4 ms·

Perhaps more controversially is the reminder that Washington Post and Twitter are just two large media organisations privately owned by billionaires. And it's n

Perhaps more controversially is the reminder that Washington Post and Twitter are just two large media organisations privately owned by billionaires. And it's no secret that Bezos and Musk are not friends.

bruceb 4y ago
Exactly. MSNBC was complaining about twitter a few hours ago, saying very bad things could happen. Embarrassing the level of fear mongering going on. Update to my comment. Found it: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1588572920066240512 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1588572920066240512 (Cernovich can have bad faith takes, but the video speaks for itself)
- 3327 4y ago
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Can have bad takes? You're talking about a Q-based conspiracy theorist that promoted pizza gate.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  "The website is built on sticks, it might fall apart" - if all those billions poured into engineering built a near real time messaging platform that will fall apart when a few people change hands, I'd go on a firing spree as well. I remember full well when I was at a startup and the principal engineer pulled me aside and said: "you have been poking around everywhere and you have identified problems. I want you to stop talking about them otherwise the whole thing will fall apart". As a leader, that is your immediate cue to silently work on transitioning that person out of the company and build cement where he put sticks. EDIT: This whole commentary is really weird. Normally you publish this sort of information, if you feel like there is no one at the company that is willing to address such issues. But there has just been a leadership change and the leadership has hinted at wanting to address exactly these sort of issues. But assuming that the commentary is correct, to keep it private, to protect incompetent leadership and then publish it in hopes that the government steps in, to specifically NOT address these issues, is a logic that I can't really wrap my head around.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  > Cernovich can have bad faith takes I can't stand the Washington Post or MSNBC, but the cure for bad faith is not to consult some other bad faith merchant. It's like ho you can find perfectly edible food in a supermarket dumpster, but that doesn't make the dumpster clean. If you're trying to maximize objectivity you can generally cast around for a better source. In this case the tweet framing is bullshit and the video has little evidentiary value other than feeding confirmation bias.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  Serious question: do people really rely on Twitter for real information?
eastbound 4y ago
Isn’t that the best reassurance that the WP will criticize Twitter and Twitter will not be censored when criticizing the WP?
HWR_14 4y ago
Except that Bezos has been very publicly trying to establish a firewall between him and the Post. Editors wrote about their independence after the acquisition, etc. Musk is doing very much the opposite.
- Alupis 4y ago
  It is very difficult to believe Bezos' personal political beliefs would have zero impact on the content WaPo chooses to publish or promote and who they choose to hire. It may not be overt, but what they choose to publish is just as powerful as what they choose not to publish, and there have been some very high profile stories that were deliberately not published in the WaPo.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    I don't see why. The biggest news story you can find about Bezos being involved in the Post is when he personally delivered a birthday president to the executive editor when he turned 65. Meanwhile, the Columbia Review of Journalism (a well-respected academic source) reported in 2021 that the Post is uninfluenced by Bezos. They point out the many negative articles about Amazon and otherwise against Bezos's interests.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      Bezos doesn't have to call the editor to exert influence, or give input on every hire. It's a Bezos company now, and just like all the other Bezos companies, it will consider it's owner's desired outcome before taking action. Just flip the idea on it's head - would Bezos be happy if WaPo suddenly became a right-leaning publication tomorrow? Probably not... he might actually pick up a phone then but I digress. The influence is implicit and persistent. There is no reason to own a newspaper other than influence. It's been that way probably forever...
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        > There is no reason to own a newspaper other than influence. Actually, again, academic analysis suggest there are two primary reasons rich people buy media outlets. One is for influence (like Murdock) and the other is for prestige (like they would buy a Van Gogh or a wing at the ballet). > would Bezos be happy if WaPo suddenly became a right-leaning publication tomorrow? Probably not. Those are far lower in prestige. In much the same way that people donating to an opera company would be upset if they primarily decided to use their venue for open-mic nights.
blue_light_man 4y ago
Vast majority of media organizations including New York Times are owned by the ultra wealthy.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  By definition, if you own a billion dollar corporation, you are wealthy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SanjayMehta 4y ago
The Atlantic is majority owned by a trust controlled by Laurene Powell Jobs. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Atlantic-Monthly https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Atlantic-Monthly

bruceb 4y ago

Exactly. MSNBC was complaining about twitter a few hours ago, saying very bad things could happen. Embarrassing the level of fear mongering going on. Update to my comment. Found it: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1588572920066240512 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1588572920066240512 (Cernovich can have bad faith takes, but the video speaks for itself)

