4 ms·

I've been reading the NewYorker for decades. And this article makes me realize 100M Spotify is paying for Joe Rogan podcast is actually a bargain. Old media is

I've been reading the NewYorker for decades. And this article makes me realize 100M Spotify is paying for Joe Rogan podcast is actually a bargain. Old media is done, they do not have a business valuable outside of adds driven model, all they can fight for is the power to develop narrative(s). In other words, they are fighting for status

krelian 6y ago
Can you elaborate on why this article drives you to think that? As someone with no stake in the issue (aware of LessWrong but not much else) I found it very interesting and well written and it made me want to immerse myself more in the rationalist community which I found appealing. There was definitely an angle to this piece, like any piece, but I found it only slightly unbalanced. The unbalance was situated at the judgement of SSC's action of deleting the blog which clearly the reporter didn't view favorably. Further thinking about it, I would not be surprised if the NewYorker writer collaborated with the NYT reporter on the piece. Taking in account when the blog deletion happened I don't see how the reporter could have done his research on the nature of the blog to such detail without the NYT reporter's material.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  It's not that hard to do research wrt. the blog if you're a dedicated person; many people have made archives available.
- zucker42 6y ago
  The problems with the article that I perceive: 1. It makes claims about the SSC readership and the rationalist community intended to invoke an emotional response with little verifiable evidence. > This plea conformed with the online persona he has publicly cultivated over the years—that of a gentle headmaster preparing to chaperone a rambunctious group of boys on a museum outing 2. It's overly general in how it addresses people involved; it tends to conflate very different people connected by little more than their professed belief in using evidence to make decisions and examining their preconceptions. Using a rationalist psychologist as representative of "Silicon Valley" is evidence of this point. I may be influenced by the fact the fact that I have a good friend who is an avowed rationalist and I don't believe the broad strokes generalizations in the article represented him. Also, it fails to grasp what I perceive as the main reason for Alexander's blog takedown, which I think is merely a game theory influenced attempt to prevent the NYT from printing his name, rather than anything more grand.
fewaw2322 6y ago
Your comment makes no sense. The companies that are upending old media, Facebook and Google, also have an ads-driven model. Youtube is ads-driven. Even Spotify runs ads if you aren't a subscriber. And Joe Rogan has sponsors.
- causalmodels 6y ago
  I believe what they were referring to was the death of news subscription model
  - malandrew 6y ago
    The debate I had with someone at work is that these days I can only ascribe legitimacy to an individual that have demonstrated that they are acting in good faith and being intellectually honest. The keyword here is individual. The NYTimes and most subscription news media publishes content by many individuals of varying quality. In the past, this model had value and individuals like A.M. Rosenthal made a point of carefully curating the individuals that were hired to publish in the NY Times. It's become increasingly clear that as news organizations have faced declining revenue, they've begun to compromise on this curation. The fallout from this starts small and people continue to consider content from the NY Times to have some mark of quality, but eventually it will reach the point where those with integrity will realize that the tools for them to go it alone are out there and they are better off not associating with the individuals the NY Times has hired that do not meeting the historical bar for integrity it once had. It's not so much that subscription news is dying at the hands of new sources of information, but that it is committing reputational suicide in response to disruptive innovation that allows individuals with integrity to stand on their own.

krelian 6y ago

Can you elaborate on why this article drives you to think that? As someone with no stake in the issue (aware of LessWrong but not much else) I found it very interesting and well written and it made me want to immerse myself more in the rationalist community which I found appealing. There was definitely an angle to this piece, like any piece, but I found it only slightly unbalanced. The unbalance was situated at the judgement of SSC's action of deleting the blog which clearly the reporter didn't view favorably. Further thinking about it, I would not be surprised if the NewYorker writer collaborated with the NYT reporter on the piece. Taking in account when the blog deletion happened I don't see how the reporter could have done his research on the nature of the blog to such detail without the NYT reporter's material.

zozbot234 6y ago
It's not that hard to do research wrt. the blog if you're a dedicated person; many people have made archives available.
zucker42 6y ago
The problems with the article that I perceive: 1. It makes claims about the SSC readership and the rationalist community intended to invoke an emotional response with little verifiable evidence. > This plea conformed with the online persona he has publicly cultivated over the years—that of a gentle headmaster preparing to chaperone a rambunctious group of boys on a museum outing 2. It's overly general in how it addresses people involved; it tends to conflate very different people connected by little more than their professed belief in using evidence to make decisions and examining their preconceptions. Using a rationalist psychologist as representative of "Silicon Valley" is evidence of this point. I may be influenced by the fact the fact that I have a good friend who is an avowed rationalist and I don't believe the broad strokes generalizations in the article represented him. Also, it fails to grasp what I perceive as the main reason for Alexander's blog takedown, which I think is merely a game theory influenced attempt to prevent the NYT from printing his name, rather than anything more grand.

fewaw2322 6y ago

Your comment makes no sense. The companies that are upending old media, Facebook and Google, also have an ads-driven model. Youtube is ads-driven. Even Spotify runs ads if you aren't a subscriber. And Joe Rogan has sponsors.

causalmodels 6y ago
I believe what they were referring to was the death of news subscription model
- malandrew 6y ago
  The debate I had with someone at work is that these days I can only ascribe legitimacy to an individual that have demonstrated that they are acting in good faith and being intellectually honest. The keyword here is individual. The NYTimes and most subscription news media publishes content by many individuals of varying quality. In the past, this model had value and individuals like A.M. Rosenthal made a point of carefully curating the individuals that were hired to publish in the NY Times. It's become increasingly clear that as news organizations have faced declining revenue, they've begun to compromise on this curation. The fallout from this starts small and people continue to consider content from the NY Times to have some mark of quality, but eventually it will reach the point where those with integrity will realize that the tools for them to go it alone are out there and they are better off not associating with the individuals the NY Times has hired that do not meeting the historical bar for integrity it once had. It's not so much that subscription news is dying at the hands of new sources of information, but that it is committing reputational suicide in response to disruptive innovation that allows individuals with integrity to stand on their own.