7 ms·
Reuters totally clueless about the meaning of "hacking"
- MrKurtHaeusler 15y agoHacktivism is still a fairly big part of "the hacker way", and so it should be. I think the concept of wreaking havoc on fortune 500 companies is actually a fair representation of the hacker spirit, whether it is done by damaging their websites, or creating small startups to compete against them. I prefer the latter, but it is perfectly ok to associate the former as part of the same hacker ideal.
- david_shaw 15y ago> I think the concept of wreaking havoc on fortune 500 companies is actually a fair representation of the hacker spirit, whether it is done by damaging their websites, or creating small startups to compete against them. I prefer the latter, but it is perfectly ok to associate the former as part of the same hacker ideal. While that may be your opinion -- and I don't necessarily disagree with it -- the point remains that the author took Zuckerberg's comments about hackers to mean that he considered himself what we know as a "black hat" hacker, which he clearly did not.
- steve-howard 15y agoI found it funny that the in-text "also read this" spam was about Megaupload. Might be something in my adblock, but it didn't show up any different than the article text and wasn't a link.
- ars 15y agoThat happens all the time when sites republish stuff. They get the plain text to republish, but not any links or formatting. It shouldn't happen, but it does - a lot.
- hartror 15y agoSame but I don't have any adblock on, I think someone had copy and paste fail.
- idspispopd 15y agoIt turns up from time to time in print publications as well.
- mustardamus 15y agoTimeline: 4:28MEZ “The word ‘hacker’ has an unfairly negative connotation from being portrayed in the media as people who break into computers,” Zuckerberg wrote. YEP! 4:28MEZ “In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done. [...]" Yeah, kinda... 4:28MEZ That’s a spirited defense of a means of protest that has wrecked havoc on a litany of Fortune 500 companies over the last year. Erm? Troll? 4:28MEZ Back on HN.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- adrianpike 15y agoWhen you realize it's just syndicated off of The Wrap, which is apparently some Hollywood news site, it makes more sense. http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/facebook-ipo-mark-zuckerbergs-bizarre-ode-hackers-35060 http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/facebook-ipo-mark-z...
- ricardobeat 15y agoHow weird is that? A global news agency syndicating content from a small news site out of nowhere.
- ahi 15y agoSarcasm? That's the very definition of the Associated Press.
- albertsun 15y agoHow is it that weird? It makes perfect sense for global news distributors to source content from small providers. Not saying they did a good job of it here... but the principle is sound.
- ricardobeat 15y agoThe role of news agencies like Reuters is to produce quality news on matters that smaller papers might not have the resources to report themselves... like TheWrap just exemplified.
- mjwalshe 15y agoNo Reuters and AP are in the business of providing cheap content to fill up gaps in publications.
- john_b 15y agoI was going to leave a comment, but the comments are closed on that article. Reuters allows comments for a "limited period after publication" but the article has only been there for less than 3 hours. Smells a little fishy to me, maybe they were called out for their nonsense?
- eck 15y agoFishy but not unexpected. Online publications always switch off comments when they see a huge traffic bump and realize they have made fools of themselves and are being told as much in the comments. For example, a few weeks ago the NYTimes Public Editor made a blog post about whether it should be their policy to note in articles when public figures are obviously lying in their remarks. (They're worried about seeming like the liberal media and they think they should "fairly balance" truth and fiction on issues like climate change or what percentage of planned parenthood's money is spent on abortions.) This resulted in immediate outrage from the commenters and vicious comments. Not profanity -- articulate rebuttals that just made the NYTimes look like idiots. Comments switched off. Later they attempted to walk it back, poorly. Same articulate rebuttals, NYTimes look like idiots again. Comments switched off even faster. Not even sure why they enabled them on the second post to begin with.
- wtvanhest 15y agoSeriously though, when I first found HN I was wondering what I had stumbled in to. A few days later I was hooked. Now over a year later, when I read the term hacker about someone doing something illegal I react weirdly to it. Most people still don't know what silicon valley and HN mean when they say hacker yet.
- tdfx 15y agoThis wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't included the part about Zuck actually explaining what he meant by the "hacker way". It's like they breezed right over it and started making references to Anonymous as if that has anything to do with what he was talking about.
- wtvanhest 15y agoI do think there was some link bait in there too. It was basically a bunch of keywords jammed in to badly written sentences.
