5 ms·

This article is missing some of the critical context that lead to this from Twitter. Summarized here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-July-2020-Twitter-spat-

This article is missing some of the critical context that lead to this from Twitter. Summarized here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-July-2020-Twitter-spat-between-Taylor-Lorenz-and-Balaji-S-Srinivasan-really-about https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-July-2020-Twitter-spat-bet... I think Taylor comes across extremely negatively here and the spin in this Vice article just makes it worse. Basically Taylor puts up a mean tweet about the Away CEO’s comments on the media (without actually engaging in the content of those comments). Balaji responds to the tweet with the same wording Taylor used, but directed at Taylor herself (to point out the meanness). Taylor tweets a cropped response image of only Balaji’s response and plays victim, rallying media people behind her (things escalate) - eventually they surreptitiously record this clubhouse conversation and write a hit piece without taking any responsibility for anything. It’s all very high school and the journalists come across extremely negatively to me. If anything this proves Balaji’s point. I should spend less time on Twitter.

crocodiletears 6y ago
This whole whole affair seems as exhausting as it is childish and typical. Irrespective of these circumstances, journalists need to get off Twitter. Not even stop reading it, that's fine. They just need to stop tweeting if they're so constitutionally incapable of not getting into moralistic pissing matches and turning themselves into stories like they're trying to get on worldstar.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I don’t disagree, but I’m also glad I came across this and it was all out in the open. I wouldn’t have believed it was this bad without seeing it myself. This allows me to just dismiss most of it and distrust by default (I can also just ignore some writers entirely - Lorenz in this case, Kara Swisher earlier). There are obviously still great reporters (Steven Levy, Li Yuan for some examples), but there are a lot of terrible ones that misuse their power. In general I think people are better off not talking to the press and just writing for themselves on their own platform.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  The VCs come across as extremely thin skinned people who think no one has a right to criticize them and any complaints about their companies are unfair slander. Those arguments are basically the clear justification why journalism is important and exists. There might be some 'unfair and mean' journalists, but writing about the problems of google or whatever is important. Those people complaining are the embodiment of rich people who can't take any criticism without going out and hiring lawyers to try to squelch it.
  - tossmeout 6y ago
    This is ironic, because it's exactly the journalists who are doing what you accuse the VCs of doing. The second they get any criticism whatsoever -- whether it's on Twitter or on Clubhouse -- they immediately play the victim and write pieces like this one that question the nerve of anyone who dares to criticize the media industry. As if they're above it all. Journalism is a for-profit industry just like any other, so why shouldn't they be open to criticism, too? According to VICE, the "audio chat had spiraled wildly out of control" because what, it was critical of journalists? Also, notice that none of the tech people in any of these conversations said that tech should be above criticism. They've literally simply said that the media should be accountable, too. Do you disagree? For decades the media has NOT been accountable. They were the only organizations able to reach the masses directly. Now other people can to, and those people can criticize media coverage without having to go through the media itself, and so you get whiny pieces like this one that hypocritically try to argue that others should be open to criticism but they're assholes for criticizing the media.
MiroF 6y ago
The journalists come off negatively, but honestly I'm surprised how... naive or perhaps myopic the VC people are. Replace institutional journalism with a "github" model? Please.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  The comments from the robber barons (I mean god's special children "the entrepreneurs") are just embarrassing for them. In their own words, they hang themselves. Then compound it by complaining on twitter about it. You can't make this stuff up. It's like Bonfire of the Vanities, 21 century edition.
tqi 6y ago
Both groups were largely talking past each other, as is the norm for Twitter. To me: - Lorenz's tweet about Korey were unprofessional and personal. - Balaji's response (and overall campaign against Lorenz) was unprofessional and personal. It was notable to me that literally every single verified journalist who responded were defending Lorenz, and nearly every tech person defended Balaji. The depth of group level allegiances is disheartening.
- tossmeout 6y ago
  On the surface it looks like two tribes having a petty squabble. Beneath the surface, these are two industries competing. Tech represents an existential threat to the media. The media has always controlled distribution channel, and enjoyed a monopoly on advertising and on getting messages across to the general public. In the last couple decades, however, that has changed, and tech companies are increasingly holding the keys. A few examples: * People rarely buy their news from newspapers and magazines anymore, but instead find it via Google search, Twitter, Facebook, their mobile phones, and other tech channels. * When the App Store first came out, Steve Jobs famously required a 30% cut of The NYT's mobile subscription revenue, while also retaining all of the subscriber data e.g. credit card numbers and email addresses. Very bad for the NYT and other media companies who always controlled this stuff. Amazon has done similar things to the book industry via the Kindle. * Facebook has famously made a killing off of controlling distribution for media companies, e.g. which stories appear in users' feeds, and how much these companies need to pay for the algorithms show their posts to more people. * Google News aggregates news stories and their algorithms control which sites get traffic. * Twitter breaks news faster than any media-controlled platform, including TV and radio. This often forces media companies and journalists to tweet before publishing articles. Consequently, the bulk of advertising revenue and readership now goes to tech companies and comes through tech channels, rather than going directly to media companies. The media has lost a lot of the power (and resulting income) that it once had. This is EXTREMELY scary for the media. Like I said, it's an existential threat. Think horse and buggy companies looking at the early adoption of cars. So, what to do about it? Well, the media works like literally any other for-profit industry. They're going to fight back against competition. Why wouldn't they? What that looks like from a strategy perspective is to use the strongest tools in your arsenal. For the media, that's the fact that they're still the ones doing all the writing. They can dramatically affect public opinion. The playbook is simple: Hire a bunch of journalists who are anti tech. They'll naturally write a bunch of negative stories about big tech companies. They'll write about the dangers of an ad-funded business, not mentioning that this was a model literally invented by the media. They'll write about the dangers of monopoly, not mentioning that the media has always had a monopoly on distribution. They'll write about the dangers of censorship, not mentioning that media companies have editorial teams and hiring bias for their journalists, and that they allow their advertisers to censor them. They'll write about how rich and out of touch the tech elite are, not mentioning that the media elite are just as rich and out of touch. They'll write about the problems with diversity in tech, not mentioning the lack of diversity in the media. Etc. That's not to say the criticism isn't warranted. Of course a lot of it is. And imo the journalists are sincere. But the journalists don't control or necessarily even see the big picture, any more than the average software developer at Google controls Google. At risk of sounding overly dramatic, they're all just pawns on a chess board. If you control a media company, you don't even have to tell your journalists what to write. You simply hire editors and journalists who have already proven sympathetic to your viewpoints and let them go to work. So beneath people calling each other names on Twitter, there's a lot more going on.

