5 ms·

> (Yes, it is weird that Zuck goes out of his way to compare himself to a violent dictator.) Why can't news sites just report the news? Why do they need to tel

by sejje 2y ago

> (Yes, it is weird that Zuck goes out of his way to compare himself to a violent dictator.) Why can't news sites just report the news? Why do they need to tell me what to think about it?

smrtinsert 2y ago
You're thinking of a wire service. Associated Press for example is what you want. TechCrunch is a blog and it's completely normal for blogs to be editorialized.
- sejje 2y ago
  > Top Headlines > Latest News > Newsletters > TechCrunch is an American global online newspaper focusing on topics regarding high-tech and startup companies. [0] Oh, okay. My fault. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechCrunch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechCrunch
  - zeroCalories 2y ago
    Yeah and New York Post calls itself a newspaper but we all know it's some trashy shit.
    - sejje 2y ago
      That's reflected on its wikipedia page [0], too. Note the word "tabloid": > The New York Post (NY Post) is an American conservative daily tabloid newspaper published in New York City. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post
      - hagbard_c 2y ago
        Tabloid is a form factor for a newspaper - roughly defined as 'half of a broadsheet' - and not directly related to the content of the publication. It got a bad reputation because lots of trashy publications are published in this form factor but this is not its defining characteristic. Aside from that Wikipedia is not a good source to decide whether a publication is to be trusted due to its heavy political bias. The New York Post has a conservative bias while (English-language) Wikipedia has a heavy 'progressive´ bias as is reflected by its list of what they consider to be 'reliable/perennial sources' [1] which closely resembles a political litmus test. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
        sejje 2y ago
        Can you name a newspaper we call a tabloid that has a good reputation? I'd like to check that out.
        hagbard_c 2y ago
        When you say 'good reputation' I assume you mean 'serious general news' papers? UK: The Independent, The Times, The Scotsman, The Guardian NL: Het Parool, Trouw, NRC Handelsblad, de Volkskrant, de Telegraaf, Reformatorisch Dagblad and many others (most of them owned by DPG) DK: Berlingske Tidende SE: Dagens Industri, Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Expressen, Aftonbladet and many others There are many others, take your pick. As said these are newspapers published in tabloid format, not 'tabloid newspapers' publishing celebrity gossip and other trash although some of them do also venture in that direction on occasion.
aiBorland 2y ago
[flagged]
theoryofx 2y ago
What bothers me about this is not injecting an opinion (it's TechCrunch) but the superficial and ignorant take. Julius Caesar was not just some "violent dictator" like a Hitler, Stalin, or Putin. He wasn't sending people off to gas chambers, gulags, or out of windows. He was famous for his clemency toward his enemies in the civil war which made him dictator. Even the title of "dictator" was a legal office in ancient Rome and meant something very different from the modern usage. Zuck admiring Julius Caesar (which doesn't mean endorsing all his actions) puts him in the company of many of the most successful, ethical, and well informed people in history
- aiBorland 2y ago
  [flagged]
- invalidname 2y ago
  Well... About a million dead and a million enslaved might disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars . He murdered/enslaved for political gain back home, then killed the people who opposed to him back in Rome to stop democracy. I don't want to compare to these other guys because obviously it was a different time/culture and you can't really make such broad sweeping comparisons. I won't judge people for admiring him because I also appreciate a lot of his political and strategic savvy. But he was a very violent dictator.
  - adamc 2y ago
    This. Caesar made a huge fortune from the people he sold into slavery.
  - theoryofx 2y ago
    "About a million dead and a million enslaved might disagree" You might be very surprised at how differently ancient people viewed the world compared to yourself. Sure, no one wants to be killed or enslaved but the societies of these very people behaved in precisely the same way as the Romans and most ancient societies did. These were not peace loving hippies being invaded by alien monsters. Anyway, Caesar was not dictator when he fought in Gaul. He was a Roman proconsul/general fighting in his provinces the way all ancient Roman armies did, and was more inclined toward mercy than most, although he also fought a much bigger war than most. In the civil war Caesar was fighting Pompey, the guy who used his military power to control the Roman government for the previous decade. And who would have continued controlling the government had he won. The narrative that Pompey was defending the republic against a tyrant is more ancient propaganda than reality. A reasonable and accurate summary is that Julius Caesar led a violent army against violent enemies, fought a civil war with unprecedented clemency, and was a benevolent dictator until his assassination by the envious people he had granted clemency.
catlover76 2y ago
[dead]
fullshark 2y ago
Because no one goes into journalism to report the news, they go into to influence public opinion. This is done largely by deciding which stories to amplify and to kill, and which information is presented in which order. That is a subtle art, this person seems to lack subtlety.
croisillon 2y ago
because apparently 77M Americans can't add 2 and 2 when it comes to wannabe dictators
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  dictator, in modern political systems, a single person who possesses absolute political power within a country or territory or a member of a small group that exercises such power. The term comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather than ancient dictators. (from Britannica [1]) In some ways this fits the election of Donald Trump - he was designated as a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises - but in most ways it does not. Trump does not possess absolute power nor is a member of a small group which possesses such power as the plethora of court cases blocking his decisions make clear. The real important bit here is this: > apparently 77M Americans That is the majority of the voting public which you're lambasting for making the wrong decision. Here's a bit more on that subject, read it well: https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy and https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government Don't agree with the majority and think they should listen to you or your group instead? There are names for such forms of government as well, names which are generally portrayed as being opposites of the two I pointed at earlier. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictator-ruler https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictator-ruler
  - croisillon 2y ago
    weird you would prefer to use the 2000 y.o. definition of dictator than the current one but if that helps you cope, be my guest the 77M people were not the majority but a plurality, although i'm not sure there is a 2000 y.o. definition for that to help you cope don't look too far for a president who has been elected by a minority, it happened as recently as 2016
    - sejje 2y ago

