enabled. You can't intervene into people's lives massively and not expect them to push back.
• Angostura 7y ago
  > Can we talk about the NYT's fairly open anti-tech bias Why don't we talk about the NYT's fairly open pro data-privacy bias - which is actually what it is.
  • bko 7y ago
    I would comment on their pro data-privacy bias but I can't read it because I'm in private mode. > You’re in private mode. Log in or create a free New York Times account to continue reading in private mode.
    • jonnrb 7y ago
      No no no you see they’re pro data-privacy so their tracking cookies are ok. You can trust them. /s
    • FussyZeus 7y ago
      Participating in a system does not make criticism of that system wrong. https://i.imgur.com/CDgZs2m.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CDgZs2m.jpg
      • dymk 7y ago
        Difference is they are under no obligation to participate in this system.
        • FussyZeus 7y ago
          There are hundreds of companies trying to solve the problem of monetizing journalism without advertising. What you're saying isn't technically incorrect but it's phrased in this blasé way like there are tons of options that work just fine and they just chose advertising. I have a feeling you're smart enough to know that's not the case and so you're resorting to a just plain bad argument that sounds ok if you don't look at it too hard.
          • bko 7y ago
• forgottenpass 7y ago
  > Can we talk about the NYT's fairly open anti-tech bias at this point Sure. We work in tech, and see that the web has hurt the newspaper business model. Therefore, we protect our ego in the face of any criticism from the traditional press towards tech by rationalizing it away as vindictive rather than ask ourselves if the criticisms are valid and would also be written by a healthier press. And by casting it as a bias, we can avoid contemplating if more tech-savvy reporters would have noticed how morally bankrupt "tech" is sooner and/or provide sharper and more knowledgeable criticism that doesn't rely on poor approximations of goings-on in a domain inscrutable to laypersons. These are some of the largest companies in the world, make decisions that effect the lives of billions but act like their shit doesn't stink and don't want people looking to closely at the societal ramifications of their business model. If anything, I'd say the press is too kind and deferential to the half-truths their PR departments pump out.
• basch 7y ago
  My favorite part was the last line of the story. >Follow @privacyproject on Twitter and The New York Times Opinion Section on Facebook and Instagram.
  • falcolas 7y ago
    Using a tool doesn’t make it immune from criticism.
• Kiro 7y ago
  You know what is even more anti-tech? HN.
• joelx 7y ago
  Right now there is an extremely strong PR campaign against Facebook, Google, and other leading light tech companies. I am not sure who is financing it, but my theory is dictators like Putin to create the Whataboutism effect where people feel everything is bad therefore don't act against true evil like what dictators are doing. I hear more yelling about privacy issues than the torture and murder of dissidents in Syria, Hong Kong, Russia, Saudi Arabia. It seems like this campaign is working.
• body12 7y ago
  NYT and other legacy newspapers depend on traffic from Facebook and Google to continue existing and are threatened by things like AMP and new media in general. If newspapers demonstrate that they can change public opinion about the tech companies, they have more bargaining power against them.
• unionpivo 7y ago
  I think it more reflects changing opinion of general public. As much as tech companies try to make them self look up small upstarts fighting uphill battle, they are one of the most influential industry of our time. In 90s there were oil companies and tobacco companies on the front pages, now it's tech companies time.
• zzzeek 7y ago
  > This entire editorial is essentially content free. An editorial is not intended to produce new content, e.g. report on new news, only to state opinions about the known state of an issue. To that end, this article cites a great deal of highly detailed content to which it links towards in making its argument. I had no idea there was a newly reported data breach just on wednesday this week, for example. I'm also certain that tens of thousands of people will first learn of FB's new dating initiative via this editorial, and in that regard it is valuable that the NYT will put a much needed cautionary spin on this information. Too many people still have no regard for the harm they do to not just themselves but all of their social contacts who have any digital connection to them whatsoever when they give too much information to companies like Facebook. it is most certainly valid to point out how inappropriate it would be to begin giving Facebook a whole new class of sensitive, personal content for which they can mishandle and sell to foreign governments for illicit or unethical purposes.