- PaulAnunda 15y agotitle should read: 'Brent Lang, Film reporter at TheWrap.com, totally clueless about the meaning of "hacking"'
- dbecker 15y agoIn all fairness, the word gets used in many ways. Further down the HN front page there's a story "VeriSign Hit by Hackers." They don't mean that VeriSign was hit by people who built cool software over the weekend. Reuters is a major news organization, and they should know the definition as Zuckerberg is using it... especially since he explains it in the quote. But they aren't making up a new definition out of thin air.
- clhodapp 15y agoI note that that story also comes from Reuters. However, it is clear that the definition they are using is an established one. You can tell because our response when the word "hacker" is used that way is "You shouldn't use the word 'hacker' that way. Our definition is older", as opposed to "That's a bizarre and wrong usage of the word 'hacker'".
- orblivion 15y agoI will definitely agree that Reuters missed Zuckerberg's point. But this made me think of another point: Who are we to assign connotations to "hacker"? The only complaint we legitimately have is the corruption of language, if you want to make the argument that the definition of the word was originally 'tinkerer' and not 'exploiter of systematic weaknesses or loopholes' (or even more crudely, digital breaker-and-enterer). If somebody is using a systematic weakness in IP to take down a website, that's within a class of thing, we can call it A. If somebody wants to take apart a device and re-purpose it, that's within another class of thing, we can call it B. So you and I, more or less, consider A as a subset of B. Over here, we define "hacking" as B, while the media tends to define it as A. Meanwhile we get up on our high horse, saying that "real hacking" is actually B (which, again, encompasses A). But, apart from the corruption of the language, who cares? I think that our reaction to the media calling A both evil, and "hacking", puts us on the defensive, because we think of "hacking" as B, and as such, to us it sounds like the media is attacking tinkering as dangerous. But that's nonsense, the media doesn't care about, or understand, tinkering. We could just as well change the name of B to "tinkering" and dodge any negative connotation. The only reason we stick to "hacking" for better or worse (I'm not saying we should run away), is that it's our legacy, in a way. So given all that, I think we're in the position of promoting a definition of "hacker" that is new to the media, rather than telling them that they're using the "wrong" definition.
- nathan_f77 15y agoI actually don't think too many engineers are 'hackers'. I certainly don't consider myself much of a hacker, and I don't think many here are either. We are programmers. We build stuff. We need to know everything there is to know about security risks, but most of us stopped coding windows trojans and worms after high school. I don't think many of us know (or care) how to write keygens and cracks for games, or invisibly extract cash from a bank via social engineering. That's the definition I subscribe to. Hackers are highly specialized in computer security, whether they're white-hat or black-hat. So Reuters is not using the wrong definition. It just feels like school kids giving new meanings to words, then laughing at their 'lame' parents who don't understand. "Tinkering" sounds kind of lame, but it is what it is. EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm posting on Hacker News! The new meaning is fine, but don't act like other people are stupid for not getting it.
- neilparikh 15y agoWait, what? He clearly quotes Mark saying, "In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done." Then he (the author) says, "That’s a spirited defense of a means of protest that has wreaked havoc on a litany of Fortune 500 companies over the last year." How is building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done, a means of protest, and how does that wreak havoc on Fortune 500 companies? And I found this pretty insulting too, "Wall Street probably won’t mind all the idealism as long as it doesn’t get in the way of the stock price -- provided Anonymous isn't a featured speaker at the next shareholders meeting." What happened to proper journalism, where the author did at least a little bit of background research before publishing an article?
- derleth 15y ago> What happened to proper journalism, where the author did at least a little bit of background research before publishing an article? That's always been rare. Deadlines, on the other hand, are never in short supply.
- neilparikh 15y agoPlus, this was written by a pro-Hollywood news site, so I'm assuming the author probably knew a little bit, but decided to attempt to twist Mark's words in a negative. Admittedly, he pretty much failed.
- tfb 15y agoTo us and other technologically-informed people, he failed. But to the general public who already associates the term "hacker" with a destructive force, the author probably further reinforced the negative connotations. People hear (read) what they want to hear, especially if it already agrees with their current understandings. And it's a shame really. I wonder if some day, with the help of hackers, technology, and the resultant spread of information, the general public won't be so ignorant.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- dhaivatpandya 15y agoWow. Just wow.
- jessa 15y agoI believe that a good developer or engineer is also a good hacker. Peace, dude!
