5 ms·

Why do you imply that the members of this panel are being disingenuous? - Yes you never agreed to the panel, but how does this email chain not reflect an hones

by thwest 14y ago

Why do you imply that the members of this panel are being disingenuous? - Yes you never agreed to the panel, but how does this email chain not reflect an honest invitation? - Of course the debate was framed; it is impossible for an event to not have context. Would you have preferred it framed differently? How so? - Are you implying that these panelists prefer pageviews over progress? If not, who are the boogeymen you are invoking here?

EliAndrewC 14y ago
> Why do you imply that the members of this panel are being disingenuous? The original article claimed, "To balance things out, Farhad invited Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, but he dropped out, so it was just the three of us." Saying that Alexis "dropped out" is simply wrong, so the statement is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
- dclowd9901 14y ago
  Farhad didn't know what happened. All he knew is that Ohanian was supposed to at least be asked, and he supposedly wasn't even corresponded with, which could, by all accounts, not even be true. He was on the invite list, and decided against. I'm not sure what part doesn't correlate with "dropped out."
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - weareconvo 14y ago
    Now you are the one who is being disengenuous. The context of "dropped out" is universally "The person went from participating to not participating". Alexis was never participating.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    How can you possibly "drop out" of a panel that you explicitly said you were never planning on attending? Dropping out means that you were planning to go and then you had to cancel. Whether Farhad knew this before or not, Alexis's email was very clear and so there's no excuse to claim today that Alexis dropped out of anything.
- thwest 14y ago
  Being disingenuous or dishonest would require knowledge on her part that she was misrepresenting. Given that the event description originally included Alexis, and the obvious chain of miscommunication above, is it not a reasonable assumption that Rebecca was simply misinformed?
  - Locke1689 14y ago
    This article was clearly written post-email exchange. At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending and that the idea that he would in the first place was simply a communications breakdown. The author is now being deliberately disingenuous.
    - nollidge 14y ago
      > At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending How so? Farhad is not Rebecca. She may be, as we speak, still completely unaware of Farhad's e-mail exchange with Alexis.
      - Locke1689 14y ago
        Perhaps. It seems strange that one would write an article without checking on this fact, and personally I don't believe I will frequent this person's writing again, but it is certainly far more forgivable than dishonesty.
        potatolicious 14y ago
        "Hey Farhad, whatever happened to Alexis at the panel?" "Oh, uh, it fell through." "Oh, ok." I can think of hundreds of other variations of the same exchange that don't include negligence on the author's part. This isn't a cross examination - which is the price we pay when we gleefully shoved a knife in the chest of real journalism and twisted it hard, and went and partied with blogs afterward.
        14y ago
drpgq 14y ago
She did write: "To balance things out, Farhad invited Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, but he dropped out, so it was just the three of us." "he dropped out" is clearly false.
- likpok 14y ago
  Did she know that? It sounds like Farhad was point on the get-a-guy-from-reddit thing, so she may have not known the details, just that "Alexis was asked, but he isn't coming".
  - sjs382 14y ago
    She's misrepresenting the facts. Does it matter that she didn't know the facts she was presenting were wrong? Her job is to find out, check sources, etc. This is part of the responsibility of self-publishing.
    - likpok 14y ago
      Using words like "misrepresenting" and "disingenuous" and "dishonest" attaches serious implications to the facts of the matter: "dropped out" was not the best phrasing. As Hanlon's Razor puts it, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by [ignorance]". Why does the three sentences about Alexis need thorough researching, when the vast majority of the post is about Reddit; an entity that Alexis left years ago? It reminds me of grammar arguments on the internet; people don't like what she says, so they find some easily arguable but minor flaw in the text to jump on.
      - sjs382 14y ago
        It might not be malice. It may be ignorance. It's definitely irresponsible. Those three sentences do not need thorough researching. Maybe she just needs to write a quick email to Alexis for a comment/confirmation (or omit the 3 sentences). Or are bloggers not journalists, anymore? Also, I didn't attack the premise of this article at all, so don't lump me in with that crowd—I just think that the author does a disservice to her premise/argument. For what it's worth, I agree with the high-level sentiment of the article (though not all of the details).
supercanuck 14y ago
>Are you implying that these panelists prefer pageviews over progress? That was the view I came away with after reading the article.
- dclowd9901 14y ago
  Unfortunately, your conspiracy theory conveniently overlaps a condition where the panelists simply want to represent themselves and their side of the story.
- thwest 14y ago
  You are inferring a motive in SkepChick that isn't apparent to me. Care to elaborate? Do you have reason to believe that she isn't actually concerned about bigotry and child porn perpetuating on reddit? If she was after page views, wouldn't she have linked to herself more than she did (one slate article she wrote, out of a dozen links)?
  - eqdw 14y ago
    I find it hard to believe she really cares about the bigotry and child porn on Reddit when half her post is about people who were mean to her
    - nollidge 14y ago
      This doesn't make any sense. How does writing about two different things mean that a person is not concerned about both?
      - eqdw 14y ago
        To be fair, it doesn't. But every time I'm invited to read what she's written, it is 50% her complaining about people being mean to her, and maybe 15% the actual issue. Excuse me for inferring her priorities
  - supercanuck 14y ago
    ...because there isn't an effort to have the discussion she pines for. She asks great questions, but instead of using the forum to raise the level of discussion and provide answers and a forum on how to manage freedom of speech in the digital age where every degenerate and "loser" has a place to express themselves, instead we get more of an us vs them, finder pointing, shaming, ala Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, which rightfully causes defensiveness. She is more interested in pointing the finger and screaming fire, instead of grabbing a hose. Her blog post starting out fine, but half way through, she decided she was more interested in mud slinging and shaming than having that discussion she so desperately wanted to have. It is left up to the reader to infer a motive for her choice in direction.
ilovecomputers 14y ago
> Are you implying that these panelists prefer pageviews over progress? If not, who are the boogeymen you are invoking here? My guess it was a stab against Gawker Media?