  • darawk 7y ago
    Sure, but the perspective isn't novel either. It isn't presenting a new argument. It isn't presenting an interesting perspective. It's just regurgitating an obvious one. The article exists to bash Facebook and for no other substantive reason.
    • DontTrustOver25 7y ago
      Making sure the public is aware of the past privacy abuses of a large public company with lots of control over their data seems like a substantive reason.
    • codyb 7y ago
      It’s entirely possible as someone reading hackernews you’re far more inundated with news about the tech sector than the average person. I’m not sure this is an obvious perspective to most people in America. I’m very pro public awareness which educates the layman on what information these companies are collecting, how they’re using it, and how long it can affect you for. Especially for the older generations which seem more susceptible to actual fake news, and may have a lesser understanding of what this tech is and how it works. And especially for younger generations who may not instinctively realize that every button they click, picture they post, and website they browse is being mined, logged, harvested, aggregated, and sold to anyone who asks for it with a couple bucks to spare. Also, as the parent to your comment stated, I didn’t know there was a data breach Wednesday, and I’m a software engineer. It’s funny. When the media doesn’t cover something enough, people say “why is CNN talking about the Kardashians?? Climate change is happening!”. Seems the converse occurs too “Why is the NYT covering this again!”
• empath75 7y ago
  They publish articles that they think will get views, I don’t think you need to read further into it than that. People like to read articles shitting on big tech companies. You can interpret that they way you want to, but I think it would be dangerous to assume that The NY Times is pushing an agenda that their readers don’t agree with.
• v77 7y ago
  The background is of course that the NYT and other papers are involved in litigation and competition with Google and other social media giants for who gets the revenue from the informtion economy, particular around links and aggregations like Google News. This doesn't mean that "big tech" isn't worthy of criticism or scrutity, but it can both be true that there are legitimate complaints about these companies and that traditional media outlets are going overboard with endless attacks on them due to external agendas.
• dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  They're not anti-tech, they criticize some companies like Facebook for their morally low actions and attitude. We should do, too.
• jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Do you disagree, though? Facebook has shown itself to be an irresponsible and malicious steward of the data it already has — some of which we didn't even consent to giving it. The launch of a new product seems to me a very appropriate time to remind people that hey, Facebook may not be the company you want to trust with this. Is it a "bias" if they're right?
• atoav 7y ago
  I don't see any anti-tech stance in this. The tech giants are quasi monopolists who leverage both their size and information advantage to actively destroy competition. Privacy is a civilian casualty of the attempts to cement that position. Contrary to popular believe the real problem with privacy violations isn't "that some creep might be listening in on your most private moments – the real problem is the power that stems from that information asymmetry on a societal level. In a democracy systems like these are the ones that never should have been – read this in the most frankensteinian tone you can imagine. That being said: this ismy opinion and at the same time I am a DIY persons, I build soft and hardware – but being a good tech person also means that you shouldn't blindly praise every "smart" thing that has a microcontroller in it, if it performs worse than the 30 year old version of the same thing your grandma has in her kitchen. Being a good tech person means realizing that electronic voting has fundamental conceptual flaws that the oldschool paper version hasn't or realizing that sometimes a sleek and modern looking touchscreen isn't the best interface to choose for your application. In short: if you love tech, don't lie to yourself about what it is and what it isn't. If you love tech, have the respect to see it for what it is and what (in the right hands) it could be.