3327 4y ago
encryptluks2 4y ago
Can have bad takes? You're talking about a Q-based conspiracy theorist that promoted pizza gate.
rjzzleep 4y ago
"The website is built on sticks, it might fall apart" - if all those billions poured into engineering built a near real time messaging platform that will fall apart when a few people change hands, I'd go on a firing spree as well. I remember full well when I was at a startup and the principal engineer pulled me aside and said: "you have been poking around everywhere and you have identified problems. I want you to stop talking about them otherwise the whole thing will fall apart". As a leader, that is your immediate cue to silently work on transitioning that person out of the company and build cement where he put sticks. EDIT: This whole commentary is really weird. Normally you publish this sort of information, if you feel like there is no one at the company that is willing to address such issues. But there has just been a leadership change and the leadership has hinted at wanting to address exactly these sort of issues. But assuming that the commentary is correct, to keep it private, to protect incompetent leadership and then publish it in hopes that the government steps in, to specifically NOT address these issues, is a logic that I can't really wrap my head around.
anigbrowl 4y ago
> Cernovich can have bad faith takes I can't stand the Washington Post or MSNBC, but the cure for bad faith is not to consult some other bad faith merchant. It's like ho you can find perfectly edible food in a supermarket dumpster, but that doesn't make the dumpster clean. If you're trying to maximize objectivity you can generally cast around for a better source. In this case the tweet framing is bullshit and the video has little evidentiary value other than feeding confirmation bias.
SanjayMehta 4y ago
Serious question: do people really rely on Twitter for real information?

eastbound 4y ago

Isn’t that the best reassurance that the WP will criticize Twitter and Twitter will not be censored when criticizing the WP?

HWR_14 4y ago

Except that Bezos has been very publicly trying to establish a firewall between him and the Post. Editors wrote about their independence after the acquisition, etc. Musk is doing very much the opposite.

Alupis 4y ago
It is very difficult to believe Bezos' personal political beliefs would have zero impact on the content WaPo chooses to publish or promote and who they choose to hire. It may not be overt, but what they choose to publish is just as powerful as what they choose not to publish, and there have been some very high profile stories that were deliberately not published in the WaPo.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  I don't see why. The biggest news story you can find about Bezos being involved in the Post is when he personally delivered a birthday president to the executive editor when he turned 65. Meanwhile, the Columbia Review of Journalism (a well-respected academic source) reported in 2021 that the Post is uninfluenced by Bezos. They point out the many negative articles about Amazon and otherwise against Bezos's interests.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    Bezos doesn't have to call the editor to exert influence, or give input on every hire. It's a Bezos company now, and just like all the other Bezos companies, it will consider it's owner's desired outcome before taking action. Just flip the idea on it's head - would Bezos be happy if WaPo suddenly became a right-leaning publication tomorrow? Probably not... he might actually pick up a phone then but I digress. The influence is implicit and persistent. There is no reason to own a newspaper other than influence. It's been that way probably forever...
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > There is no reason to own a newspaper other than influence. Actually, again, academic analysis suggest there are two primary reasons rich people buy media outlets. One is for influence (like Murdock) and the other is for prestige (like they would buy a Van Gogh or a wing at the ballet). > would Bezos be happy if WaPo suddenly became a right-leaning publication tomorrow? Probably not. Those are far lower in prestige. In much the same way that people donating to an opera company would be upset if they primarily decided to use their venue for open-mic nights.

blue_light_man 4y ago

Vast majority of media organizations including New York Times are owned by the ultra wealthy.

BurningFrog 4y ago
By definition, if you own a billion dollar corporation, you are wealthy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

SanjayMehta 4y ago

The Atlantic is majority owned by a trust controlled by Laurene Powell Jobs. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Atlantic-Monthly https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Atlantic-Monthly