3 ms·

#1 NYT's own privacy policy is irrelevant in context. Google's privacy policy affects most of the internet, aka, most of the world. The NYT's privacy policy aff

#1 NYT's own privacy policy is irrelevant in context. Google's privacy policy affects most of the internet, aka, most of the world. The NYT's privacy policy affects the significantly smaller (and comparatively insignificant) number of people who read the NYT on its website. #3 The adjustments (aka corrections) were not silent. They announced them, and the big corrections even got their own NYT articles, see e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the.... #4 NYT published the identities of Slate Star Codex because it was newsworthy. The identities of the Chapo House Guys was not, because they were, and this part is crucial: open about their identities. Both of these blogs spread ideological filth, but the CHG didn't cower behind anonymity to do it like the SSC guy did. #5 This is not submarine propaganda. CP exists on the dark web, and in fact the use of the dark web to spread CP is why so many Tor nodes chose to shut down. (This is also unrelated to putting mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging, which the NYT...opposes...) #6 The federal government lied about the weapons...not the NYT...And WMDs did exist. Iraq still had a very large stockpile of chemical weapons when we invaded (during Bush II). They simply were intended for use against the local population, not the U.S. (See a non-NYT source: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/ https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-m...)

rrdharan 6y ago
For 3. the louder correction came after they were called out for earlier silent edits: https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo... (Side note I don’t really trust Quillette either but I do believe this sequence of events is what unfolded)
- gamblor956 6y ago
  The NYT article linked to is from March, and predates your link by 6 months. All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made, though as smaller changes didn't get their own frontpage articles. As the 1619 project was itself described as an "ongoing" project it's bizarre and unusual for people to complain about it being corrected. That's the writing process: draft, and re-draft as necessary based on feedback re grammar, language, factual errors, etc. In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. If you want archival copies of the incorrect versions, you can access those through other means, such as through databases like Lexis Nexis or through hard copies of the paper.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    > All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made The changes to the framing of the project were not announced. The only way that anyone noticed them is that the lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones (NHJ), started claiming that conservatives were misrepresenting the project. She specifically said that the project did not claim 1619 as America's true founding date. People then went back and found all of NHJ's tweets explicitly stating that this was the purpose of the project (NHJ deleted her entire Twitter history shortly thereafter). When people went to look at the 1619 Project website, however, they noticed that the intro paragraphs that explicitly stated that 1619 is America's true founding had been edited to no longer state that. > In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. The claim about 1619 being America's true founding was the central claim of the project, the thing that it had heavily publicized and used to gain attention. The NY Times spent months defending the project and attacking critics, only to edit out the central claim of the project without so much as a notice. The lead author then started going around denying that the project had ever made the claim, and calling the whole idea a conservative conspiracy theory. Whatever problems the NY Times has had, this is not how people expect the newspaper of record to behave. If this were The Daily Beast, then it wouldn't be that surprising, but its the NY Times, the Gray Lady
rrdharan 6y ago
For 4. I haven’t seen any evidence that Virgil Texas is open about his real identity. Certainly seems harder to assess than Scott Alexander, at this point. What am I missing? https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275405171577806850?s=20 https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275405171577806850?s=20

rrdharan 6y ago

For 3. the louder correction came after they were called out for earlier silent edits: https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo... (Side note I don’t really trust Quillette either but I do believe this sequence of events is what unfolded)

gamblor956 6y ago
The NYT article linked to is from March, and predates your link by 6 months. All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made, though as smaller changes didn't get their own frontpage articles. As the 1619 project was itself described as an "ongoing" project it's bizarre and unusual for people to complain about it being corrected. That's the writing process: draft, and re-draft as necessary based on feedback re grammar, language, factual errors, etc. In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. If you want archival copies of the incorrect versions, you can access those through other means, such as through databases like Lexis Nexis or through hard copies of the paper.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made The changes to the framing of the project were not announced. The only way that anyone noticed them is that the lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones (NHJ), started claiming that conservatives were misrepresenting the project. She specifically said that the project did not claim 1619 as America's true founding date. People then went back and found all of NHJ's tweets explicitly stating that this was the purpose of the project (NHJ deleted her entire Twitter history shortly thereafter). When people went to look at the 1619 Project website, however, they noticed that the intro paragraphs that explicitly stated that 1619 is America's true founding had been edited to no longer state that. > In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. The claim about 1619 being America's true founding was the central claim of the project, the thing that it had heavily publicized and used to gain attention. The NY Times spent months defending the project and attacking critics, only to edit out the central claim of the project without so much as a notice. The lead author then started going around denying that the project had ever made the claim, and calling the whole idea a conservative conspiracy theory. Whatever problems the NY Times has had, this is not how people expect the newspaper of record to behave. If this were The Daily Beast, then it wouldn't be that surprising, but its the NY Times, the Gray Lady

rrdharan 6y ago

For 4. I haven’t seen any evidence that Virgil Texas is open about his real identity. Certainly seems harder to assess than Scott Alexander, at this point. What am I missing? https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275405171577806850?s=20 https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275405171577806850?s=20