33 ms·

It's fine to analyze Inc's reporting with a skeptical eye, but did it strike you at all that you're essentially doing the same thing you're accusing Inc of doin

It's fine to analyze Inc's reporting with a skeptical eye, but did it strike you at all that you're essentially doing the same thing you're accusing Inc of doing (taking information at face value without digging too deep), but with the parent's comment? Parent's comment is not fully correct, yet you are taking it at face value and not looking "too deep underneath the carpet", and in some ways are "pick[ing] up someone else's lie and expand[ing] on it without bothering the verify the fundamental thesis". The fact of the matter is that the Amazon HMs who decide on firing often are the same people who decide on hiring. Amazon may desire for that not to be true, but in practice, it is. And GP's comment doesn't actually provide any evidence against that. I've added more context here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27371455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27371455, but the gist is that Bar Raisers are supposed to be an independent hiring evaluator, but IME they often just serve as meeting facilitators that will just back up whatever decision the HM makes, which makes the HM the ultimate decider.

aerosmile 5y ago
I am glad you bring this up. If I am wrong, people can downvote me and my voice will lose visibility (quite literally - the comment will get grayed out and will drop to the bottom of the page). What happens if the reporter is wrong? Assuming they don't spread their lies knowingly, legally they will be in safe territory. And they will still cash in on all the controversy they create with their fake reporting. So my view on this specific topic may or may not be right, but my claim that the journalism landscape is out of balance should stand regardless.
- tyuqfromhere 5y ago
  Is that how you would feel if "we were talking about your favorite high school teacher who just had their career destroyed because some dude needed to get a few extra [upvotes on HN]"? Saying "my statement may or may not be right, I'll let the general public decide" is lazy and shirking responsibility. If you have reason to believe that your statements are wrong, you should retract those statements or at least put a disclaimer on them. I think that's the bar you would hold Inc to, and you should hold yourself to it as well.
  - aerosmile 5y ago
    You created this account an hour ago, so perhaps you don't have the full context here. Amazon has so much emotional baggage associated with it, that it would be hard to present an argument which is factually accurate but indirectly shows support for Amazon. Therefore, taking the argument out of the Amazon context helps with discussing the accuracy of the underlying facts.
  - aerosmile 5y ago
    I might have misinterpreted what you actually wanted to ask. If your question is if I stand by my comments, the answer is 100% yes. The Inc journalist did a lazy job of presenting facts [1], and my suspicion is that this is not by coincidence - as a journalist, you either do a stellar job of researching every last bit of a story, or you do the opposite - close an eye and report as vaguely as possible, mostly citing external sources but somehow making the story sound original so you get some credit as well. Both are safe approaches; the space in between is dangerous - you can't take someone else's shitty reporting and then check if it's true before publishing - that's how you get sued for libel. Fun fact: if you prepend "in my opinion, ..." you're 100% safe from any libel risk. If we consider additional evidence that came to light through the BI article, I am still aligned with mabbo's view - the Amazon management seems to have taken a conscious step against the hire-to-fire scenario by separating the ownership of hiring and firing. [1] Note: this topic originally linked to an Inc article
    - tyuqfromthere 5y ago
      >The Inc journalist did a lazy job of presenting facts And so are you. As has been pointed out multiple times, the assertions made about BRs and HMs in this thread are flat out incorrect, and yet you are continuing to rely on them and even go as far as to tout them in other comments in other threads as well. >close an eye and report as vaguely as possible, mostly citing external sources but somehow making the story sound original so you get some credit as well This is exactly what you are doing throughout this thread by repeating the notion that Amazon "separat[es] the ownership of hiring and firing", which if you were willing to do any amount of research rather than just blindly trusting a random internet comment, you would find just isn't true. You are holding yourself to a different bar than Inc, which is hypocritical. The point about removing Amazon emotional context here also applies to Inc, because it's clear you personally have a lot of emotional baggage related to journalists. So the question is: would you post these same disparaging comments, and still maintain the same "my statement may be incorrect but I will continue to repeat it anyway" if it was your favorite high school teacher you were disparaging, potentially ruining their career? I would certainly hope not, so I don't see any reason other than arrogance of why you would do so here.

aerosmile 5y ago

I am glad you bring this up. If I am wrong, people can downvote me and my voice will lose visibility (quite literally - the comment will get grayed out and will drop to the bottom of the page). What happens if the reporter is wrong? Assuming they don't spread their lies knowingly, legally they will be in safe territory. And they will still cash in on all the controversy they create with their fake reporting. So my view on this specific topic may or may not be right, but my claim that the journalism landscape is out of balance should stand regardless.

tyuqfromhere 5y ago
Is that how you would feel if "we were talking about your favorite high school teacher who just had their career destroyed because some dude needed to get a few extra [upvotes on HN]"? Saying "my statement may or may not be right, I'll let the general public decide" is lazy and shirking responsibility. If you have reason to believe that your statements are wrong, you should retract those statements or at least put a disclaimer on them. I think that's the bar you would hold Inc to, and you should hold yourself to it as well.
- aerosmile 5y ago
  You created this account an hour ago, so perhaps you don't have the full context here. Amazon has so much emotional baggage associated with it, that it would be hard to present an argument which is factually accurate but indirectly shows support for Amazon. Therefore, taking the argument out of the Amazon context helps with discussing the accuracy of the underlying facts.
- aerosmile 5y ago
  I might have misinterpreted what you actually wanted to ask. If your question is if I stand by my comments, the answer is 100% yes. The Inc journalist did a lazy job of presenting facts [1], and my suspicion is that this is not by coincidence - as a journalist, you either do a stellar job of researching every last bit of a story, or you do the opposite - close an eye and report as vaguely as possible, mostly citing external sources but somehow making the story sound original so you get some credit as well. Both are safe approaches; the space in between is dangerous - you can't take someone else's shitty reporting and then check if it's true before publishing - that's how you get sued for libel. Fun fact: if you prepend "in my opinion, ..." you're 100% safe from any libel risk. If we consider additional evidence that came to light through the BI article, I am still aligned with mabbo's view - the Amazon management seems to have taken a conscious step against the hire-to-fire scenario by separating the ownership of hiring and firing. [1] Note: this topic originally linked to an Inc article
  - tyuqfromthere 5y ago
    >The Inc journalist did a lazy job of presenting facts And so are you. As has been pointed out multiple times, the assertions made about BRs and HMs in this thread are flat out incorrect, and yet you are continuing to rely on them and even go as far as to tout them in other comments in other threads as well. >close an eye and report as vaguely as possible, mostly citing external sources but somehow making the story sound original so you get some credit as well This is exactly what you are doing throughout this thread by repeating the notion that Amazon "separat[es] the ownership of hiring and firing", which if you were willing to do any amount of research rather than just blindly trusting a random internet comment, you would find just isn't true. You are holding yourself to a different bar than Inc, which is hypocritical. The point about removing Amazon emotional context here also applies to Inc, because it's clear you personally have a lot of emotional baggage related to journalists. So the question is: would you post these same disparaging comments, and still maintain the same "my statement may be incorrect but I will continue to repeat it anyway" if it was your favorite high school teacher you were disparaging, potentially ruining their career? I would certainly hope not, so I don't see any reason other than arrogance of why you would do so here.