crocodiletears 6y ago

This whole whole affair seems as exhausting as it is childish and typical. Irrespective of these circumstances, journalists need to get off Twitter. Not even stop reading it, that's fine. They just need to stop tweeting if they're so constitutionally incapable of not getting into moralistic pissing matches and turning themselves into stories like they're trying to get on worldstar.

fossuser 6y ago
I don’t disagree, but I’m also glad I came across this and it was all out in the open. I wouldn’t have believed it was this bad without seeing it myself. This allows me to just dismiss most of it and distrust by default (I can also just ignore some writers entirely - Lorenz in this case, Kara Swisher earlier). There are obviously still great reporters (Steven Levy, Li Yuan for some examples), but there are a lot of terrible ones that misuse their power. In general I think people are better off not talking to the press and just writing for themselves on their own platform.
NotSammyHagar 6y ago
The VCs come across as extremely thin skinned people who think no one has a right to criticize them and any complaints about their companies are unfair slander. Those arguments are basically the clear justification why journalism is important and exists. There might be some 'unfair and mean' journalists, but writing about the problems of google or whatever is important. Those people complaining are the embodiment of rich people who can't take any criticism without going out and hiring lawyers to try to squelch it.
- tossmeout 6y ago
  This is ironic, because it's exactly the journalists who are doing what you accuse the VCs of doing. The second they get any criticism whatsoever -- whether it's on Twitter or on Clubhouse -- they immediately play the victim and write pieces like this one that question the nerve of anyone who dares to criticize the media industry. As if they're above it all. Journalism is a for-profit industry just like any other, so why shouldn't they be open to criticism, too? According to VICE, the "audio chat had spiraled wildly out of control" because what, it was critical of journalists? Also, notice that none of the tech people in any of these conversations said that tech should be above criticism. They've literally simply said that the media should be accountable, too. Do you disagree? For decades the media has NOT been accountable. They were the only organizations able to reach the masses directly. Now other people can to, and those people can criticize media coverage without having to go through the media itself, and so you get whiny pieces like this one that hypocritically try to argue that others should be open to criticism but they're assholes for criticizing the media.

