5 ms·
The New Yorker depiction of this very site (or was it the Atlantic) was particularly egregious.
by whiddershins 6y ago
The New Yorker depiction of this very site (or was it the Atlantic) was particularly egregious.
- MattGaiser 6y agoThe New Yorker article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-lonely-work-of-moderating-hacker-news https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/th...
- the_af 6y agoIs it wrong though? I've been reading HN for years and a lot of that New Yorker article rings true to me. There are some exaggerations, and I didn't read all of it because it's too damn long, but from what I see it's mostly accurate.
- remote_phone 6y ago“I didn’t read all of it because it’s too damn long” is precisely the problem with our country today.
- the_af 6y agoYour country maybe. I don't live in your country. And I read plenty, I bet more than you and in more languages than you. PS: you're proving the New Yorker article accurate, by the way.
- remote_phone 6y agoI think you’re proving the article perfectly. I read the entire thing. And you don’t read more than me.
- the_af 6y agoOh, I'm pretty sure I do read more than you. I also don't assume we live in the same country. Keep your condescending attitude to yourself.
- remote_phone 6y agoNah you don’t read more than me. It’s funny that someone who claims to read so much can’t get through an article because it’s “too long”. I’m pretty sure you don’t read very much.
- the_af 6y agoOh, but I do read more than you, and in more languages. People who are smug like you and think people reading too little are "the problem with our country" read very little themselves. They tend to assume the world is as small as they are, and overplay their meager achievements like reading through a New Yorker article.
- remote_phone 6y agoThe problem isn’t people reading too little. It’s that people such as yourself only read a fraction of an informative article and stop because it’s “too long”. They read the headline and skim the article and get whatever their limited comprehension gets from it, and then proclaims they know what the article is saying when they don’t. Pretty much sums exactly what you were saying. I can only imagine the high level of misinformation you must have in your brain by never finishing so many “long” articles in so many different languages. What a mess!
- the_af 6y agoOk, you win. You read more than I do and my reading is "the problem" with your country. Here, have a cookie.
- 6y ago
- zaroth 6y agoTo restate a popular maxim, the lesson to take from this is that the media depiction on almost everything is egregiously bad, not just those things where you personally know better. The question then is why do we expend so much time and money engaging with and propagating discourse which we know is so fundamentally misrepresenting reality?
- the_af 6y agoThat article doesn't seem to me particularly wrong, and in fact many parts of it ring true...
- CydeWeys 6y agoCare to cite some specific parts of it you have issues with? I remember reading that and thinking it was a good article.
- remote_phone 6y agoThere is nothing egregious about the article and if anything, paints dang and the other moderator in a better light than I had observed myself from their actions. Case in point flagging this article as a dupe to a flagged article despite its active commenting.
- iron0013 6y agoReally? I thought it was pretty astute.