4 ms·

Never heard of Pando, wondering why I should care, if anyone could give brief insight into why it's significant?

wj 7y ago
"wondering why I should care" is at least passively a toxic comment. At least take the time to click on the link before making a comment like that. Or just ignore the article.
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  It's an abrasive phrasing of a legitimate and, if you zoom out, apparently sincere question. "Toxic" is an overstatement.
  - wj 7y ago
    The sentence works without asking "why I should care?": "Never heard of Pando, wondering if anyone could give brief insight into why it's significant?" Including the abrasive phrasing when it is not needed is toxic and not helpful for polite discourse.
    - andrewflnr 7y ago
      Assuming bad faith is more damaging to discussion than dismissiveness. Your using the word "toxic" to describe the comment is more toxic than the comment itself. Ed: if you had led off with > The sentence works without asking "why I should care?" then no one would be quibbling with you.
danso 7y ago
It was a tech journalism outlet founded by Sarah Lacy, one of TechCrunch’s most well known reporters.
whalesalad 7y ago
It’s not significant, you’re not missing anything. Pando never really took off or did anything. It launched with a big boom because of the relationship with TC but never got any traction on its own.
nickpsecurity 7y ago
Only thing significant I ever read from Pando was the Tor article: https://pando.com/2014/07/16/tor-spooks/ https://pando.com/2014/07/16/tor-spooks/ A larger number of people than before learned it was mainly funded by U.S. government groups of the sort paranoids might worry about. They do it to help both our cops/spies and foreign dissidents in governments the U.S. targets. Then, other groups in U.S. government are opposed to it since it conceals the threats to us (Four Horsemen of the Infacalypse) or just them (i.e. whistleblowers). "Left hand, right hand" thing on top of Pando's drama-inducing presentation typical of media outlets. Tor supporters' reactions to it were even more interesting than the article, though. It was quite a test of both their honesty and public relations.

wj 7y ago

"wondering why I should care" is at least passively a toxic comment. At least take the time to click on the link before making a comment like that. Or just ignore the article.

andrewflnr 7y ago
It's an abrasive phrasing of a legitimate and, if you zoom out, apparently sincere question. "Toxic" is an overstatement.
- wj 7y ago
  The sentence works without asking "why I should care?": "Never heard of Pando, wondering if anyone could give brief insight into why it's significant?" Including the abrasive phrasing when it is not needed is toxic and not helpful for polite discourse.
  - andrewflnr 7y ago
    Assuming bad faith is more damaging to discussion than dismissiveness. Your using the word "toxic" to describe the comment is more toxic than the comment itself. Ed: if you had led off with > The sentence works without asking "why I should care?" then no one would be quibbling with you.

danso 7y ago

It was a tech journalism outlet founded by Sarah Lacy, one of TechCrunch’s most well known reporters.

whalesalad 7y ago

It’s not significant, you’re not missing anything. Pando never really took off or did anything. It launched with a big boom because of the relationship with TC but never got any traction on its own.

nickpsecurity 7y ago

Only thing significant I ever read from Pando was the Tor article: https://pando.com/2014/07/16/tor-spooks/ https://pando.com/2014/07/16/tor-spooks/ A larger number of people than before learned it was mainly funded by U.S. government groups of the sort paranoids might worry about. They do it to help both our cops/spies and foreign dissidents in governments the U.S. targets. Then, other groups in U.S. government are opposed to it since it conceals the threats to us (Four Horsemen of the Infacalypse) or just them (i.e. whistleblowers). "Left hand, right hand" thing on top of Pando's drama-inducing presentation typical of media outlets. Tor supporters' reactions to it were even more interesting than the article, though. It was quite a test of both their honesty and public relations.