5 ms·

> 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
        > 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. Why are you attributing bad faith to the commenter? It's a reasonable objection, and many have questioned whether its the moral duty of facebook engineers to quit over privacy issues. Blocking privacy mode is an extremely aggressive and intrusive stance, although some other publications followed suit. NYT is especially heavy on tracking [0] The journalist who write for the Times should take personal responsibility and find a different company or profession. I have a feeling the journalists are smart enough that they know they can find employment elsewhere. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/23/opinion/data-internet-privacy-tracking.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/23/opinion/data-...
        FussyZeus 7y ago
        > Why are you attributing bad faith to the commenter? Because people don't like feeling wrong, even if they aren't particularly wrong, and I've seen many otherwise very intelligent people say and do really stupid things when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs. Just to be clear this does not make said commenter a bad person, it just makes them a human, with a brain that does occasionally really shitty things when it doesn't want to think. It's less about attributing bad faith and more just acknowledging that we're all imperfect talking chimps here. > It's a reasonable objection, and many have questioned whether its the moral duty of facebook engineers to quit over privacy issues. I would never say another person needs to quit a job over ethical issues, because anyone of decent moral fiber and an objective mind is probably already wrestling with that problem, and having a disinterested third party dispensing advice from On High with zero skin in the game is not going to improve that situation. Alternatively, they could just not care, which is less likely, but also not going be affected by that same third party. Basically what I'm saying is there are numerous possibilities in that interaction but none lead to change, so I don't discuss it. It's moot. All I'm saying is that the problem of making money in journalism is something that has no clear solution, and acting like the NYT is being hypocritical for using trackers while railing against trackers is a clear example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.
      - 7y ago
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Like most large, reputable news organizations, I would assume the New York Times does its best to maintain a firewall between their journalistic and business teams. By extension, the Times's writers likely have zero involvement in the practices you're complaining about. Times Editorial could publish articles criticizing Times Corporate, but while I would be very disappointed if Times Corporate was given a free pass, I don't expect them to receive extra scrutiny either. And if Times Corporate isn't getting extra scrutiny, how much of a story would there be? The Times's data privacy practices, while not ideal, are nowhere near the level of what's going on at Google and Facebook.
v77 7y ago
Not at all. I'm a NYT subscriber and so much content is filled with perjorative attacks against tech, tech workers and tech companies. 'Big Tech', 'techbros', etc.. The tipping poing was the Trump victory. Before the election the NYT and other mainstream media outlets were trumpeting how much better/hipper the DNC was at using social platforms to organize voters than the Republican party. If Clinton would have won, this characterization would have remained and anybody complaning about Russian interference in elections would have been branded a McCarthyist.
- seisvelas 7y ago
  Indeed, and although it would sound silly to us, a lot of journalists are surprisingly bitter over the 'learn to code' meme-debacle of just several months ago. When the journalism bubble burst the success of tech was used to humiliate journalists. They won't be kinder when our bubble bursts.
  - whalabi 7y ago
    (as an aside, "that learn to code" jeer to journalists - without whom democracy can't exist - is disgusting) Implying that journalism has no value and people should mechanically make.. accounting software apps for a large organisation instead of uncovering and presenting information about those in power is hideous. It's no surprise that Trump supporters are all over it.
    - kanaridandan 7y ago
      No offense but it seems like neither you nor the person you replied to actually know what the "learn to code" meme was about. It was a moment where the tables had turned on journalists who had told coal miners and the like to just learn to code after being put out of their jobs. You have to remember, journalists aren't babies and you don't need to stand up for them as if they are, especially without knowing any context.
DannyBee 7y ago
FWIW: It's actually not. They've literally said they are trying to take big tech companies to task before. They don't actually try to hide their goal. I'm not sure why you are trying to do it for them. I'm also unsure why folks think they haven't had specific goals/slants in editorial picking/writing in the past. This is not a new phenomenon, for any newspaper. I happen to think this kind of thing has been fairly destructive to the credibility of newspapers over the past 20-30 years, but what do i know.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  > FWIW: It's actually not. They've literally said they are trying to take big tech companies to task before. They don't actually try to hide their goal. Is there a source for this? It's pretty bold to claim they've admitted to criticizing tech companies out of spite. Especially when there are justifiable reasons for trying take them to task, such as Facebook's privacy record.

