11 ms·

> He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some

by sxp 6y ago

> He told me it would be a mostly positive piece about how we were an interesting gathering place for people in tech, and how we were ahead of the curve on some aspects of the coronavirus situation. It probably would have been a very nice article. Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me. ... When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he just said that me having enemies was going to be part of the story. He added that “I have enemies too”. Perhaps if he was less flippant about destroying people’s lives, he would have fewer. Wow. This is similar to Vice reporting on Naomi Wu and threatening to dox her while claiming to write a positive article about her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu#Vice_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu#Vice_article

foota 6y ago
Wow, hadn't heard that linked story before, what garbage for vice to act that way.
- robk 6y ago
  Vice is the epitome of garbage so no surprise there
  - ooobit2 6y ago
    NowThis and that entire network of brands collaborating on radical politics. There has to be way to make this more obvious to people. I've watched VICE and NowThis alone radicalize perfectly decent people. I knew someone for over 10 years who was always highly observant, emotional but self-aware, would drop what he was doing to sit in my car with me in a dark parking lot and let me go through the wild ride of emotions I have about my ex. He knew we wouldn't ever be a thing. I sat with him one evening in a dark parking lot and let him go through his emotions on us just not falling into place, the existential crisis of seeing something desired within reach and being able to touch but not keep it. He's the person who taught me every second is independent from the next, that a bad feeling toward someone can be isolated, compartmentalized, only exist in a moment in the front of our minds. That if we're aware of that independence, we can turn off an emotion so quickly we hardly notice the effort. And today, I could be thoroughly enraged by someone's comment online, turn off my screen and be in a great mood before I even realize the transition occurred. A few years back, he started watching the VICE documentaries at work during his free time. And then he started watching the clips and cuts made by Buzzfeed and channels like NowThis. Then he started sharing them on social media. And the clips got more and more incendiary. It's like VICE news could do a 30-minute special on LGBT in Brazil, but he'd watch and re-watch the few seconds of Bolsonaro saying gays are bad and that's just his view. And then he'd repost the clips. And then he started posting them on people's timelines to make sure their friends saw the clips and his comments too. And it eventually spiraled out into him posting clips of Nazi propaganda and these detailed comparisons to the Trump administration. And then he got verbally abusive toward his family. My last conversation with him was me asking why he posted what read like a manifesto that white people, Nazis/KKK, cisgender people should be put into training programs and if they refused or didn't show rapid progress then they deserved to be dropped off somewhere remote and left there. I thought he was joking, but he said he was serious. He ranted for almost an hour at me, even after I closed Facebook. I got 13 or so message notifications on my phone. Just to clarify, his posts on Facebook and Twitter included his belief that 'cisnormativity' is a product of 'white mafias', that we're all accomplices and own a blood libel for the deaths of the poor around the world, that ISIS wasn't homophobic and only executed cishomos, that he'd force cishomos to have sexual intercourse with trans people even if it didn't fix them. Just insane, insane shit. These sites are the gateway drugs to violence. For all the talk about violent video games and movies, these indie (corporate) 'news' channels are the real danger.
    - finnthehuman 6y ago
      >There has to be way to make this more obvious to people. I've always been of the opinion that the reader needs to be on guard towards content which teaches people to hate, much moreso than "hate speech" that's just someone screaming their head off like an angry paranoid fool. It's easy for everyone to identify and contextualize someone talking trash; even if they happen to agree they can still see it for what it is. It's much harder when a reporter (someone branded as a smart person) uses high-status language, slick production value, and an almost disengaged tone of voice to seduce you into a comfortable but dishonest explanation that turns people into cartoonish monsters to lay blame at their feet.
      - hackissimo123 6y ago
        > content which teaches people to hate It's called "critical race theory".
    - foota 6y ago
      I'm sorry that happened to your friend. Unless I've only seen the tip of the iceberg, I didn't think vice was that bad? Not always substantiative, and definitely a ways left of center, but I wouldn't stick it in the same vein as something like Infowars or breitbart.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        But probably you don't have any actual metric or system for deciding "badness". PC goodthink is that Breitbart is terrible in every way and the worst possible source of news. When I've compared its European edition to outlets like the Guardian, it's pretty similar in tone, style and content (obviously with political polarity reversed). If anything it's actually less extreme, for instance, it's very clear about the separation between illegal immigrants (i.e. a class defined by choice) from race (a class defined by immutable characteristic), whereas the Guardian does publish pieces talking about 'white people' or 'white men' quite frequently. Also, Breitbart uses links to primary sources much more heavily than most news sources do. A lot of papers only link to other stories they published, to keep you in-site.