  • darawk 7y ago
    > I don't see any anti-tech stance in this. The tech giants are quasi monopolists who leverage both their size and information advantage to actively destroy competition. Privacy is a civilian casualty of the attempts to cement that position. I agree with your second sentence entirely. To be clear, criticizing tech is completely fair and important. My point is that the NYT, it seems to me, is pushing this a little too hard. I think the evidence for that is in fairly thin-pretext articles like this one, or the Amazon driver liability "investigation". > Contrary to popular believe the real problem with privacy violations isn't "that some creep might be listening in on your most private moments – the real problem is the power that stems from that information asymmetry on a societal level. In a democracy systems like these are the ones that never should have been – read this in the most frankensteinian tone you can imagine. I half agree with you here. I do think these systems being put in place have tremendous social consequences. Unfortunately though, I think the ships have sailed, and I don't really see regulation or anything much else putting them back to port. People have voted with their feet and they simply don't value privacy the way you or I do. > That being said: this ismy opinion and at the same time I am a DIY persons, I build soft and hardware – but being a good tech person also means that you shouldn't blindly praise every "smart" thing that has a microcontroller in it, if it performs worse than the 30 year old version of the same thing your grandma has in her kitchen. Being a good tech person means realizing that electronic voting has fundamental conceptual flaws that the oldschool paper version hasn't or realizing that sometimes a sleek and modern looking touchscreen isn't the best interface to choose for your application. > In short: if you love tech, don't lie to yourself about what it is and what it isn't. If you love tech, have the respect to see it for what it is and what (in the right hands) it could be. Wholeheartedly agree here.
• llamataboot 7y ago
  Please don't equate FB/Amazon with "tech"
• martythemaniak 7y ago
  You're dead on, I think. There's a few things to consider: 1) There's a general anti-tech sentiment that is a huge defining part of our zeitgeist. It's only a few years old and I'm already tired of it and articles like this one contribute to the fatigue. 2) The NYT is leaning very hard into this fad for a variety of reasons - good for their bottom line, good for their self-image, etc. There was a very funny one a few weeks ago where the NYT "took down" Google's terrible ToS - until someone (in the comments) pointed out the NYT one was even worse. If you're shouting and pointing at someone else, people won't have time to look at you. 3) Lately, I keep being reminded of the Selfish Gene, which has a few chapters devoted to Evolutionary Stable Strategies. In essence, Tech has gotten so big that being a "tech critic" has become a lucrative (high reward/low cost) position to take, like being a cheater in a monogamous population. Any environment can support a certain percentage of such defectors, though if there are suddenly too many, it stops being lucrative and a new stable equilibrium will be reached. I highly recommend it, it has really helped me make sense of these rapid shifts.
  • GoodJokes 7y ago
    There is a general anti-tech sentiment because tech sucks! Before claims of unfounded bias I think one has to convince us that it_doesnt_suck since all evidence points to it sucking.
  • blub 7y ago
    When one thinks about the security breaches, manipulation to share more data or buy more IAPs, addiction-inducing designs, attack tools used against activists and dissidents and the general lack of respect towards people, tech is quite an abusive industry. The biggest and richest tech companies all abuse the privacy of their so-called customers. The customers don't really own or control the devices they buy any more, nor do they control the software. The companies decide at their discretion which version is used and if someone is allowed to use a piece of software. Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook could instantly cut anyone from their online lives and they are able to disable physical devices and locally downloaded applications.
  • whalabi 7y ago
    You might ask why there is an anti-tech sentiment. Most of the big tech companies are ruthless monopolies which are exploiting people with deeply addictive apps, hoovering up every tiny detail of their lives, and selling it to advertisers while also frequently losing that information to hackers, and being used by autocratic foreign governments to swing elections to candidates that suit their purposes. So it's right that there's an anti-tech sentiment, and it's right that privacy concerns are reported on.
• GoodJokes 7y ago
  And those stock criticisms are legit and remain to be unaddressed. This is called consistency. When will people stop defending Facebook. There is nothing to defend anymore. Except maybe your job?
• whalabi 7y ago
  > This entire editorial is essentially content free. The only point it makes is to summarize Facebook's shortcomings Nah. They made the point that dating apps in particular collect a lot of deeply personal info, that Facebook is using it as an opportunity to merge data from your Instagram and Facebook accounts, that dating profiles will be separate from Facebook profiles. But most importantly, this is an opinion piece. It logically points out that letting Facebook be your dating app is a bad idea if you value your privacy. And how could you make that point more effectively than by listing Facebook's record on privacy?