4 ms·

The writer of this article is a journalist, so the portrayal may be less than fair. That being said, and speaking generally (not about VCs or rich people in pa

The writer of this article is a journalist, so the portrayal may be less than fair. That being said, and speaking generally (not about VCs or rich people in particular), something is going terribly wrong when a private person can be publicly shamed in the press 15 years from now for doing something that is completely normal and socially acceptable today, and lose their job as a result.

catalogia 6y ago
> a private person can be publicly shamed in the press 15 years from now for doing something that is completely normal and socially acceptable today This industry created the tools which made it feasible. Before social media, most people simply didn't have a public record of things they said years ago. This industry also created the platforms on which this sort of behavior flourishes. Journalists may have some bad habits, but the tech industry gave them nuclear weapons.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Good point. But it takes a journalist with a specific purpose in mind, and a public that cares to be outraged in the first place about private people whose specific past behaviors have no bearing on history, to dig back into the past and bring such stuff out into the public eye, with specific names and dates attached.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    I suspect such journalists have always existed and there's always been an appetite for bad journalism. Bad journalism certainly isn't new; for instance in the 19th century shitty newspapers started the Spanish-American War basically for shits and giggles. They were able to do that because much of the American public enthusiastically gobbled up the nonsense yellow journalists were publishing. I think many of the tools the tech industry has created in past years, social media and link aggregators using content recommendation systems, have thrown fuel into the dumpster fire. These tools and systems of incentives have facilitated and encouraged shitty journalism. When the tech industry itself is then the victim of this, it's sort of karmic justice. Hoisted by their own petard, as it were. But all to often the victims have nothing to do with the tech industry. Most victims are, as you say, private people; technology has made private people vulnerable to unscrupulous journalists in a way that seems historically unprecedented.
bluntfang 6y ago
So as long as you do bad shit and get away with it for 15 years no one should judge you for it?
- pmorici 6y ago
  Not what the OP said. Even the US constitution recognizes that Ex post facto laws are bad and specifically prohibits their passage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    The law isn't social or corporate. It's funny this community supports separation of politics and workplace until it could possibly effect them negatively. I don't care how long it's been since you were in the KKK or sexually harassed your EA even if it was "socially acceptable at the time", I don't ever want to work with you.
    - TimTheTinker 6y ago
      Journalism’s purpose is to report current and past events that have a bearing on history — both political and social. You may not want to work with a former KKK member, but that doesn’t mean the press (or anyone) has any business exposing their sins in public, unless there are specific crimes for which penal justice has yet to be served—and even then, a wise journalist would do well to contact the DA instead of publishing first. Beyond that, I would remark that “love your neighbor as yourself” does include personal and social forgiveness of past wrongs: “He who covers an offense promotes love.” But an unforgiving society is brittle and prone to collapse into totalitarianism.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Journalism’s purpose is to report current and past events that have a bearing on history — both political and social. No, it's not. Journalism serves the current public interest, not history, except insofar as the latter serves the former. > You may not want to work with a former KKK member, but that doesn’t mean the press (or anyone) has any business exposing their sins in public, unless there are specific crimes for which penal justice has yet to be served. The scope of the public interest isn't limited to crimes, that's a ludicrous idea. Heck, that's not even consistent with your earlier claim about the relationship between journalism and history, as the interest of history is much broader than crimes.

catalogia 6y ago

> a private person can be publicly shamed in the press 15 years from now for doing something that is completely normal and socially acceptable today This industry created the tools which made it feasible. Before social media, most people simply didn't have a public record of things they said years ago. This industry also created the platforms on which this sort of behavior flourishes. Journalists may have some bad habits, but the tech industry gave them nuclear weapons.

TimTheTinker 6y ago
Good point. But it takes a journalist with a specific purpose in mind, and a public that cares to be outraged in the first place about private people whose specific past behaviors have no bearing on history, to dig back into the past and bring such stuff out into the public eye, with specific names and dates attached.
- catalogia 6y ago
  I suspect such journalists have always existed and there's always been an appetite for bad journalism. Bad journalism certainly isn't new; for instance in the 19th century shitty newspapers started the Spanish-American War basically for shits and giggles. They were able to do that because much of the American public enthusiastically gobbled up the nonsense yellow journalists were publishing. I think many of the tools the tech industry has created in past years, social media and link aggregators using content recommendation systems, have thrown fuel into the dumpster fire. These tools and systems of incentives have facilitated and encouraged shitty journalism. When the tech industry itself is then the victim of this, it's sort of karmic justice. Hoisted by their own petard, as it were. But all to often the victims have nothing to do with the tech industry. Most victims are, as you say, private people; technology has made private people vulnerable to unscrupulous journalists in a way that seems historically unprecedented.

bluntfang 6y ago

So as long as you do bad shit and get away with it for 15 years no one should judge you for it?

pmorici 6y ago
Not what the OP said. Even the US constitution recognizes that Ex post facto laws are bad and specifically prohibits their passage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...
- bluntfang 6y ago
  The law isn't social or corporate. It's funny this community supports separation of politics and workplace until it could possibly effect them negatively. I don't care how long it's been since you were in the KKK or sexually harassed your EA even if it was "socially acceptable at the time", I don't ever want to work with you.
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    Journalism’s purpose is to report current and past events that have a bearing on history — both political and social. You may not want to work with a former KKK member, but that doesn’t mean the press (or anyone) has any business exposing their sins in public, unless there are specific crimes for which penal justice has yet to be served—and even then, a wise journalist would do well to contact the DA instead of publishing first. Beyond that, I would remark that “love your neighbor as yourself” does include personal and social forgiveness of past wrongs: “He who covers an offense promotes love.” But an unforgiving society is brittle and prone to collapse into totalitarianism.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Journalism’s purpose is to report current and past events that have a bearing on history — both political and social. No, it's not. Journalism serves the current public interest, not history, except insofar as the latter serves the former. > You may not want to work with a former KKK member, but that doesn’t mean the press (or anyone) has any business exposing their sins in public, unless there are specific crimes for which penal justice has yet to be served. The scope of the public interest isn't limited to crimes, that's a ludicrous idea. Heck, that's not even consistent with your earlier claim about the relationship between journalism and history, as the interest of history is much broader than crimes.