Findeton 6y ago
He could also name the NYT reporter.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Since it seems that the reporter might have been named after all, did anyone take a quick look at their previous work to check whether they have a history of publishing problematic or misleading 'hit pieces'? It might be useful to figure out if concern really is warranted here.
- ipsum2 6y ago
  Why would he stoop that low?
  - jamesrcole 6y ago
    Part of the reason people do things like what the journalist did is because they can do so without facing any consequences. There should be disincentives for that kind of behavior. I'm not talking about them being threatened or put at risk. I'm talking about there being consequences for their reputation.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    It may prevent the same reporter from destroying someone else's life. There are consequences to hurting another human being's life and privacy.
- rebuilder 6y ago
  That would be counterproductive. The reporter would get abuse from random people, the article would definitely get published with the blogger's name, with the twist of "blogger tries to suppress publication of article by leveraging an online mob."
- stale2002 6y ago
  There is no need to do that. As long as the reporter remains unnamed, for now, they can decide to either not publish the article, or not publish the name, and they will be able to go along with there life, without getting the negative backlash. If they do dox the person, though, their name will be on the article, and you'll be able to find it.
sansnomme 6y ago
A New York Times reporter was also involved in that incident. https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- graeme 6y ago
  Jeong worked for Vice at the time and then the NYT hired her correct?
  - lifthrasiir 6y ago
    Correct, in fact Wu had posted the article in order to somehow protest NYT's hiring of Jeong. I personally think that Jeong was simply misguided in this particular incident and doesn't deserve that much criticism especially compared to the Vice reporter in question, though.
- zuppy 6y ago
  Wow, i’ve read all her 3 long blog posts about what happened and it angers me so much. I knew Vice was shit, but I had higher expectations from NY Times, Google or Twitter. Here are the other parts: - part 2: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-part-2-over-the-wall-and-into-the-fire-5e8efc5c1509 https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao... - part 3: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-part-3-defunding-deplatforming-and-detention-140fed4b9554 https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao... There was a positive outcome too, though, check out this video where she helps save someone’s life (SFW): https://youtu.be/4VKZTmTP7oY https://youtu.be/4VKZTmTP7oY
  - kaibee 6y ago
    That is very fucked.
xyst 6y ago
FYI: probably shouldn’t look up Naomi Wu during work hours lolll
- geomark 6y ago
  Or with your tween kid sitting next to you.
prvc 6y ago
Is there any conceivable good reason for the NYT to publish the name in an article on the claimed topic, despite the author's wishes to the contrary? Can't think of any, unless the reporter was also misrepresenting the subject of the story or the angle he is taking.
- masswerk 6y ago
  Maybe, revealing the true (or full) name is seen as a journalistic contribution? (As in "I'm not just reporting on what is there for everyone to see, I also did some actual research. See, here's the real name nobody was meant to know." – Obviously, this would be more proof of an issue with professional self-esteem, rather than of anything else.)
- quantummkv 6y ago
  > Can't think of any, unless the reporter was also misrepresenting the subject of the story or the angle he is taking. That is exactly what was happening there. There is no other plausible explanation for the behavior.
deno 6y ago
Wow, Vice actually outed her as gay, in China. There’s not much room to fall any lower now, unless they learn how to hack voicemails.
hackissimo123 6y ago
FWIW the CEO of Lambda School had the following to say on Reddit regarding whether the piece would really be positive ("you" in this quote is addressed to Scott): > I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but they’re going to say you’re a far-right racist who supports eugenics, based on you not immediately supporting the firing of Hsu. I know this probably sounds improbable to you because the author was pleasant, but they’ll have a quote from you they’ll strip of nuance and context to make it clear that you’re evil. Probably something about why you want to remain anonymous and they’ll paint it as you wanting to be anonymous because your views are beyond the pale or a dog whistle or something. > ... It was absolutely going to be a hit piece and they don’t tell you that upfront because they need your participation. > Pui doesn’t care, she’s cracking open champagne right now. This is what she thinks their job is. Exposing everything because reasons and feeling good about it. > It will absolutely be a hit piece, probably call SA a racist, and will be unapologetic. To expect anything different is impossible if you’ve spent a lot of time around this particular brand of new age journalist. > ... The editor SA is referring to is a known quantity in many circles, including mine, as is the author of the piece (I know people who were asked for comment; all refused). This is a win in their book, and they couldn’t care less about whether SA’s life will be destroyed.

