5 ms·

OK so this is essentially a self-written news story that was manipulated to make it feel-good. That's bad. Also, now that I know I'm manipulated, I'm skeptica

OK so this is essentially a self-written news story that was manipulated to make it feel-good. That's bad. Also, now that I know I'm manipulated, I'm skeptical that the changes will have the outcome that they want. It could but it's not good that you've told me you've manipulated me. That's also bad.

zitterbewegung 5y ago
Don’t worry you have joined the group. It is a right of passage on social networking and news sites. The next step is using what you have learned .
dqpb 5y ago
What do you mean by self-written?
- justinator 5y ago
  They're breaking a story that didn't actually happen - the article itself says that the boatride isn't the reason for the policy change, it just sounds nice and marketable. They also admitted that they got influential people ready to retweet the story - also a marketing move.
  - djrogers 5y ago
    The writer of the article is speculating when he says the boat ride was immaterial. He’s not the original author.
otterley 5y ago
If the solution proves effective, will you change your mind, or will you simply remain forever outraged that you didn't like how the story was told?
- justinator 5y ago
  Well, we can talk about dropping atomic bombs on Japan during WWII if you want. The discussion isn't going to be a very simple one.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Wait, what? You want to compare the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians during wartime to a story about temporarily allowing containers to be stacked a little higher?
    - justinator 5y ago
      It's a classic example of, "do the means justify the ends?" - that's what you were asking. It's a slippery slope from "make a cute story on changing container storage policy" to something more nefarious. So think: how many times have you've been manipulated like this? Are you OK with it? Where do you draw the line?
      - otterley 5y ago
        I think we all have much bigger problems to spend our time obsessing over. Besides, slippery-slope arguments are weak because predictions based on precipitating events rarely pan out to see our worst fears realized. As an extreme example, one could get wrapped around the axle fearing that a child squashing an ant in the garden could end up being the next Hitler.
        justinator 5y ago
        > I think we all have much bigger problems to spend our time obsessing over. You can hold more than one thought at a time. Media manipulation is a thing, and here's an example of it - they must have thought it's not a big deal, since they're so callous of showing the man behind the curtain. If you don't find it a problem, speak for yourself. There's many, many stories of how Facebook manipulated during the US election cycle. Also not worth thinking about?
yunohn 5y ago
While you could argue that Flexport did this for their own benefit, I think the outcome is still incredibly useful to the general public. Further, nobody is faking the quick turnaround in removing the rule - that actually happened.
Invictus0 5y ago
The fact that a story is written in a way that is easy for humans to understand and share is not "manipulative", it's just good communication.

zitterbewegung 5y ago

Don’t worry you have joined the group. It is a right of passage on social networking and news sites. The next step is using what you have learned .

dqpb 5y ago

What do you mean by self-written?

justinator 5y ago
They're breaking a story that didn't actually happen - the article itself says that the boatride isn't the reason for the policy change, it just sounds nice and marketable. They also admitted that they got influential people ready to retweet the story - also a marketing move.
- djrogers 5y ago
  The writer of the article is speculating when he says the boat ride was immaterial. He’s not the original author.

otterley 5y ago

If the solution proves effective, will you change your mind, or will you simply remain forever outraged that you didn't like how the story was told?

justinator 5y ago
Well, we can talk about dropping atomic bombs on Japan during WWII if you want. The discussion isn't going to be a very simple one.
- otterley 5y ago
  Wait, what? You want to compare the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians during wartime to a story about temporarily allowing containers to be stacked a little higher?
  - justinator 5y ago
    It's a classic example of, "do the means justify the ends?" - that's what you were asking. It's a slippery slope from "make a cute story on changing container storage policy" to something more nefarious. So think: how many times have you've been manipulated like this? Are you OK with it? Where do you draw the line?
    - otterley 5y ago
      I think we all have much bigger problems to spend our time obsessing over. Besides, slippery-slope arguments are weak because predictions based on precipitating events rarely pan out to see our worst fears realized. As an extreme example, one could get wrapped around the axle fearing that a child squashing an ant in the garden could end up being the next Hitler.
      - justinator 5y ago
        > I think we all have much bigger problems to spend our time obsessing over. You can hold more than one thought at a time. Media manipulation is a thing, and here's an example of it - they must have thought it's not a big deal, since they're so callous of showing the man behind the curtain. If you don't find it a problem, speak for yourself. There's many, many stories of how Facebook manipulated during the US election cycle. Also not worth thinking about?

yunohn 5y ago

While you could argue that Flexport did this for their own benefit, I think the outcome is still incredibly useful to the general public. Further, nobody is faking the quick turnaround in removing the rule - that actually happened.

Invictus0 5y ago

The fact that a story is written in a way that is easy for humans to understand and share is not "manipulative", it's just good communication.