3 ms·
For me, this is one of the complaints > Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. Why does it need to be in awe? that seems l
by tayo42 4y ago
For me, this is one of the complaints
> Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential.
Why does it need to be in awe? that seems like an extreme in an unproductive direction.
> it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests.
where in the thread is the support for this?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- blululu 4y agoIt’s not but a basic Google search should show some of the more clear examples of the NYT using aggressive spyware for ads, AB modifying stories in real time to drive engagement, and subscription policies that are virtually impossible to back out of for people outside of California.
- trs8080 4y agoTherefore they're not allowed to report on malfeasance in the technology sector?
- blululu 4y agoLogically no, but there are good reasons to distrust and despise hypocrites.
- matt-attack 4y agoBut when the proverbial kettle calls the pot black, what no one seems to admit is, the kettle is not wrong. Statements are, in the most fundamental sense, either write or wrong. Whether they’re insensitive, irrelevant or hypocritical are entirely orthogonal concepts. People tend to focus on the latter when listening to people speak, and often disregard the for former.
- Bukhmanizer 4y ago> Why does it need to be in awe? that seems like an extreme in an unproductive direction. There’s a major difference between banning awe and making it mandatory. The claim is that they did the former, yet you imply the latter. > where in the thread is the support for this? The bleeding obvious point in all of this is that tech and news organizations have been competing for the same eyeballs for years now.