by sxp 6y ago

foota 6y ago

Wow, hadn't heard that linked story before, what garbage for vice to act that way.

robk 6y ago
Vice is the epitome of garbage so no surprise there
- ooobit2 6y ago
  NowThis and that entire network of brands collaborating on radical politics. There has to be way to make this more obvious to people. I've watched VICE and NowThis alone radicalize perfectly decent people. I knew someone for over 10 years who was always highly observant, emotional but self-aware, would drop what he was doing to sit in my car with me in a dark parking lot and let me go through the wild ride of emotions I have about my ex. He knew we wouldn't ever be a thing. I sat with him one evening in a dark parking lot and let him go through his emotions on us just not falling into place, the existential crisis of seeing something desired within reach and being able to touch but not keep it. He's the person who taught me every second is independent from the next, that a bad feeling toward someone can be isolated, compartmentalized, only exist in a moment in the front of our minds. That if we're aware of that independence, we can turn off an emotion so quickly we hardly notice the effort. And today, I could be thoroughly enraged by someone's comment online, turn off my screen and be in a great mood before I even realize the transition occurred. A few years back, he started watching the VICE documentaries at work during his free time. And then he started watching the clips and cuts made by Buzzfeed and channels like NowThis. Then he started sharing them on social media. And the clips got more and more incendiary. It's like VICE news could do a 30-minute special on LGBT in Brazil, but he'd watch and re-watch the few seconds of Bolsonaro saying gays are bad and that's just his view. And then he'd repost the clips. And then he started posting them on people's timelines to make sure their friends saw the clips and his comments too. And it eventually spiraled out into him posting clips of Nazi propaganda and these detailed comparisons to the Trump administration. And then he got verbally abusive toward his family. My last conversation with him was me asking why he posted what read like a manifesto that white people, Nazis/KKK, cisgender people should be put into training programs and if they refused or didn't show rapid progress then they deserved to be dropped off somewhere remote and left there. I thought he was joking, but he said he was serious. He ranted for almost an hour at me, even after I closed Facebook. I got 13 or so message notifications on my phone. Just to clarify, his posts on Facebook and Twitter included his belief that 'cisnormativity' is a product of 'white mafias', that we're all accomplices and own a blood libel for the deaths of the poor around the world, that ISIS wasn't homophobic and only executed cishomos, that he'd force cishomos to have sexual intercourse with trans people even if it didn't fix them. Just insane, insane shit. These sites are the gateway drugs to violence. For all the talk about violent video games and movies, these indie (corporate) 'news' channels are the real danger.
  - finnthehuman 6y ago
    >There has to be way to make this more obvious to people. I've always been of the opinion that the reader needs to be on guard towards content which teaches people to hate, much moreso than "hate speech" that's just someone screaming their head off like an angry paranoid fool. It's easy for everyone to identify and contextualize someone talking trash; even if they happen to agree they can still see it for what it is. It's much harder when a reporter (someone branded as a smart person) uses high-status language, slick production value, and an almost disengaged tone of voice to seduce you into a comfortable but dishonest explanation that turns people into cartoonish monsters to lay blame at their feet.
    - hackissimo123 6y ago
      > content which teaches people to hate It's called "critical race theory".
  - foota 6y ago
    I'm sorry that happened to your friend. Unless I've only seen the tip of the iceberg, I didn't think vice was that bad? Not always substantiative, and definitely a ways left of center, but I wouldn't stick it in the same vein as something like Infowars or breitbart.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      But probably you don't have any actual metric or system for deciding "badness". PC goodthink is that Breitbart is terrible in every way and the worst possible source of news. When I've compared its European edition to outlets like the Guardian, it's pretty similar in tone, style and content (obviously with political polarity reversed). If anything it's actually less extreme, for instance, it's very clear about the separation between illegal immigrants (i.e. a class defined by choice) from race (a class defined by immutable characteristic), whereas the Guardian does publish pieces talking about 'white people' or 'white men' quite frequently. Also, Breitbart uses links to primary sources much more heavily than most news sources do. A lot of papers only link to other stories they published, to keep you in-site.

