7 ms·

While I read SSC and agree that this article is lacking to say the least I think NYT has every right to publish it. Rationalist movements, other areas for thoug

by syoc 6y ago

While I read SSC and agree that this article is lacking to say the least I think NYT has every right to publish it. Rationalist movements, other areas for though and discussion, I welcome main stream media to talk even more about it. Maybe they will see that there is a huge opportunity on the table. I do however not, in any way, hope that "big tech" buries a news house. Even for a, not very good written and mean spirited, article. Especially one trying to bring public light on where a lot of very influential people get a lot of their ideological beliefs from. That would be a horrible precedent.

djohnston 6y ago
To be clear, I didn't mean bury in a reactionary way to this piece, or do anything to actively inhibit NYT's ability to publish what they want. I meant provide alternative means to publish/access information that strip these news houses of their power, as they are just as full of it as anyone else.
raverbashing 6y ago
I think that if you're not a public figure and/or have a reason to not be anonymous (accused of a crime, etc) then you should be allowed to remain anonymous. The NYT publishing threat was gratuitous
paganel 6y ago
> I do however not, in any way, hope that "big tech" buries a news house. I'm by no way a fan of big tech but NYT has diverged quite sensibly from being a "news house" in the last few years.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  NYT hasn't changed but the extreme amplification of any mistakes that organization makes definitely has. If you compare NYT to clown shows like Breitbart or Fox News it is extremely well run. I'm not a fan of NYT in many cases but the extreme propaganda against it these days makes me ask, in who's interest is it to destroy another one of our established institutions?
  - js2 6y ago
    The NYT is a mess and it's gotten worse since it laid off a bunch of its editors and notably got rid of its public editor. I see it today as a bunch of independent contractors loosely publishing under the same banner. Article quality varies heavily depending upon author. News pieces are increasingly opinionated. I've been a reader for over a decade and have probably cancelled and renewed my subscription a dozen times. This NYT has never been perfect: I'm still sore how uncritical it was over the Iraq War. But my memory is that its voice and quality used to be a lot more consistent. Note: I am addressing only the news part of the org. The opinion section is a whole other ball of wax, but they bleed into each other.
rufus_foreman 6y ago
>> I do however not, in any way, hope that "big tech" buries a news house The claim that the NYT is a news house is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Can you provide any?
tomgp 6y ago
Agree. It’s amazing how hostile people seem to get about unfavourable articles in the mainstream press. There’s legitimate public interest in this stuff and the problem here is not that the New York Times shouldn’t publish articles about the intellectual climate around Silicon Valley/ big tech/ VC ETC. but that they should do a better job of it. “Sucking at something is the first step towards being sort of good at something“. That said, The Times’s treatment of Alexander is pretty shabby, I don’t see how naming him substantively alters anything you might have to say about either his ideas or the ideas of those who move with him in “rationalist” circles. [edited to fix a typo]

by syoc 6y ago

djohnston 6y ago

To be clear, I didn't mean bury in a reactionary way to this piece, or do anything to actively inhibit NYT's ability to publish what they want. I meant provide alternative means to publish/access information that strip these news houses of their power, as they are just as full of it as anyone else.

raverbashing 6y ago

I think that if you're not a public figure and/or have a reason to not be anonymous (accused of a crime, etc) then you should be allowed to remain anonymous. The NYT publishing threat was gratuitous

paganel 6y ago

> I do however not, in any way, hope that "big tech" buries a news house. I'm by no way a fan of big tech but NYT has diverged quite sensibly from being a "news house" in the last few years.

bosswipe 6y ago
NYT hasn't changed but the extreme amplification of any mistakes that organization makes definitely has. If you compare NYT to clown shows like Breitbart or Fox News it is extremely well run. I'm not a fan of NYT in many cases but the extreme propaganda against it these days makes me ask, in who's interest is it to destroy another one of our established institutions?
- js2 6y ago
  The NYT is a mess and it's gotten worse since it laid off a bunch of its editors and notably got rid of its public editor. I see it today as a bunch of independent contractors loosely publishing under the same banner. Article quality varies heavily depending upon author. News pieces are increasingly opinionated. I've been a reader for over a decade and have probably cancelled and renewed my subscription a dozen times. This NYT has never been perfect: I'm still sore how uncritical it was over the Iraq War. But my memory is that its voice and quality used to be a lot more consistent. Note: I am addressing only the news part of the org. The opinion section is a whole other ball of wax, but they bleed into each other.

rufus_foreman 6y ago

>> I do however not, in any way, hope that "big tech" buries a news house The claim that the NYT is a news house is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Can you provide any?

tomgp 6y ago

Agree. It’s amazing how hostile people seem to get about unfavourable articles in the mainstream press. There’s legitimate public interest in this stuff and the problem here is not that the New York Times shouldn’t publish articles about the intellectual climate around Silicon Valley/ big tech/ VC ETC. but that they should do a better job of it. “Sucking at something is the first step towards being sort of good at something“. That said, The Times’s treatment of Alexander is pretty shabby, I don’t see how naming him substantively alters anything you might have to say about either his ideas or the ideas of those who move with him in “rationalist” circles. [edited to fix a typo]