4 ms·
... journalism that talks to multiple people instead of relying on a single public case?
by detaro 5y ago
... journalism that talks to multiple people instead of relying on a single public case?
- yessirwhatever 5y agoThe "multiple people" are two, only one being with enough details in public. This does not justify a title such as "Stripe applicants say ...". I'm all for accountability and messing with keeping big tech under constant skepticism and check, but this smells like a coordinated hit piece. I wonder what's going on or who's pissed off at stripe and trying to show it.
- the-dude 5y ago> This does not justify a title such as "Stripe applicants say ...". So what is the number that would justify that title? I'd wager you would disagree with 3 as well. So how many does it take according to you?
- yessirwhatever 5y agoIt's a bad and clickbaity phrasing. Instead of asking how many it takes to say "Stripe applicants etc..", you can instead just write the truth: "Two stripe applicants..." for example, a little more and you say "few", and so on... Actual words can be used to avoid misconceptions. But prevarication and omitting facts is not good for clickbaiting people though.
- ziddoap 5y ago>But prevarication Sort of ironic, given your evasive maneuvering around the question posed by the other commenter. >omitting facts I might have missed it, but which facts were ommitted?
- the-dude 5y ago> Actual words can be used to avoid misconceptions Yes, this is why I asked you how many it would take. But you are avoiding answering this question of definition. Apparently for you it is 'not two'. So how many would it take?
- WesolyKubeczek 5y agoI dare say that even two are two too many.
- yessirwhatever 5y agoThat's a non sequitur. No one is arguing that 2 is little or ok. Just tell the truth in the title and don't click bait people.