Findeton 6y ago

He could also name the NYT reporter.

zozbot234 6y ago
Since it seems that the reporter might have been named after all, did anyone take a quick look at their previous work to check whether they have a history of publishing problematic or misleading 'hit pieces'? It might be useful to figure out if concern really is warranted here.
ipsum2 6y ago
Why would he stoop that low?
- jamesrcole 6y ago
  Part of the reason people do things like what the journalist did is because they can do so without facing any consequences. There should be disincentives for that kind of behavior. I'm not talking about them being threatened or put at risk. I'm talking about there being consequences for their reputation.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  It may prevent the same reporter from destroying someone else's life. There are consequences to hurting another human being's life and privacy.
rebuilder 6y ago
That would be counterproductive. The reporter would get abuse from random people, the article would definitely get published with the blogger's name, with the twist of "blogger tries to suppress publication of article by leveraging an online mob."
stale2002 6y ago
There is no need to do that. As long as the reporter remains unnamed, for now, they can decide to either not publish the article, or not publish the name, and they will be able to go along with there life, without getting the negative backlash. If they do dox the person, though, their name will be on the article, and you'll be able to find it.

sansnomme 6y ago

A New York Times reporter was also involved in that incident. https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
graeme 6y ago
Jeong worked for Vice at the time and then the NYT hired her correct?
- lifthrasiir 6y ago
  Correct, in fact Wu had posted the article in order to somehow protest NYT's hiring of Jeong. I personally think that Jeong was simply misguided in this particular incident and doesn't deserve that much criticism especially compared to the Vice reporter in question, though.
zuppy 6y ago
Wow, i’ve read all her 3 long blog posts about what happened and it angers me so much. I knew Vice was shit, but I had higher expectations from NY Times, Google or Twitter. Here are the other parts: - part 2: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-part-2-over-the-wall-and-into-the-fire-5e8efc5c1509 https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao... - part 3: https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-part-3-defunding-deplatforming-and-detention-140fed4b9554 https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-nao... There was a positive outcome too, though, check out this video where she helps save someone’s life (SFW): https://youtu.be/4VKZTmTP7oY https://youtu.be/4VKZTmTP7oY
- kaibee 6y ago
  That is very fucked.

xyst 6y ago

FYI: probably shouldn’t look up Naomi Wu during work hours lolll

geomark 6y ago
Or with your tween kid sitting next to you.

prvc 6y ago

Is there any conceivable good reason for the NYT to publish the name in an article on the claimed topic, despite the author's wishes to the contrary? Can't think of any, unless the reporter was also misrepresenting the subject of the story or the angle he is taking.

masswerk 6y ago
Maybe, revealing the true (or full) name is seen as a journalistic contribution? (As in "I'm not just reporting on what is there for everyone to see, I also did some actual research. See, here's the real name nobody was meant to know." – Obviously, this would be more proof of an issue with professional self-esteem, rather than of anything else.)
quantummkv 6y ago
> Can't think of any, unless the reporter was also misrepresenting the subject of the story or the angle he is taking. That is exactly what was happening there. There is no other plausible explanation for the behavior.

deno 6y ago

Wow, Vice actually outed her as gay, in China. There’s not much room to fall any lower now, unless they learn how to hack voicemails.

hackissimo123 6y ago

FWIW the CEO of Lambda School had the following to say on Reddit regarding whether the piece would really be positive ("you" in this quote is addressed to Scott): > I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but they’re going to say you’re a far-right racist who supports eugenics, based on you not immediately supporting the firing of Hsu. I know this probably sounds improbable to you because the author was pleasant, but they’ll have a quote from you they’ll strip of nuance and context to make it clear that you’re evil. Probably something about why you want to remain anonymous and they’ll paint it as you wanting to be anonymous because your views are beyond the pale or a dog whistle or something. > ... It was absolutely going to be a hit piece and they don’t tell you that upfront because they need your participation. > Pui doesn’t care, she’s cracking open champagne right now. This is what she thinks their job is. Exposing everything because reasons and feeling good about it. > It will absolutely be a hit piece, probably call SA a racist, and will be unapologetic. To expect anything different is impossible if you’ve spent a lot of time around this particular brand of new age journalist. > ... The editor SA is referring to is a known quantity in many circles, including mine, as is the author of the piece (I know people who were asked for comment; all refused). This is a win in their book, and they couldn’t care less about whether SA’s life will be destroyed.