5 ms·

I don't believe it's only Google, and I don't think it's particularly secret.

rsj_hn 5y ago
Yes, that companies don't like unions and do what they can to discourage unionization isn't newsworthy. Finding a company that encourages unionization would be newsworthy!
- AndrewUnmuted 5y ago
  > companies don't like unions and do what they can to discourage unionization Are you sure? All of the big tech companies are entering one of the most union-entrenched industries in the US: media.
xhkkffbf 5y ago
Exactly. The NYT had some breathless story about this supposedly once secret fact. Yet their own management was pushing back hard on the Wirecutter union. If the management wanted to really confuse the line workers, they would celebrate the union with some reverse reverse psychology.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
The New York Times has had an anti-tech vendetta for a while now. Most likely, in my cynical worldview, because tech has hurt their subscription numbers immensely, not because they want to do the world a service. An example of this is when they published a whole story about a guy who became radicalized from YouTube... and then became unradicalized a few months later without doing anything radical. But someone could have stayed radicalized so Google needs to censor YouTube and hand back authority to the fact checkers and trusted news, which conveniently happens to be... The New York Times. Another example would be when The New York Times wrote a whole shock article about the shocking nature of dark patterns in technology and the irresponsibility and corruption of Big Tech for using them. Except that their own unsubscribe system is loaded with dark patterns that are even worse. Do I think that YouTube isn't partially responsible? Of course they have some responsibility, but The New York Times and other news sources are capitalizing on the situation for their own interests.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  I am by no means a NYT-liker but I don't think they're particularly anti-tech. We had been riding on a couple decades of public good will and consistent credulity and optimism from media and the public. Compared to that it probably does feel hostile. But it's just them being part of the general and widespread shift of more skepticism towards tech's promises and more awareness of its downsides.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    The public adores the big tech brands. It's less "riding on" and more just the fact that outside of folks in tech, people really really like these companies. They are well trusted, people have positive views of the people working there, and people believe that the companies are generally well run. Almost all brand surveys will have most of the top 5 be the tech companies you know and which HN loves to hate. That's not trending downward. It's trending upward. The upward trend indicates that it isn't "riding on" but simply being considered good because they are.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    I might agree, but consider my dark patterns example. The author of the article was super mad, lambasting tech companies left and right for dark patterns, called it a bunch of different synonyms of immoral, etc. His own paper, The New York Times, has a dark pattern system so pervasive that people here, on Hacker News, had to tell their bank to block payments because they couldn't get to the end of it. I've seen this story repeatedly here. There's no way that didn't come up during the author's research. The author chose to completely ignore that and publish anyway. And The New York Times chose to make a huge deal out of it. What does that say about their ethics?
    - TrevorAustin 5y ago
      Do you mean this story about dark patterns? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/technology/e-commerce-dark-patterns-psychology.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/technology/e-commerce-dar... Because the author (who does not control how NYT subscriptions work) does mention that in the story: > About 30 sites made it easy to sign up for services but particularly hard to cancel, requiring phone calls or other procedures. The Times requires people to talk with a representative online or by phone to cancel subscriptions, but the researchers did not study it or other publishing sites. And highlighted it on her social media promotion of her work: https://twitter.com/jenvalentino/status/1143531833147240449?s=20 https://twitter.com/jenvalentino/status/1143531833147240449?...

Yes, that companies don't like unions and do what they can to discourage unionization isn't newsworthy. Finding a company that encourages unionization would be newsworthy!

AndrewUnmuted 5y ago
> companies don't like unions and do what they can to discourage unionization Are you sure? All of the big tech companies are entering one of the most union-entrenched industries in the US: media.

xhkkffbf 5y ago

Exactly. The NYT had some breathless story about this supposedly once secret fact. Yet their own management was pushing back hard on the Wirecutter union. If the management wanted to really confuse the line workers, they would celebrate the union with some reverse reverse psychology.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

The New York Times has had an anti-tech vendetta for a while now. Most likely, in my cynical worldview, because tech has hurt their subscription numbers immensely, not because they want to do the world a service. An example of this is when they published a whole story about a guy who became radicalized from YouTube... and then became unradicalized a few months later without doing anything radical. But someone could have stayed radicalized so Google needs to censor YouTube and hand back authority to the fact checkers and trusted news, which conveniently happens to be... The New York Times. Another example would be when The New York Times wrote a whole shock article about the shocking nature of dark patterns in technology and the irresponsibility and corruption of Big Tech for using them. Except that their own unsubscribe system is loaded with dark patterns that are even worse. Do I think that YouTube isn't partially responsible? Of course they have some responsibility, but The New York Times and other news sources are capitalizing on the situation for their own interests.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
I am by no means a NYT-liker but I don't think they're particularly anti-tech. We had been riding on a couple decades of public good will and consistent credulity and optimism from media and the public. Compared to that it probably does feel hostile. But it's just them being part of the general and widespread shift of more skepticism towards tech's promises and more awareness of its downsides.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  The public adores the big tech brands. It's less "riding on" and more just the fact that outside of folks in tech, people really really like these companies. They are well trusted, people have positive views of the people working there, and people believe that the companies are generally well run. Almost all brand surveys will have most of the top 5 be the tech companies you know and which HN loves to hate. That's not trending downward. It's trending upward. The upward trend indicates that it isn't "riding on" but simply being considered good because they are.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I might agree, but consider my dark patterns example. The author of the article was super mad, lambasting tech companies left and right for dark patterns, called it a bunch of different synonyms of immoral, etc. His own paper, The New York Times, has a dark pattern system so pervasive that people here, on Hacker News, had to tell their bank to block payments because they couldn't get to the end of it. I've seen this story repeatedly here. There's no way that didn't come up during the author's research. The author chose to completely ignore that and publish anyway. And The New York Times chose to make a huge deal out of it. What does that say about their ethics?
  - TrevorAustin 5y ago
    Do you mean this story about dark patterns? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/technology/e-commerce-dark-patterns-psychology.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/technology/e-commerce-dar... Because the author (who does not control how NYT subscriptions work) does mention that in the story: > About 30 sites made it easy to sign up for services but particularly hard to cancel, requiring phone calls or other procedures. The Times requires people to talk with a representative online or by phone to cancel subscriptions, but the researchers did not study it or other publishing sites. And highlighted it on her social media promotion of her work: https://twitter.com/jenvalentino/status/1143531833147240449?s=20 https://twitter.com/jenvalentino/status/1143531833147240449?...