4 ms·

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF and its Executive Board.

by nabla9 5y ago

HWR_14 5y ago
This is the standard misattribution that comes up all the time in bad faith, especially online. "[Organization] published X, therefore that's what they believe." No, the IMF/NYT/News channel (or whoever) publishes opinion pieces all the time without agreeing with them.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  You are not incorrect. That said, to use your words, organization X does not publish Y without certain level of support for Y within X.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    You seem unaware that there are many opinion or whatever sections within organizations that are designed to publish things they consider provocative and of sufficient quality (and possibly by people in sufficient power to make their opinions into fact). And excellent example is the NYT regularly publishes opinion pieces from politicians all around the political spectrum. In other cases (CNN's Crossfire was a very bad example of this idea) the same organization tries to publish both Y and !Y often side by side to present a fuller view.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      I disagree. I would welcome you to search for any number of truly provocative topics and you will see a chasm bordering. It is rarely a question of 'sufficient quality' as such is in the eye of the beholder. The issue is that of whether it can garner maximum amount of eyes with a minimum amount of real scrutiny. What you might think is provocative, I see simply as topics that are designed to induce 'engagement'. While the two overlap, those are not the same thing. In the end, editors have to decide whether it goes in. There needs to be a sufficient 'will' to make it happen. My point stands. There needs to be an internal support for any opinion pieces ( since that is the counter example you went with ).
inglor_cz 5y ago
I consider such articles to be "test balloons" for ideas. If they encounter too much resistance, there is plausible deniability. If no, the idea creeps forward to a more formal setting.
- mindslight 5y ago
  I for one am thankful they're putting these pieces out. What they're describing is a straightforward result as the traditional surveillance industry (eg Equifax) merges with the nouveau surveillance industry (eg Google). We've had two decades of people ceding their computing autonomy to centralizing webapps, with critiques being dismissed as conspiratorial thinking. Despite growing up on scifi, most people in the tech industry seemingly need things to be written down to make the conclusion inescapable - this is always how "Web 2.0" was going to end up.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF and its Executive Board.

by nabla9 5y ago

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF and its Executive Board.

HWR_14 5y ago

This is the standard misattribution that comes up all the time in bad faith, especially online. "[Organization] published X, therefore that's what they believe." No, the IMF/NYT/News channel (or whoever) publishes opinion pieces all the time without agreeing with them.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
You are not incorrect. That said, to use your words, organization X does not publish Y without certain level of support for Y within X.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  You seem unaware that there are many opinion or whatever sections within organizations that are designed to publish things they consider provocative and of sufficient quality (and possibly by people in sufficient power to make their opinions into fact). And excellent example is the NYT regularly publishes opinion pieces from politicians all around the political spectrum. In other cases (CNN's Crossfire was a very bad example of this idea) the same organization tries to publish both Y and !Y often side by side to present a fuller view.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    I disagree. I would welcome you to search for any number of truly provocative topics and you will see a chasm bordering. It is rarely a question of 'sufficient quality' as such is in the eye of the beholder. The issue is that of whether it can garner maximum amount of eyes with a minimum amount of real scrutiny. What you might think is provocative, I see simply as topics that are designed to induce 'engagement'. While the two overlap, those are not the same thing. In the end, editors have to decide whether it goes in. There needs to be a sufficient 'will' to make it happen. My point stands. There needs to be an internal support for any opinion pieces ( since that is the counter example you went with ).

inglor_cz 5y ago

I consider such articles to be "test balloons" for ideas. If they encounter too much resistance, there is plausible deniability. If no, the idea creeps forward to a more formal setting.

mindslight 5y ago
I for one am thankful they're putting these pieces out. What they're describing is a straightforward result as the traditional surveillance industry (eg Equifax) merges with the nouveau surveillance industry (eg Google). We've had two decades of people ceding their computing autonomy to centralizing webapps, with critiques being dismissed as conspiratorial thinking. Despite growing up on scifi, most people in the tech industry seemingly need things to be written down to make the conclusion inescapable - this is always how "Web 2.0" was going to end up.