4 ms·

> So, an NYT reporter snooping on a Clubhouse conversation got her facts wrong (although she later corrected them), and the entire thing seemed relatively trivi

> So, an NYT reporter snooping on a Clubhouse conversation got her facts wrong (although she later corrected them), and the entire thing seemed relatively trivial to start with. And... this is exhibit A for the prosecution about how no one is doing real journalism anymore, they're just playing hall monitor. Or turning into the modern Stasi. Sure, those two things don't seem very similar, but we always forget how the SS started out as elementary school crossing guards, don't we. Taylor Lorenz is apparently so focused on Marc Andreesen blocking her on Clubhouse that she admitted (in another since-deleted tweet)[1] that she had created a "burner" account, a violation of Clubhouse rules ("We [Clubhouse] prohibit the creation of duplicate or multiple accounts by one individual, whether representing themselves or another entity")[2]. She has a long history of tweeting at Andreesen on Twitter about her block. An argument that she's simply a neutral reporter soberly seeking out "abuse" and "harassment" strains credibility (especially given that her behavior toward Andreesen on Twitter is actually harassment). How would you characterize an organization that sends its agents out to harass and stalk perceived enemies, trying to catch them in any act that can be portrayed as wrongdoing or wrongthink, and even going so far as to spread demonstrable lies about them? Stasi seems only mildly hyperbolic. [1] https://twitter.com/webdevMason/status/1358349374749769730 https://twitter.com/webdevMason/status/1358349374749769730 [2] https://www.notion.so/Community-Guidelines-461a6860abda41649e17c34dc1dd4b5f https://www.notion.so/Community-Guidelines-461a6860abda41649...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that Taylor Lorenz is overly focused on Andreessen blocking her on Clubhouse. (1) You leapt from "Taylor Lorenz did this" to "The New York Times sends out agents to harass and stalk perceived enemies"; those two things are not the same, and I suspect if we were talking about entities you had more positive feelings about, you wouldn't conflate the two. (This is not to say that what an NYT reporter does on their own time can't reflect on the Times, but that the NYT is not automatically responsible for it.) (2) "Going so far as to spread demonstrable lies about them" is... not how I would be comfortable describing what happened in this case. Again, Taylor Lorenz's Twitter account is not the same as a bylined article in the NYT, and you seem to be conflating them. Furthermore, there's no compelling evidence that her original accusation about Andreessen was made in bad faith. "She tried real hard to get into those private chats" may be a demonstration of nosiness, but not automatically one of ill intent. (3) "Stasi seems only mildly hyperbolic": Sorry, but I'm going to insist that comparing four decades of what's widely considered to be one of the most oppressive state security agencies that ever existed and a reporter falsely tweeting "Marc Andreessen called somebody a retard in a private chat" is more than mildly hyperbolic.
- dnissley 6y ago
  re: 3 -- Do you believe that her intent in tweeting that was simply to report a fact? Or do you think there might have been other motives given her demonstrated pattern of behavior?
- nate_meurer 6y ago
  > there's no compelling evidence that her original accusation about Andreessen was made in bad faith. Yes there is. According to others on the call, the word "retard" was uttered by a woman, and in a completely appropriate manner given the context. Taylor claimed Mr. Andreesen said it, and that he said it in a manner that warranted calling out. When her "mistake" was revealed, she responded not with an apology, but another lie to divert blame. Her claims had no apparent relation with reality, and her recent antagonism of Mr. Andreesen gives us no reason to assume this was all a big misunderstanding.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chipotle_coyote 6y ago

Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that Taylor Lorenz is overly focused on Andreessen blocking her on Clubhouse. (1) You leapt from "Taylor Lorenz did this" to "The New York Times sends out agents to harass and stalk perceived enemies"; those two things are not the same, and I suspect if we were talking about entities you had more positive feelings about, you wouldn't conflate the two. (This is not to say that what an NYT reporter does on their own time can't reflect on the Times, but that the NYT is not automatically responsible for it.) (2) "Going so far as to spread demonstrable lies about them" is... not how I would be comfortable describing what happened in this case. Again, Taylor Lorenz's Twitter account is not the same as a bylined article in the NYT, and you seem to be conflating them. Furthermore, there's no compelling evidence that her original accusation about Andreessen was made in bad faith. "She tried real hard to get into those private chats" may be a demonstration of nosiness, but not automatically one of ill intent. (3) "Stasi seems only mildly hyperbolic": Sorry, but I'm going to insist that comparing four decades of what's widely considered to be one of the most oppressive state security agencies that ever existed and a reporter falsely tweeting "Marc Andreessen called somebody a retard in a private chat" is more than mildly hyperbolic.

dnissley 6y ago
re: 3 -- Do you believe that her intent in tweeting that was simply to report a fact? Or do you think there might have been other motives given her demonstrated pattern of behavior?
nate_meurer 6y ago
> there's no compelling evidence that her original accusation about Andreessen was made in bad faith. Yes there is. According to others on the call, the word "retard" was uttered by a woman, and in a completely appropriate manner given the context. Taylor claimed Mr. Andreesen said it, and that he said it in a manner that warranted calling out. When her "mistake" was revealed, she responded not with an apology, but another lie to divert blame. Her claims had no apparent relation with reality, and her recent antagonism of Mr. Andreesen gives us no reason to assume this was all a big misunderstanding.