4 ms·

Look up their parents. It's not a coincidence they crossed path with NY Times reporters looking to profile them. Nepotism teens doesn't have the same ring thoug

Look up their parents. It's not a coincidence they crossed path with NY Times reporters looking to profile them. Nepotism teens doesn't have the same ring though.

dpflan 4y ago
Nepoteenism.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Another interesting angle related to their coming from money—I don't have enough data to really even call it, well, data, but the limited glimpse I've had into properly upper-middle (as in the Fussell, social-class sense, not the "I make $130k/yr as a middle manager and live in a McMansion in a nice school district, so I call myself upper-middle class" sense) and upper classes' kids and schools, they're giving their kids phones way later than the public-school set. Like, 20% or less the ownership rate by 5th grade, I'd say. Nowhere near universal personal smartphone ownership by 8th grade, even, unlike the public schools, where nearly all the kids have one by then. But I'm mostly seeing a single school, so it may just be that that school operates in some kind of techphobic bubble, not that the better-off are generally exposing their kids to cell phones and the Internet way less than the middle-class and lower. ... then again, maybe what I'm seeing isn't a heavily biased sample, and that's exactly what's going on, and this article is a manifestation of a real tendency of the upper classes to curtail tech exposure for their kids, compared with the general population.
subsubzero 4y ago
yeah I was wondering how a small group of say 5-8 teens made it to NYtimes. The paper tries to fool you to think these are just organic encounters that are part of a massive movement(anti-tech) when its really just hand picked people close to a friend of someone that works at the paper. Remember it was discovered this year the editorial desk of the NYtimes has a mandate that all stories must paint tech in a negative light.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dmschulman 4y ago
  This is common in reporting "human interest" stories. If you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who is up to something unique, is that any different than getting a tip from your community? This is not a story of consequence but it does speak to an important issue of our day. It's not as though this is the only kind of reporting NY Times does.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > Remember it was discovered this year the editorial desk of the NYtimes has a mandate that all stories must paint tech in a negative light. That's not at all what happened. There were rumors that tech reporting should be critical[1], instead of gushing and repeating claims from press releases without actually investigating. Real journalism is critical, and critical doesn't mean "bad" or "negative". [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275

Look up their parents. It's not a coincidence they crossed path with NY Times reporters looking to profile them. Nepotism teens doesn't have the same ring though.

dpflan 4y ago

Nepoteenism.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Another interesting angle related to their coming from money—I don't have enough data to really even call it, well, data, but the limited glimpse I've had into properly upper-middle (as in the Fussell, social-class sense, not the "I make $130k/yr as a middle manager and live in a McMansion in a nice school district, so I call myself upper-middle class" sense) and upper classes' kids and schools, they're giving their kids phones way later than the public-school set. Like, 20% or less the ownership rate by 5th grade, I'd say. Nowhere near universal personal smartphone ownership by 8th grade, even, unlike the public schools, where nearly all the kids have one by then. But I'm mostly seeing a single school, so it may just be that that school operates in some kind of techphobic bubble, not that the better-off are generally exposing their kids to cell phones and the Internet way less than the middle-class and lower. ... then again, maybe what I'm seeing isn't a heavily biased sample, and that's exactly what's going on, and this article is a manifestation of a real tendency of the upper classes to curtail tech exposure for their kids, compared with the general population.

subsubzero 4y ago

yeah I was wondering how a small group of say 5-8 teens made it to NYtimes. The paper tries to fool you to think these are just organic encounters that are part of a massive movement(anti-tech) when its really just hand picked people close to a friend of someone that works at the paper. Remember it was discovered this year the editorial desk of the NYtimes has a mandate that all stories must paint tech in a negative light.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dmschulman 4y ago
This is common in reporting "human interest" stories. If you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who is up to something unique, is that any different than getting a tip from your community? This is not a story of consequence but it does speak to an important issue of our day. It's not as though this is the only kind of reporting NY Times does.
heavyset_go 4y ago
> Remember it was discovered this year the editorial desk of the NYtimes has a mandate that all stories must paint tech in a negative light. That's not at all what happened. There were rumors that tech reporting should be critical[1], instead of gushing and repeating claims from press releases without actually investigating. Real journalism is critical, and critical doesn't mean "bad" or "negative". [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275