3 ms·

NYT journalists as a privileged class… With actions like this, Bluesky is not exactly beating the allegations.

by Robotbeat 1y ago

9283409232 1y ago
I actually don't know what you are talking about.
- JustSkyfall 1y ago
  I presume he’s saying that Bluesky’s a very left wing social media platform.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    Calling NYT left wing is patently absurd. They've spent the past 4-8 years platforming writers to say absolute horseshit about trans people and equivocate between Biden having like 6 leftover classified documents in his house vs Trumps bathroom of for sale state secrets.
    - 9283409232 1y ago
      Everything that doesn't worship the Emperor is left wing these days.
      - Robotbeat 1y ago
        Believe it or not, plenty of left wingers have a bone to pick with the East Coast traditional media establishment as well, NY Times in particular. And the traditional media also seems to have a symbiotic relationship with Trump, whose chaos drives news ratings.
muglug 1y ago
NYT journalists are in a different class from random Bluesky users — if they spread unfounded conspiracy theories on their corporate-approved account, they can be fired from their jobs. Put another way, a Bluesky post saying "BREAKING: Trump dies from natural causes" from an employed NYT journo carries a different salience than the same post from a random Bluesky user.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
  >if they spread unfounded conspiracy theories on their corporate-approved account, they can be fired from their jobs. Or… you know… win a Pulitzer.
Applejinx 1y ago
Correct. I'd like the example of NYT as a verifying authority better if I trusted the Times more than I trusted some of their journalists (blessed few, mind you). I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. It makes me automatically distrust BlueSky verification, which doesn't sound like the intention.
- enneff 1y ago
  It’s not that you need to trust the New York Times as a whole, it’s that you can trust that account is linked to that organisation. A verification tick does not imply endorsement, just that they are who they say they are.
  - Applejinx 1y ago
    That would be nice, I guess. In normie world a blue tick is supposed to mean 'vouched for and trustworthy, also high status so you should maybe show deference'. You can say it means whatever you want, but then watch how people fight for these things and argue about/rebel against them. In practical terms, no, they are status markers.
    - azernik 1y ago
      If you're treating a "this person is who they say they are" checkmark as a status symbol, that's a you problem.
      - Robotbeat 1y ago
        That’s the problem with a lot of people, tho. They DO give deference to the checkmark.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. Why? Who do you trust?

NYT journalists as a privileged class… With actions like this, Bluesky is not exactly beating the allegations.

9283409232 1y ago

I actually don't know what you are talking about.

JustSkyfall 1y ago
I presume he’s saying that Bluesky’s a very left wing social media platform.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Calling NYT left wing is patently absurd. They've spent the past 4-8 years platforming writers to say absolute horseshit about trans people and equivocate between Biden having like 6 leftover classified documents in his house vs Trumps bathroom of for sale state secrets.
  - 9283409232 1y ago
    Everything that doesn't worship the Emperor is left wing these days.
    - Robotbeat 1y ago
      Believe it or not, plenty of left wingers have a bone to pick with the East Coast traditional media establishment as well, NY Times in particular. And the traditional media also seems to have a symbiotic relationship with Trump, whose chaos drives news ratings.

muglug 1y ago

NYT journalists are in a different class from random Bluesky users — if they spread unfounded conspiracy theories on their corporate-approved account, they can be fired from their jobs. Put another way, a Bluesky post saying "BREAKING: Trump dies from natural causes" from an employed NYT journo carries a different salience than the same post from a random Bluesky user.

SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
>if they spread unfounded conspiracy theories on their corporate-approved account, they can be fired from their jobs. Or… you know… win a Pulitzer.

Applejinx 1y ago

Correct. I'd like the example of NYT as a verifying authority better if I trusted the Times more than I trusted some of their journalists (blessed few, mind you). I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. It makes me automatically distrust BlueSky verification, which doesn't sound like the intention.

enneff 1y ago
It’s not that you need to trust the New York Times as a whole, it’s that you can trust that account is linked to that organisation. A verification tick does not imply endorsement, just that they are who they say they are.
- Applejinx 1y ago
  That would be nice, I guess. In normie world a blue tick is supposed to mean 'vouched for and trustworthy, also high status so you should maybe show deference'. You can say it means whatever you want, but then watch how people fight for these things and argue about/rebel against them. In practical terms, no, they are status markers.
  - azernik 1y ago
    If you're treating a "this person is who they say they are" checkmark as a status symbol, that's a you problem.
    - Robotbeat 1y ago
      That’s the problem with a lot of people, tho. They DO give deference to the checkmark.
mmooss 1y ago
> I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. Why? Who do you trust?