10 ms·

He has absolutely always been like this. His rambling screeds used to be posted to reddit pretty constantly long before he published Snowden. This NYT reporter

• 93po 6y ago
  There's a difference between making a mistake and not having journalistic integrity
  • tootie 6y ago
    Yeah, and I'm pretty sure this was squarely a mistake. I'm not sure you can even assign journalistic quality controls to a personal twitter.
    • throwaway894345 6y ago
      It's hard to trust a reporter when they behave abhorrently on Twitter, especially when their Twitter persona is based on their occupation as a journalist.
      • tootie 6y ago
        I don't see how this rates as abhorrent.
        • throwaway894345 6y ago
          I thought it sufficed to say that overt defamation is abhorrent, at least when one is a journalist at the newspaper of record.
          • tootie 6y ago
            Defamation implies intent.
            • throwaway894345 6y ago
              I find it impossible to believe that it's a simple coincidence that a professional journalist mistakenly accused Andreesen of using a slur (couldn't be bothered to do the most basic fact checking?) to her 200K followers after she ranted on Twitter for months about him blocking her. I think you're missing a lot of context with respect to her behavior on Twitter prior to her making her account private.
• kansface 6y ago
  A NYT reporter posted an ostensibly private conversation of absolutely no newsworthy value for the sole purpose of ruining some peoples' lifes, got the facts completely wrong, posted a non-apology, and then played the victim. At best, this is bad tabloid journalism. > And here he is calling the situation "Stasi-like". He is calling it stasi like because people routinely get blacklisted when this happens to them - they lose their job, their friends, and become unemployable. In fact, blacklisting is the exact point of this behavior!
  • tootie 6y ago
    Doesn't seem the conversation was private at all. Nor did the Stasi traffic in ruining reputations for perceived bad behavior. They arrested political dissenters by the thousands. Andreesen is a billionaire who would, at worst, have to apologize on twitter and continue his life of total freedom. Did anyone consider Donald Sterling to be a victim?
    • throwaway894345 6y ago
      The "Stasi-like" remark was "Stasi-like citizen surveillance". The latter was conveniently omitted upthread. No one is arguing that this is Stasi-like in that the outcome was arrest. > They arrested political dissenters by the thousands. Andreesen is a billionaire who would, at worst, have to apologize on twitter and continue his life of total freedom. These kinds of arguments would crop up in the cancel culture debates, and the same rebuttal applies: that a billionaire is able to survive some particular injustice doesn't lessen the injustice. Notably, the overwhelming majority of people who are cancelled are not famous billionaires (and thus you don't hear about them and there is probably no outcry to right the wrong, although there are exceptions).
      • tootie 6y ago
        Come on. You don't use a loaded phrase like "Stasi-like" unless you're implying something nefarious. It seems monumentally hypocritical for a guy who's entire career is based on having access to other people's private communications. Lorenz's beat is heavily based on following social media trends including stuff like wallstreetbets which was the topic of the clubhouse chat. Greenwald is ascribing a lot of intent that he can't back up.
• CivBase 6y ago
  "Stasi-like" is an extremely hyperbolic way to describe the situation. However, I think "big mistake, but she owned it" is far too forgiving a response. She is a NYT reporter - a profession which trades on trust - and clearly uses her Twitter profile as an extension of her profession. She used that platform to make a false accusation regarding a member of an event of little-to-no public interest using details taken entirely out of context. That speaks volumes about her intent. Instead of retracting it, she posted a "clarification" and in the same post continued to grandstand about how the imagined infraction was wrong and talk down to the accused. A post where she "owned it" would look something like this: "Earlier I said ___. I have since discovered that I was incorrect. What actually happened was ___. I'm sorry for my mistake and I will make an effort to do better going forward." What actually happened was worlds apart.
  • throwaway894345 6y ago
    Additionally, this is perhaps the most overt or high-profile example of her untrustworthiness, but there's a long tail of slightly subtler and lower-profile incidents that undoubtedly factored into her termination. It's not like this was a one-off, out-of-character incident.
    • tootie 6y ago
      Not sure what you're talking about, but she hasn't been terminated. She just made her twitter private because she was getting harangued.
      • throwaway894345 6y ago
        You're right; my mistake. I confused the outcome of her situation with Wolfe's, although I find Wolfe's offense utterly harmless by comparison.
• throwaway894345 6y ago
  > And here he is calling the situation "Stasi-like". The original quote was "Stasi-like citizen-surveillance", which is important additional context. It's "Stasi-like" in that he's remarking on an industry of people who are policing the speech of their fellow citizens for ideological transgressions. Of course you can dispute this characterization, but let's be clear about what is actually up for dispute.
• thesteamboat 6y ago
  > Big mistake, but she owned it. Just a tonal note. Saying 'Big mistake' implies to me that it's meant sarcastically in the sense of 'Big deal' or 'Big whoop', which I gather from the rest of your sentence is not what you intended. I would not have read it this way from the phrase 'A big mistake, but she owned it.'