3 ms·

Technology Review is not "MIT", it's an attempt at competing with Wired and Popular Science.

by jpm_sd 5y ago

top_sigrid 5y ago
This should totally be adjusted in the title I would suggest.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nostrademons 5y ago
It is wholly owned by MIT though, even if they're editorially independent and the format has changed in recent decades to compete with Wired and Popular Science. Their reputation is still pretty good. I would consider Wired a decent publication as well.
anonporridge 5y ago
MIT is a brand. If the owners of MIT are attaching their brand to the Technology Review, then yes, it is MIT. If the people who actually do the hard science and education work that has made MIT a valuable and trusted brand don't like this dilution and selling out of the trust they earned, then they have a responsibility to either push against it or vote with their feet and their attention and stop contributing to the continuation of trust in the brand.
- thrill 5y ago
  No, if it was MIT then it would be an official communique from the Office of the President of MIT. It's MIT Technology Review, and the distinction exists for a reason.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    That distinction is meaningless to the masses for whom "MIT" is a mark of trust.
capableweb 5y ago
How is something called "MIT Technology Review" not MIT? This is how they describe themselves: > Founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, MIT Technology Review is a world-renowned, independent media company whose insight, analysis, reviews, interviews and live events explain the newest technologies and their commercial, social and political impacts. Take a look at their website: https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/about/ https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/about/ The name "MIT" is literally all over the place. If it wasn't actually MIT, I'd expect MIT to sue these "Technology Review" people.
- drdeca 5y ago
  It may be MIT legally or whatever, but calling it “MIT” could still be misleading when people expect “MIT” to refer to the research and education institution. Just because Facebook decided to rename itself (but not the website) “Meta” instead of “Facebook”, doesn’t mean I should respect that decision and call the organization Facebook by the name “Meta”. Similarly, but in kind of the opposite way, here.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Is it similarly misleading calling "Stripe Press" "Stripe"? Since people expect Stripe to just handle payments and related areas, while "Stripe Press" describes themselves the following way: > Stripe Press produces works about technological, economic, and scientific advancement I'd say, call things the way they want to be called. If you put "MIT" in your organizations name, then I'm gonna assume your organization is associated/related to MIT. If you're not related to MIT but your name is "MIT $ORGANIZATION", then I'd say that is misleading, not the other way around.

Technology Review is not "MIT", it's an attempt at competing with Wired and Popular Science.

by jpm_sd 5y ago

Technology Review is not "MIT", it's an attempt at competing with Wired and Popular Science.

top_sigrid 5y ago

This should totally be adjusted in the title I would suggest.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

nostrademons 5y ago

It is wholly owned by MIT though, even if they're editorially independent and the format has changed in recent decades to compete with Wired and Popular Science. Their reputation is still pretty good. I would consider Wired a decent publication as well.

anonporridge 5y ago

MIT is a brand. If the owners of MIT are attaching their brand to the Technology Review, then yes, it is MIT. If the people who actually do the hard science and education work that has made MIT a valuable and trusted brand don't like this dilution and selling out of the trust they earned, then they have a responsibility to either push against it or vote with their feet and their attention and stop contributing to the continuation of trust in the brand.

thrill 5y ago
No, if it was MIT then it would be an official communique from the Office of the President of MIT. It's MIT Technology Review, and the distinction exists for a reason.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  That distinction is meaningless to the masses for whom "MIT" is a mark of trust.

capableweb 5y ago

How is something called "MIT Technology Review" not MIT? This is how they describe themselves: > Founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, MIT Technology Review is a world-renowned, independent media company whose insight, analysis, reviews, interviews and live events explain the newest technologies and their commercial, social and political impacts. Take a look at their website: https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/about/ https://www.technologyreview.com/supertopic/about/ The name "MIT" is literally all over the place. If it wasn't actually MIT, I'd expect MIT to sue these "Technology Review" people.

drdeca 5y ago
It may be MIT legally or whatever, but calling it “MIT” could still be misleading when people expect “MIT” to refer to the research and education institution. Just because Facebook decided to rename itself (but not the website) “Meta” instead of “Facebook”, doesn’t mean I should respect that decision and call the organization Facebook by the name “Meta”. Similarly, but in kind of the opposite way, here.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Is it similarly misleading calling "Stripe Press" "Stripe"? Since people expect Stripe to just handle payments and related areas, while "Stripe Press" describes themselves the following way: > Stripe Press produces works about technological, economic, and scientific advancement I'd say, call things the way they want to be called. If you put "MIT" in your organizations name, then I'm gonna assume your organization is associated/related to MIT. If you're not related to MIT but your name is "MIT $ORGANIZATION", then I'd say that is misleading, not the other way around.