by sejje 2y ago

> (Yes, it is weird that Zuck goes out of his way to compare himself to a violent dictator.) Why can't news sites just report the news? Why do they need to tell me what to think about it?

smrtinsert 2y ago

You're thinking of a wire service. Associated Press for example is what you want. TechCrunch is a blog and it's completely normal for blogs to be editorialized.

sejje 2y ago
> Top Headlines > Latest News > Newsletters > TechCrunch is an American global online newspaper focusing on topics regarding high-tech and startup companies. [0] Oh, okay. My fault. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechCrunch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechCrunch
- zeroCalories 2y ago
  Yeah and New York Post calls itself a newspaper but we all know it's some trashy shit.
  - sejje 2y ago
    That's reflected on its wikipedia page [0], too. Note the word "tabloid": > The New York Post (NY Post) is an American conservative daily tabloid newspaper published in New York City. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post
    - hagbard_c 2y ago
      Tabloid is a form factor for a newspaper - roughly defined as 'half of a broadsheet' - and not directly related to the content of the publication. It got a bad reputation because lots of trashy publications are published in this form factor but this is not its defining characteristic. Aside from that Wikipedia is not a good source to decide whether a publication is to be trusted due to its heavy political bias. The New York Post has a conservative bias while (English-language) Wikipedia has a heavy 'progressive´ bias as is reflected by its list of what they consider to be 'reliable/perennial sources' [1] which closely resembles a political litmus test. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
      - sejje 2y ago
        Can you name a newspaper we call a tabloid that has a good reputation? I'd like to check that out.
        hagbard_c 2y ago
        When you say 'good reputation' I assume you mean 'serious general news' papers? UK: The Independent, The Times, The Scotsman, The Guardian NL: Het Parool, Trouw, NRC Handelsblad, de Volkskrant, de Telegraaf, Reformatorisch Dagblad and many others (most of them owned by DPG) DK: Berlingske Tidende SE: Dagens Industri, Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Expressen, Aftonbladet and many others There are many others, take your pick. As said these are newspapers published in tabloid format, not 'tabloid newspapers' publishing celebrity gossip and other trash although some of them do also venture in that direction on occasion.

