5 ms·

The type of news about why remote work is harmful should make it clear to everyone just how corrupt the media is. Real estate bros losing money due to people wo

The type of news about why remote work is harmful should make it clear to everyone just how corrupt the media is. Real estate bros losing money due to people working remotely have simply directed news outlets to criticise the practice. Just like that. Now imagine if such a trivial matter has been so easily manipulated how everything else in our lives is controled by media corruption and their benefactors, ranging from health, to politics, wars, pandemics, etc.

westmeal 3y ago
That's exactly right, and depending upon which outlet you choose there are different industry bros directing shit flinging at different boogeymen. It's tiresome.
jdlshore 3y ago
> Real estate bros… directed news outlets to criticise the practice. What evidence do you have for this? It sounds like conspiracy thinking to me.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html I've seen the term "submarine article" used to describe PR-encouraged articles. Practically, they're not "directing" news outlets but they are "informing" them in likely biased ways.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    From the blog post: "Our startup spent its entire marketing budget on PR: at a time when we were assembling our own computers to save money, we were paying a PR firm $16,000 a month." Wondering how much real estate bros are paying to promote the archaic, regressive, idea of working on site.
  - jdlshore 3y ago
    That is not evidence for this particular claim.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      I would agree if I assumed the story told in the post to be false. It is a person’s written confession of having hired such a firm to, to be charitable, inform journalists of an up-and-coming enterprise. The idea that it’s not evidence of a lack of so called conspiracy thinking is not so obvious. It seems like there’s an industry that’s ready to exactly serve this purpose of spreading a story.
arp242 3y ago
> remote work is harmful The article makes no such argument; it merely says that shifts in how people work may cause problems. Everyone wins if we try and anticipate problems and prevent them. No one is being manipulated and no one is pulling any strings here. I can claim anyone and anything I don't like is being "directed", without evidence of course. Fact is, sometimes a change (a neutral change, or even a good change) can also cause unintended side-effects, and that's not a conspiracy.

westmeal 3y ago

That's exactly right, and depending upon which outlet you choose there are different industry bros directing shit flinging at different boogeymen. It's tiresome.

jdlshore 3y ago

> Real estate bros… directed news outlets to criticise the practice. What evidence do you have for this? It sounds like conspiracy thinking to me.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html I've seen the term "submarine article" used to describe PR-encouraged articles. Practically, they're not "directing" news outlets but they are "informing" them in likely biased ways.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  From the blog post: "Our startup spent its entire marketing budget on PR: at a time when we were assembling our own computers to save money, we were paying a PR firm $16,000 a month." Wondering how much real estate bros are paying to promote the archaic, regressive, idea of working on site.
- jdlshore 3y ago
  That is not evidence for this particular claim.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    I would agree if I assumed the story told in the post to be false. It is a person’s written confession of having hired such a firm to, to be charitable, inform journalists of an up-and-coming enterprise. The idea that it’s not evidence of a lack of so called conspiracy thinking is not so obvious. It seems like there’s an industry that’s ready to exactly serve this purpose of spreading a story.

arp242 3y ago

> remote work is harmful The article makes no such argument; it merely says that shifts in how people work may cause problems. Everyone wins if we try and anticipate problems and prevent them. No one is being manipulated and no one is pulling any strings here. I can claim anyone and anything I don't like is being "directed", without evidence of course. Fact is, sometimes a change (a neutral change, or even a good change) can also cause unintended side-effects, and that's not a conspiracy.