3 ms·

There's nothing in this blog post that proves it's wrong other than one guy in the tribe denying it because it looks bad for them. We're going to need access to

by vsuperpower2020 2y ago

There's nothing in this blog post that proves it's wrong other than one guy in the tribe denying it because it looks bad for them. We're going to need access to the tribe's entire search history to sort this one out.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> There's nothing in this blog post that proves it's wrong Is this satire? In case not: The source didn't report it happening. Therefore no one needs to invent it, not even as a pretext for an invasive investigation.
- vsuperpower2020 2y ago
  Sure they did. The tribe representative they interviewed in the original nytimes article said they had minors watching porn, and only backpedaled afterwards in this article because it make them look bad. Minors sharing porn in group chats is insane enough, but that it only took a little exposure to the internet for a small remote tribe to start is even more telling.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > and only backpedaled afterwards It's not clear if you're accusing the tribe or the reporter of backpedaling but neither happened. The reporter made a statement in the original article and repeated it verbatim in this article. It is closer to an opposite of backpedaling.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  The source did mention sharing of porn in group chats, and being not thrilled about that. You're right the source didn't say they were addicted to porn, which is a far cry from what he reported. However, people tend to downplay porn viewing habits, as with anything that they are embarrassed about. It seems reasonable to think that if someone tells a reporter that he's upset that porn is being shared in group chats, that there's a good chance the level of usage is in fact greater.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > However, people tend to downplay porn viewing habits, as with anything that they are embarrassed about This is justification for inventing an issue and then attributing it to them. > It seems reasonable to think that if someone tells a reporter that he's upset that porn is being shared in group chats, that there's a good chance the level of usage is in fact greater. It is not reasonable to start with a conclusion and then find any road possible to get there.
gnicholas 2y ago
I was curious about the lack of definitive evidence in this follow-up story. I would think they'd want to have some sort of fact-checking from an unbiased source. The tribe is saying it's embarrassing that people think they're addicted to porn, and they're the only source for saying that this is untrue. What happened to the journalistic motto: "if your mother says she loves you, check it out"? [1] 1: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2003/if-your-mother-says-she-loves-you-a-reporters-cautionary-tale/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2003/if-your-mothe...
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > I was curious about the lack of definitive evidence in this follow-up story. The reporters followup story reports on 1) his own original story and 2) how other news shops 'customized' [ed] the original story. 1) He repeated the original story. 2) He said what the downstream stories said. "Lack of definitive evidence" is not what this is.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

> There's nothing in this blog post that proves it's wrong Is this satire? In case not: The source didn't report it happening. Therefore no one needs to invent it, not even as a pretext for an invasive investigation.

vsuperpower2020 2y ago
Sure they did. The tribe representative they interviewed in the original nytimes article said they had minors watching porn, and only backpedaled afterwards in this article because it make them look bad. Minors sharing porn in group chats is insane enough, but that it only took a little exposure to the internet for a small remote tribe to start is even more telling.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > and only backpedaled afterwards It's not clear if you're accusing the tribe or the reporter of backpedaling but neither happened. The reporter made a statement in the original article and repeated it verbatim in this article. It is closer to an opposite of backpedaling.
gnicholas 2y ago
The source did mention sharing of porn in group chats, and being not thrilled about that. You're right the source didn't say they were addicted to porn, which is a far cry from what he reported. However, people tend to downplay porn viewing habits, as with anything that they are embarrassed about. It seems reasonable to think that if someone tells a reporter that he's upset that porn is being shared in group chats, that there's a good chance the level of usage is in fact greater.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > However, people tend to downplay porn viewing habits, as with anything that they are embarrassed about This is justification for inventing an issue and then attributing it to them. > It seems reasonable to think that if someone tells a reporter that he's upset that porn is being shared in group chats, that there's a good chance the level of usage is in fact greater. It is not reasonable to start with a conclusion and then find any road possible to get there.

gnicholas 2y ago

I was curious about the lack of definitive evidence in this follow-up story. I would think they'd want to have some sort of fact-checking from an unbiased source. The tribe is saying it's embarrassing that people think they're addicted to porn, and they're the only source for saying that this is untrue. What happened to the journalistic motto: "if your mother says she loves you, check it out"? [1] 1: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2003/if-your-mother-says-she-loves-you-a-reporters-cautionary-tale/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2003/if-your-mothe...

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> I was curious about the lack of definitive evidence in this follow-up story. The reporters followup story reports on 1) his own original story and 2) how other news shops 'customized' [ed] the original story. 1) He repeated the original story. 2) He said what the downstream stories said. "Lack of definitive evidence" is not what this is.