- neilparikh 15y agoI'm not angry at Reuters for using the word hacker in the common way, since it is used by everyone that way, and they are not in the wrong for using a term with the definition the public uses. I'm angry that Reuters used Mark saying that he is a hacker to imply that he is associated with people who damaged Fortune 500 companies, especially when he (Mark) defines hacker to mean something completely different to the common, and they use that in the article. This entire article was a thinly veiled attempt to launch an ad hominem attack against Silicon Valley for opposing SOPA. The opposition of SOPA by Silicon Valley was even mentioned in the article.
- jchung 15y agoWell said.
- LearnYouALisp 15y ago"FOUNDER OF FACEBOOK SUPPORTS ILLEGAL CYBER-CRIME"
- downandout 15y agoI absolutely agree. This article is an awkward attempt by the author to take a subject which he is clearly opinionated about, and somehow tie the story-du-jour to it in order to draw attention. The two had nothing to do with each other, and the connections he attempted to make were nonsensical. The article seems to be a better example of a potentially successful SEO strategy than of good journalism.
- nostromo 15y ago> The opposition of SOPA by Silicon Valley was even mentioned in the article. Unsurprising given that this was originally published in a Hollywood Biz rag: http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/facebook-ipo-mark-zuckerbergs-bizarre-ode-hackers-35060 http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/facebook-ipo-mark-z...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- bad_user 15y ago
- daviddoran 15y agoI wrote a corrections request to both Reuters and The Wrap. Little good it will do, I'm sure, but it offends me to see a journalist spend so little effort trying to be correct. How absurd to use quotes which actually indicate the opposite of your conclusion? It's the equivalent of quoting "Many companies in our industry treat their employees poorly, but we're different.", and concluding "Mr. X and his company take advantage of the poor standards of the industry to mistreat their employees".
- rewind 15y agoOnce societal mainstream embraces -- and misuses -- a word that a subset of society previously held dearly, it's time for that subset to let the word go, regardless of how much they romanticized or embraced it.
- nessus42 15y agoit's time for that subset to let the word go, regardless of how much they romanticized or embraced it. Except for the fact that's just not going to happen.
- rewind 15y agoI agree, but it would sure be nice if people worried more about what they do than what they're called. It's just a word that people get attached to. When I talk to my friends/family about what I do, I certainly don't call myself a "hacker", nor would I even if they all understood the true meaning of the word. The fact that people are so irrationally passionate about the word, to me, says a lot more about them than the people who use it the wrong way.
- nessus42 15y agoIt's a concept, not just a word and there's no other word for the concept. Sure, if everyone were to agree to start using the word "wizfoo" instead of "hacker" for the concept, maybe that would help avoid the confusion that occurs due to some people confounding different definitions for the word. On the other hand, the English language is filled to the brim with words that have multiple (and sometimes opposite) definitions, so I see no reason why the world can't deal with that fact here. If there's blame to be placed here, it is certainly the fault of the journalists who refuse to acknowledge the distinction, as it is their job to be masters of words, and to understand these sorts of issues.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 15y agoI bet Brent Lang from Reuters will really fall off his chair when he realizes his article has been trending second on -- gasp -- Hacker News! You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy... LOL
- ken 15y agoUnfortunately, I would say this is technically not news. If a mainstream news source wasn't totally clueless about hacking, that would be news.
- apaprocki 15y agoHey, if I ever find any reporter at Bloomberg that screws up like this I will personally walk over and fix the situation. If you wanted the same news without the personal editorial, this was our take: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/zuckerberg-s-hacker-way-not-profit-to-guide-post-ipo-facebook.html http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/zuckerberg-s-hac...
- stevewilhelm 15y agoThis article was syndicated by Reuters. By contrast, here is an article about Facebook written by Reuters. http://s831.us/AEOd8B http://s831.us/AEOd8B
- lambda 15y agoJust a note to everyone: this isn't "Reuters" writing this. If you notice the byline, "By Brent Lang at TheWrap", this is content syndicated from "The Wrap", which appears to be some Hollywood celeb gossip rag.
- dcurtis 15y agoThis story appears on Reuters.com with the Reuters layout and Reuters branding. Whether it is syndicated or not, it is Reuters-endorsed content that, in my opinion, should bear the same weight as the Associated Press. It's kind of sad that content of this quality has made it to their site.
- luigi 15y agoHere's the announcement about how The Wrap is the "main entertainment news provider" for Reuters: http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/thewrap-replaces-thr-reuters-news-partner-28754 http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/thewrap-replaces-th...