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
      > 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. Why are you attributing bad faith to the commenter? It's a reasonable objection, and many have questioned whether its the moral duty of facebook engineers to quit over privacy issues. Blocking privacy mode is an extremely aggressive and intrusive stance, although some other publications followed suit. NYT is especially heavy on tracking [0] The journalist who write for the Times should take personal responsibility and find a different company or profession. I have a feeling the journalists are smart enough that they know they can find employment elsewhere. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/23/opinion/data-internet-privacy-tracking.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/23/opinion/data-...
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        > Why are you attributing bad faith to the commenter? Because people don't like feeling wrong, even if they aren't particularly wrong, and I've seen many otherwise very intelligent people say and do really stupid things when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs. Just to be clear this does not make said commenter a bad person, it just makes them a human, with a brain that does occasionally really shitty things when it doesn't want to think. It's less about attributing bad faith and more just acknowledging that we're all imperfect talking chimps here. > It's a reasonable objection, and many have questioned whether its the moral duty of facebook engineers to quit over privacy issues. I would never say another person needs to quit a job over ethical issues, because anyone of decent moral fiber and an objective mind is probably already wrestling with that problem, and having a disinterested third party dispensing advice from On High with zero skin in the game is not going to improve that situation. Alternatively, they could just not care, which is less likely, but also not going be affected by that same third party. Basically what I'm saying is there are numerous possibilities in that interaction but none lead to change, so I don't discuss it. It's moot. All I'm saying is that the problem of making money in journalism is something that has no clear solution, and acting like the NYT is being hypocritical for using trackers while railing against trackers is a clear example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.
    - 7y ago
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Like most large, reputable news organizations, I would assume the New York Times does its best to maintain a firewall between their journalistic and business teams. By extension, the Times's writers likely have zero involvement in the practices you're complaining about. Times Editorial could publish articles criticizing Times Corporate, but while I would be very disappointed if Times Corporate was given a free pass, I don't expect them to receive extra scrutiny either. And if Times Corporate isn't getting extra scrutiny, how much of a story would there be? The Times's data privacy practices, while not ideal, are nowhere near the level of what's going on at Google and Facebook.

v77 7y ago

Not at all. I'm a NYT subscriber and so much content is filled with perjorative attacks against tech, tech workers and tech companies. 'Big Tech', 'techbros', etc.. The tipping poing was the Trump victory. Before the election the NYT and other mainstream media outlets were trumpeting how much better/hipper the DNC was at using social platforms to organize voters than the Republican party. If Clinton would have won, this characterization would have remained and anybody complaning about Russian interference in elections would have been branded a McCarthyist.

seisvelas 7y ago
Indeed, and although it would sound silly to us, a lot of journalists are surprisingly bitter over the 'learn to code' meme-debacle of just several months ago. When the journalism bubble burst the success of tech was used to humiliate journalists. They won't be kinder when our bubble bursts.
- whalabi 7y ago
  (as an aside, "that learn to code" jeer to journalists - without whom democracy can't exist - is disgusting) Implying that journalism has no value and people should mechanically make.. accounting software apps for a large organisation instead of uncovering and presenting information about those in power is hideous. It's no surprise that Trump supporters are all over it.
  - kanaridandan 7y ago
    No offense but it seems like neither you nor the person you replied to actually know what the "learn to code" meme was about. It was a moment where the tables had turned on journalists who had told coal miners and the like to just learn to code after being put out of their jobs. You have to remember, journalists aren't babies and you don't need to stand up for them as if they are, especially without knowing any context.

DannyBee 7y ago

FWIW: It's actually not. They've literally said they are trying to take big tech companies to task before. They don't actually try to hide their goal. I'm not sure why you are trying to do it for them. I'm also unsure why folks think they haven't had specific goals/slants in editorial picking/writing in the past. This is not a new phenomenon, for any newspaper. I happen to think this kind of thing has been fairly destructive to the credibility of newspapers over the past 20-30 years, but what do i know.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
> FWIW: It's actually not. They've literally said they are trying to take big tech companies to task before. They don't actually try to hide their goal. Is there a source for this? It's pretty bold to claim they've admitted to criticizing tech companies out of spite. Especially when there are justifiable reasons for trying take them to task, such as Facebook's privacy record.