4 ms·
I think what's happening here is: 1. The Army gave a reasonable analysis of the security issues with the prototype. 2. This is normal. 3. But most people don
by reissbaker 1y ago
I think what's happening here is:
1. The Army gave a reasonable analysis of the security issues with the prototype.
2. This is normal.
3. But most people don't have experience in this field.
4. A reporter got access to the report, and published the most salacious-sounding parts — and if you don't know that this is normal, it sounds really bad.
5. Oh no, the sky is falling. Click here to watch our ads, oops I mean, to read all about it.
Generally my read on tech-adjacent reporters is they have very little understanding of what they're reporting on, and mostly try to manufacture outrage to get clicks.
- appreciatorBus 1y agoAlso true of non-tech-adjacent reporters! The impulse may be stronger in some and weaker in others, and the incentive structure at their outlet may be stronger or weaker, but all of them know, even subconsciously, what type of stories are likelier to capture attention, make $ for the outlet and hopefully return a portion of that to them. Outrage is high the list of qualities that guarantee attention. Since learning about social media algorithms, I've come to think of all news media, even old timey newspapers, in the same light. IMO The only difference between TikTok's For You page and newspaper headlines from 200 years ago was the precision of the engagement feedback and the latency.
- MountDoom 1y ago> Also true of non-tech-adjacent reporters! It's true for everyone. Over the years, I've been on the business end of several "tech outrage" stories that made the headlines on HN, and over time, became a sort of IT canon: "company X did something really bad". And they all had the same origin: a party with an ax to grind latched onto a fairly boring story, distorted the facts to tell a narrative, and that narrative "clicked" with everyone else because it confirmed their preexisting biases. It doesn't mean that there are no companies that are truly evil or incompetent, but I'd wager is <50% of the ones that get raked over the coals here and elsewhere.
- reissbaker 1y agoYep — sadly the most effective cure is being on the receiving end of one of the stories, and realizing how bad faith they are. I think the U.S. slander laws are probably too light. I'm generally supportive of the idea that "democracy dies in darkness," but I think we've gone further than that in allowing people to lie in public for money. I don't think that helps democracy, and in fact probably hurts it. I think anyone, anywhere on the political spectrum, can point to damning examples of the other side lying for their cause, and I think we'd all be better off if that stopped.
- kingforaday 1y agoRe: Benjamin Franklin and the Pamphlet Wars
- snerbles 1y agoAlso the Yellow Press drumming up support for the Spanish-American War.
- thfuran 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
- redwood 1y agoIt's because palantir's stock is so divorced from fundamentals. It means there's money in pushing the market either way
- JPKab 1y agoExactly this. The reporters are extra aggressive when it involves companies with right of center founders or VCs involved. Both of these companies fit that profile.
- peterpeppers 1y agoI love the moral outrage about “getting clicks” Journos wouldn’t have to get clicks, if you people (yes, you people) would pay for journalism but no lets continue to post archive links on HN. I’m throughly disappointed by the pampered, know-it-all tech class who continually complain about the world but refuses to make investments or engage in collective bargaining to force the tech billionaire class. Apparently all it takes to sell one’s soul is the feeling of superiority, $150k+ wages and stock options.