by thwest 14y ago

EliAndrewC 14y ago

> Why do you imply that the members of this panel are being disingenuous? The original article claimed, "To balance things out, Farhad invited Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, but he dropped out, so it was just the three of us." Saying that Alexis "dropped out" is simply wrong, so the statement is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

dclowd9901 14y ago
Farhad didn't know what happened. All he knew is that Ohanian was supposed to at least be asked, and he supposedly wasn't even corresponded with, which could, by all accounts, not even be true. He was on the invite list, and decided against. I'm not sure what part doesn't correlate with "dropped out."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- weareconvo 14y ago
  Now you are the one who is being disengenuous. The context of "dropped out" is universally "The person went from participating to not participating". Alexis was never participating.
- mpyne 14y ago
  How can you possibly "drop out" of a panel that you explicitly said you were never planning on attending? Dropping out means that you were planning to go and then you had to cancel. Whether Farhad knew this before or not, Alexis's email was very clear and so there's no excuse to claim today that Alexis dropped out of anything.
thwest 14y ago
Being disingenuous or dishonest would require knowledge on her part that she was misrepresenting. Given that the event description originally included Alexis, and the obvious chain of miscommunication above, is it not a reasonable assumption that Rebecca was simply misinformed?
- Locke1689 14y ago
  This article was clearly written post-email exchange. At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending and that the idea that he would in the first place was simply a communications breakdown. The author is now being deliberately disingenuous.
  - nollidge 14y ago
    > At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending How so? Farhad is not Rebecca. She may be, as we speak, still completely unaware of Farhad's e-mail exchange with Alexis.
    - Locke1689 14y ago
      Perhaps. It seems strange that one would write an article without checking on this fact, and personally I don't believe I will frequent this person's writing again, but it is certainly far more forgivable than dishonesty.
      - potatolicious 14y ago
        "Hey Farhad, whatever happened to Alexis at the panel?" "Oh, uh, it fell through." "Oh, ok." I can think of hundreds of other variations of the same exchange that don't include negligence on the author's part. This isn't a cross examination - which is the price we pay when we gleefully shoved a knife in the chest of real journalism and twisted it hard, and went and partied with blogs afterward.
        14y ago

drpgq 14y ago

She did write: "To balance things out, Farhad invited Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, but he dropped out, so it was just the three of us." "he dropped out" is clearly false.

likpok 14y ago
Did she know that? It sounds like Farhad was point on the get-a-guy-from-reddit thing, so she may have not known the details, just that "Alexis was asked, but he isn't coming".
- sjs382 14y ago
  She's misrepresenting the facts. Does it matter that she didn't know the facts she was presenting were wrong? Her job is to find out, check sources, etc. This is part of the responsibility of self-publishing.
  - likpok 14y ago
    Using words like "misrepresenting" and "disingenuous" and "dishonest" attaches serious implications to the facts of the matter: "dropped out" was not the best phrasing. As Hanlon's Razor puts it, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by [ignorance]". Why does the three sentences about Alexis need thorough researching, when the vast majority of the post is about Reddit; an entity that Alexis left years ago? It reminds me of grammar arguments on the internet; people don't like what she says, so they find some easily arguable but minor flaw in the text to jump on.
    - sjs382 14y ago
      It might not be malice. It may be ignorance. It's definitely irresponsible. Those three sentences do not need thorough researching. Maybe she just needs to write a quick email to Alexis for a comment/confirmation (or omit the 3 sentences). Or are bloggers not journalists, anymore? Also, I didn't attack the premise of this article at all, so don't lump me in with that crowd—I just think that the author does a disservice to her premise/argument. For what it's worth, I agree with the high-level sentiment of the article (though not all of the details).

supercanuck 14y ago

>Are you implying that these panelists prefer pageviews over progress? That was the view I came away with after reading the article.

dclowd9901 14y ago
Unfortunately, your conspiracy theory conveniently overlaps a condition where the panelists simply want to represent themselves and their side of the story.
thwest 14y ago
You are inferring a motive in SkepChick that isn't apparent to me. Care to elaborate? Do you have reason to believe that she isn't actually concerned about bigotry and child porn perpetuating on reddit? If she was after page views, wouldn't she have linked to herself more than she did (one slate article she wrote, out of a dozen links)?
- eqdw 14y ago
  I find it hard to believe she really cares about the bigotry and child porn on Reddit when half her post is about people who were mean to her
  - nollidge 14y ago
    This doesn't make any sense. How does writing about two different things mean that a person is not concerned about both?
    - eqdw 14y ago
      To be fair, it doesn't. But every time I'm invited to read what she's written, it is 50% her complaining about people being mean to her, and maybe 15% the actual issue. Excuse me for inferring her priorities
- supercanuck 14y ago
  ...because there isn't an effort to have the discussion she pines for. She asks great questions, but instead of using the forum to raise the level of discussion and provide answers and a forum on how to manage freedom of speech in the digital age where every degenerate and "loser" has a place to express themselves, instead we get more of an us vs them, finder pointing, shaming, ala Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, which rightfully causes defensiveness. She is more interested in pointing the finger and screaming fire, instead of grabbing a hose. Her blog post starting out fine, but half way through, she decided she was more interested in mud slinging and shaming than having that discussion she so desperately wanted to have. It is left up to the reader to infer a motive for her choice in direction.

ilovecomputers 14y ago

> Are you implying that these panelists prefer pageviews over progress? If not, who are the boogeymen you are invoking here? My guess it was a stab against Gawker Media?