4 ms·

I can’t believe this was overlooked by a prestigious publication.

izacus 6y ago
Honestly, I find NYTs privacy articles to be full of errors and deliberate omissions to drive the agenda. It's seriously made me question about their reputation.
- finiteseries 6y ago
  I’m still in a state of outrage/shock over their article on the “far right” joining telegram in the millions in the aftermath of the capitol riots. There I was, a week or two removed from helping my roommate move his gigantic Nigerian family group chat away from WhatsApp when [0] pops up in my HN feed. They actually implied most of those millions of new Telegram users, 94% of which weren’t even in North America, were motivated entirely by the capitol riots. Completely omitting the fact the WhatsApp -> FB data sharing message was sent to every single user in the world on that very same day, January 6th. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-app-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-app...
- JadeNB 6y ago
  I think the same is true of just about any non-specialist reporting organisation. Find the reporting they do on a subject on which you're an expert, and see how much they get wrong. Don't write them off for it—everybody gets stuff wrong—but read the stories on the material about which you're not expert with the same skepticism.
- HWR_14 6y ago
  It's far more likely that the errors are because the editors are non-technical and they seem to have one primary author. It could reflect his bias or his ignorance.
dtx1 6y ago
Doesn't surprise me at all. The reality is that journalists are just that, journalists. They rarely have any relevant expertise about what they write. Coupled with strict limits on content size enforced by publishers and an audience that often understands even less about the topics discussed you get major errors like these. The amount of text necessary to explain to the average NYT reader what a rendering engine is probably more then the allotted text size for this piece of pseudo-intellectual garbage. Should make you worry about everything else journalists write with the same lack of care and understanding of details. This is why podcasts and longform youtube content form actual experts is thriving while traditional media is dying. They have optimized so much for short attention span, clickbaity and inflammatory content that they have lost all resemblance of quality and expertise. In short, for any given topic, if the explanation is less than an hour long discussion piece, it's almost guaranteed to be simplified to the point of being wrong and useless.
- spookybones 6y ago
  I read the comment you’re replying to as being sarcastic, but good points nonetheless.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "The amount of text necessary to explain to the average NYT reader what a rendering engine is probably more then the allotted text size..." it's not that hard to summarize: a rendering engine transforms html into pixels on the screen. most people will have at least a vague idea of what html and pixels are. there's no further need to dive into the details where that description is less than 100% accurate (e.g., sreen readers). that's to say, the reporting is just lazy and uninformed. no need to bail them out with a technical excuse.
  - dtx1 6y ago
    > most people will have at least a vague idea what html and pixels are. there's no further need to dive into the details where that description is less than 100% accurate (e.g., sreen readers). I doubt very much the average person on the street has a clear idea what a pixel is, let alone what HTML is. And even your description is so incomplete it's wrong since the safari engine also includes JavaScript execution, media rendering etc. on safari, proving my point: if you try to simplify it for the average reader, your description ends up wrong
buzzert 6y ago
Hard to believe anyone still thinks of the NYT as “prestigious” these days.

Honestly, I find NYTs privacy articles to be full of errors and deliberate omissions to drive the agenda. It's seriously made me question about their reputation.

finiteseries 6y ago
I’m still in a state of outrage/shock over their article on the “far right” joining telegram in the millions in the aftermath of the capitol riots. There I was, a week or two removed from helping my roommate move his gigantic Nigerian family group chat away from WhatsApp when [0] pops up in my HN feed. They actually implied most of those millions of new Telegram users, 94% of which weren’t even in North America, were motivated entirely by the capitol riots. Completely omitting the fact the WhatsApp -> FB data sharing message was sent to every single user in the world on that very same day, January 6th. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-app-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/world/europe/telegram-app...
JadeNB 6y ago
I think the same is true of just about any non-specialist reporting organisation. Find the reporting they do on a subject on which you're an expert, and see how much they get wrong. Don't write them off for it—everybody gets stuff wrong—but read the stories on the material about which you're not expert with the same skepticism.
HWR_14 6y ago
It's far more likely that the errors are because the editors are non-technical and they seem to have one primary author. It could reflect his bias or his ignorance.

dtx1 6y ago

Doesn't surprise me at all. The reality is that journalists are just that, journalists. They rarely have any relevant expertise about what they write. Coupled with strict limits on content size enforced by publishers and an audience that often understands even less about the topics discussed you get major errors like these. The amount of text necessary to explain to the average NYT reader what a rendering engine is probably more then the allotted text size for this piece of pseudo-intellectual garbage. Should make you worry about everything else journalists write with the same lack of care and understanding of details. This is why podcasts and longform youtube content form actual experts is thriving while traditional media is dying. They have optimized so much for short attention span, clickbaity and inflammatory content that they have lost all resemblance of quality and expertise. In short, for any given topic, if the explanation is less than an hour long discussion piece, it's almost guaranteed to be simplified to the point of being wrong and useless.

spookybones 6y ago
I read the comment you’re replying to as being sarcastic, but good points nonetheless.
clairity 6y ago
> "The amount of text necessary to explain to the average NYT reader what a rendering engine is probably more then the allotted text size..." it's not that hard to summarize: a rendering engine transforms html into pixels on the screen. most people will have at least a vague idea of what html and pixels are. there's no further need to dive into the details where that description is less than 100% accurate (e.g., sreen readers). that's to say, the reporting is just lazy and uninformed. no need to bail them out with a technical excuse.
- dtx1 6y ago
  > most people will have at least a vague idea what html and pixels are. there's no further need to dive into the details where that description is less than 100% accurate (e.g., sreen readers). I doubt very much the average person on the street has a clear idea what a pixel is, let alone what HTML is. And even your description is so incomplete it's wrong since the safari engine also includes JavaScript execution, media rendering etc. on safari, proving my point: if you try to simplify it for the average reader, your description ends up wrong

buzzert 6y ago

Hard to believe anyone still thinks of the NYT as “prestigious” these days.