- pbiggar 15y agoThis was an excellent article, when looked at through the lens of making ad revenue, which is the only lens through which this drivel could flourish. Simply put, online content providers (I refuse to call this crap "news") need eyeballs, and writing crap like this causes eyeballs to appear. Fortunately, about 50% of the eyeballs are protected by adblockers, but still a great day at the office, for which I suspect he will get much kudos, and be asked to write similar crap again.
- dsrguru 15y agoObviously the author of this article has a bone to pick with the technology industry as a result of SOPA being shut down for now, but if we divorce ourselves from our knowledge of tech lingo, this doesn't read as a "thinly veiled attempt to launch an ad hominem attack against Silicon Valley." The author clearly is unfamiliar with the way we use the term "hacker" or even that it has another definition and, therefore, when Zuckerberg says that the term "has an unfairly negative connotation from being portrayed in the media as people who break into computers," he doesn't realize Zuckerberg is trying to say that the term has an entirely different meaning from breaking into computers. He clearly thinks Zuckerberg is saying that hackers (which he reads as "people who break into computers") are unfairly portrayed as people who break into computers to do bad, when in reality they sometimes break into computers for constructive reasons. He doesn't realize Zuckerberg is literally saying that the media mistakenly interprets "hackers" as "people who break into computers, period." Zuckerberg's use of "connotation" instead of "denotation" makes it sound like he's defending cracking philosophically as opposed to saying that hacking has a totally different meaning to people in the tech industry. I've reprinted his quote of Zuckerberg with parenthetical glosses showing how the author and anyone not innoculated by knowledge of hacker culture would probably interpret it. "In reality, hacking (breaking into computers) just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done. Like most things, it (breaking into computers) can be used for good (to fight what you perceive as unjustice) or bad (personal gain or schadenfreude), but the vast majority of hackers I've met tend to be idealistic people (hippies who hate corporations) who want to have a positive impact on the world (by getting rid of capitalism)." With that reading, I think most of us too would be disappointed or even furious with Zuckerberg. I'm glad that wealth and fame haven't compromized Zuckerberg's view of himself as a hacker in our sense of the word, but I think he did a really bad job explaining to the media that the word is used completely differently by techies. That is unfortunate since he is one of the few people with enough influence to get the public to understand and adopt our usage of the word.
- mikk0j 15y agoJust another crap blogger. Move along, people.
- hc8217 15y agoGood find, thanks. I wouldn't say Reuters is 'clueless' about the meaning and they quoted Zuck several times laying out exactly what it means to him. Their point really was that the word hacker has different connotations to most people and this was an odd time for him to attempt to sway public opinion on the definition of the word. I agree with them, it was an odd time. That doesn't make it bad, maybe it was brilliant - but it was a strange thing to see in an IPO filing (again strange != bad).
- Animus7 15y ago> ... provided Anonymous isn't a featured speaker at the next shareholders meeting. Not content with mere ignorance about what "hacking" is and conflating it with cracking and script kiddies, the author ices the article by demonstrating ignorance about cracking and script kiddies as well.
- petenixey 15y agohacker != cracker
- lo_fye 15y agoLove how neither of their "Also Read" are hyperlinks.
- thekevan 15y agohttps://twitter.com/#!/BrentALang https://twitter.com/#!/BrentALang Send him a message and let him know.
- Iamahippie 15y agoMy brother thinks that hackers are all blackhats, and isnt aware of the terms black hat or white hat, lol hes fucking retarded, plus he thinks he knows how to use a computer yet tcip completely slipped out of his vocabulary
- peterwwillis 15y agoJust another pointless post upvoted because it has the word 'hacker' in it. You don't have to give attention to every lame story that "doesn't get it." Even if this was a story by Reuters, which it is not, it still wouldn't matter. Welcome to 20 years ago when the media stopped giving a shit about giving hackers a fair shake.
- robertskmiles 15y agoThe key error the author makes is that he fails to Notice His Confusion. When something confuses you, you have to stop and figure out why you're wrong. You can't be confused and right at the same time. If you are confused, then something you believe is false. So when a man known to be highly intelligent and very successful makes a statement which you find "bizarre", you don't write an article "Zuckerberg makes baffling statement", you think "Why am I baffled? Clearly I'm missing something about what's going on here", and you do more research. The concept 'I am confused' is not newsworthy. http://lesswrong.com/lw/if/your_strength_as_a_rationalist/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/if/your_strength_as_a_rationalist/