3 ms·
They did mention it. Did you read the article? From the article: > When reached on their new Twitter account, the top moderators said they wanted to strike a
by rwiggum 6y ago
They did mention it. Did you read the article? From the article:
> When reached on their new Twitter account, the top moderators said they wanted to strike a movie deal, but were planning to give any proceeds to charity.
“Them trying to make it look like we are cash grabbing is so dishonest,” the moderators wrote.
- jabberwcky 6y agoIn paragraph 27, after spending paragraphs 3-26 documenting the public reaction to a dramatic half-truth revealed in paragraph 2. This is called storytelling. You're likely aware article order is deeply important, but if not, consider reading https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/how-people-read-online-why-you-wont-finish-this-article.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/how-people-read-online-... . The bottom line is most visitors likely only read the half-truth.
- 52-6F-62 6y agoHaving worked with writers in these very fields, I can assure you they write with the intention that you read the entire article and anything but reading the entire article is an unintended incomplete communication. A protocol broken, if you will. Not a conspiracy to hide the truth. Them potentially maybe donating to charity is not the lede.
- jabberwcky 6y agoThat's perhaps unsurprising.. it certainly would be far from the first industry to suffer from institutional blindness to any inconvenient metric that might challenge a self-stated purpose
- 52-6F-62 6y agoYou could say that about anyone or anything at any time and to any end including wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. I don't think it's very constructive.