MiroF 6y ago

The journalists come off negatively, but honestly I'm surprised how... naive or perhaps myopic the VC people are. Replace institutional journalism with a "github" model? Please.

NotSammyHagar 6y ago
The comments from the robber barons (I mean god's special children "the entrepreneurs") are just embarrassing for them. In their own words, they hang themselves. Then compound it by complaining on twitter about it. You can't make this stuff up. It's like Bonfire of the Vanities, 21 century edition.

tqi 6y ago

Both groups were largely talking past each other, as is the norm for Twitter. To me: - Lorenz's tweet about Korey were unprofessional and personal. - Balaji's response (and overall campaign against Lorenz) was unprofessional and personal. It was notable to me that literally every single verified journalist who responded were defending Lorenz, and nearly every tech person defended Balaji. The depth of group level allegiances is disheartening.

tossmeout 6y ago
On the surface it looks like two tribes having a petty squabble. Beneath the surface, these are two industries competing. Tech represents an existential threat to the media. The media has always controlled distribution channel, and enjoyed a monopoly on advertising and on getting messages across to the general public. In the last couple decades, however, that has changed, and tech companies are increasingly holding the keys. A few examples: * People rarely buy their news from newspapers and magazines anymore, but instead find it via Google search, Twitter, Facebook, their mobile phones, and other tech channels. * When the App Store first came out, Steve Jobs famously required a 30% cut of The NYT's mobile subscription revenue, while also retaining all of the subscriber data e.g. credit card numbers and email addresses. Very bad for the NYT and other media companies who always controlled this stuff. Amazon has done similar things to the book industry via the Kindle. * Facebook has famously made a killing off of controlling distribution for media companies, e.g. which stories appear in users' feeds, and how much these companies need to pay for the algorithms show their posts to more people. * Google News aggregates news stories and their algorithms control which sites get traffic. * Twitter breaks news faster than any media-controlled platform, including TV and radio. This often forces media companies and journalists to tweet before publishing articles. Consequently, the bulk of advertising revenue and readership now goes to tech companies and comes through tech channels, rather than going directly to media companies. The media has lost a lot of the power (and resulting income) that it once had. This is EXTREMELY scary for the media. Like I said, it's an existential threat. Think horse and buggy companies looking at the early adoption of cars. So, what to do about it? Well, the media works like literally any other for-profit industry. They're going to fight back against competition. Why wouldn't they? What that looks like from a strategy perspective is to use the strongest tools in your arsenal. For the media, that's the fact that they're still the ones doing all the writing. They can dramatically affect public opinion. The playbook is simple: Hire a bunch of journalists who are anti tech. They'll naturally write a bunch of negative stories about big tech companies. They'll write about the dangers of an ad-funded business, not mentioning that this was a model literally invented by the media. They'll write about the dangers of monopoly, not mentioning that the media has always had a monopoly on distribution. They'll write about the dangers of censorship, not mentioning that media companies have editorial teams and hiring bias for their journalists, and that they allow their advertisers to censor them. They'll write about how rich and out of touch the tech elite are, not mentioning that the media elite are just as rich and out of touch. They'll write about the problems with diversity in tech, not mentioning the lack of diversity in the media. Etc. That's not to say the criticism isn't warranted. Of course a lot of it is. And imo the journalists are sincere. But the journalists don't control or necessarily even see the big picture, any more than the average software developer at Google controls Google. At risk of sounding overly dramatic, they're all just pawns on a chess board. If you control a media company, you don't even have to tell your journalists what to write. You simply hire editors and journalists who have already proven sympathetic to your viewpoints and let them go to work. So beneath people calling each other names on Twitter, there's a lot more going on.