4 ms·
These Forbes contributer articles often read like medium.com pieces and it's unclear what their relation to Forbes is. This comes from a self-proclaimed "think
by luckylion 7y ago
These Forbes contributer articles often read like medium.com pieces and it's unclear what their relation to Forbes is. This comes from a self-proclaimed "think tank" that has a website [1] which is strangely vague, has no real terms, contact, privacy info etc, doesn't say anything about their funding and is categorized as "Media Production" on linkedin.
What's happening here, is this just self-PR of a few people? Are they selling links from forbes.com? Are they just hoping to sell membership on their own site? Are they paying Forbes, or does Forbes consider those valuable contributions?
[1] https://cognitiveworld.com/ https://cognitiveworld.com/
- rasengan 7y agoAttacking the messenger doesn’t make the message incorrect.
- luckylion 7y agoSorry, I don't mean to attack anyone, I'm just wondering what's going on with Forbes.
- rasengan 7y agoNo need to apologize! Just pointing out that we do need an alternative web! Your questions are also excellent and pertinent, and it’s always good to analyze everything in detail to understand purpose and intent.
- goodmachine 7y agoTo be fair he was attacking a) Forbes, and b) the messenger's curious credentials: not the messenger directly. The message itself is naive at best, so I wondered the same things.
- tasubotadas 7y agoYeah, but if the content of the message is not verified, then the credibility of the messenger becomes a strong proxy indicator until it is verified.
- admiral33 7y agoIt is clear that this was first written without reference to outside sources as an opinion piece, then the sources were later found and injected into the article in the form of hyperlinks.