aiBorland 2y ago

[flagged]

theoryofx 2y ago

What bothers me about this is not injecting an opinion (it's TechCrunch) but the superficial and ignorant take. Julius Caesar was not just some "violent dictator" like a Hitler, Stalin, or Putin. He wasn't sending people off to gas chambers, gulags, or out of windows. He was famous for his clemency toward his enemies in the civil war which made him dictator. Even the title of "dictator" was a legal office in ancient Rome and meant something very different from the modern usage. Zuck admiring Julius Caesar (which doesn't mean endorsing all his actions) puts him in the company of many of the most successful, ethical, and well informed people in history

aiBorland 2y ago
[flagged]
invalidname 2y ago
Well... About a million dead and a million enslaved might disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars . He murdered/enslaved for political gain back home, then killed the people who opposed to him back in Rome to stop democracy. I don't want to compare to these other guys because obviously it was a different time/culture and you can't really make such broad sweeping comparisons. I won't judge people for admiring him because I also appreciate a lot of his political and strategic savvy. But he was a very violent dictator.
- adamc 2y ago
  This. Caesar made a huge fortune from the people he sold into slavery.
- theoryofx 2y ago
  "About a million dead and a million enslaved might disagree" You might be very surprised at how differently ancient people viewed the world compared to yourself. Sure, no one wants to be killed or enslaved but the societies of these very people behaved in precisely the same way as the Romans and most ancient societies did. These were not peace loving hippies being invaded by alien monsters. Anyway, Caesar was not dictator when he fought in Gaul. He was a Roman proconsul/general fighting in his provinces the way all ancient Roman armies did, and was more inclined toward mercy than most, although he also fought a much bigger war than most. In the civil war Caesar was fighting Pompey, the guy who used his military power to control the Roman government for the previous decade. And who would have continued controlling the government had he won. The narrative that Pompey was defending the republic against a tyrant is more ancient propaganda than reality. A reasonable and accurate summary is that Julius Caesar led a violent army against violent enemies, fought a civil war with unprecedented clemency, and was a benevolent dictator until his assassination by the envious people he had granted clemency.

catlover76 2y ago

[dead]

fullshark 2y ago

Because no one goes into journalism to report the news, they go into to influence public opinion. This is done largely by deciding which stories to amplify and to kill, and which information is presented in which order. That is a subtle art, this person seems to lack subtlety.

croisillon 2y ago

because apparently 77M Americans can't add 2 and 2 when it comes to wannabe dictators

hagbard_c 2y ago
dictator, in modern political systems, a single person who possesses absolute political power within a country or territory or a member of a small group that exercises such power. The term comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather than ancient dictators. (from Britannica [1]) In some ways this fits the election of Donald Trump - he was designated as a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises - but in most ways it does not. Trump does not possess absolute power nor is a member of a small group which possesses such power as the plethora of court cases blocking his decisions make clear. The real important bit here is this: > apparently 77M Americans That is the majority of the voting public which you're lambasting for making the wrong decision. Here's a bit more on that subject, read it well: https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy and https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government Don't agree with the majority and think they should listen to you or your group instead? There are names for such forms of government as well, names which are generally portrayed as being opposites of the two I pointed at earlier. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictator-ruler https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictator-ruler
- croisillon 2y ago
  weird you would prefer to use the 2000 y.o. definition of dictator than the current one but if that helps you cope, be my guest the 77M people were not the majority but a plurality, although i'm not sure there is a 2000 y.o. definition for that to help you cope don't look too far for a president who has been elected by a minority, it happened as recently as 2016
  - sejje 2y ago