7 ms·

It's one thing to afford a public figure some margin of fallibility for being human. It's another thing entirely for that executive to publicly express authorit

It's one thing to afford a public figure some margin of fallibility for being human. It's another thing entirely for that executive to publicly express authoritative, aggressive behaviors towards potential dissidents. This is some dictator shit right here.

the8472 12y ago
But it wasn't publicly. That's why I said that everyone needs some privacy and it certainly is also an aspect why the notion of "off the record" exists. And while I wouldn't call it "dictator shit" since a CEO is not a government official with direct power over his targets, it would certainly be a smear campaign which I wouldn't condone. I'm operating on the assumption that people say many things that they do not intend to follow up with deeds, especially when they think they are not talking publicly.
- robgibbons 12y ago
  Private expression is fine in your own home. When you spout off about attacking journalists, in front of journalists, you are asking for it.
  - mistermumble 12y ago
    Plus, as mentioned earlier, this was not an off-the-record conversation.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      source? article sayse dude was not invited, was +1 of an invited guest.
001sky 12y ago
If this was in a a different context, maybe. But private dinner, and expressed in the hypothetical, it a bit of a stretch. This story is media hype for two reasons: (1) greed and ego of the press; and (2) greed and ego of the press. Buzzfeed looks good for breaking the story, and the comment is an existential threat to other journalists and their business models. Ego, here we are. I'd be more worried about this if their were some evidence that this was a view (1) meant to be expressed in public (or actually articulated to the public); or (2) articulated in confidence internally in a professional context (which means the intent was real, not just rhetorical; or (3) if other eye-witness testimony comes forth that unequivically supports that this was an actual threat mean to intimidate those actually present (seems unlikely...but lets see). Without that, this is just another internet shitstorm, manufactured by people who have something to gain financially or who are emotionally invested in maligning this individual or the company. I don't think you need to give anone the benefit of the doubt here, its more that the evidence doesn't really support the conclusions that are implied by the reporting (at least, yet).

the8472 12y ago

But it wasn't publicly. That's why I said that everyone needs some privacy and it certainly is also an aspect why the notion of "off the record" exists. And while I wouldn't call it "dictator shit" since a CEO is not a government official with direct power over his targets, it would certainly be a smear campaign which I wouldn't condone. I'm operating on the assumption that people say many things that they do not intend to follow up with deeds, especially when they think they are not talking publicly.

robgibbons 12y ago
Private expression is fine in your own home. When you spout off about attacking journalists, in front of journalists, you are asking for it.
- mistermumble 12y ago
  Plus, as mentioned earlier, this was not an off-the-record conversation.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    source? article sayse dude was not invited, was +1 of an invited guest.

001sky 12y ago

If this was in a a different context, maybe. But private dinner, and expressed in the hypothetical, it a bit of a stretch. This story is media hype for two reasons: (1) greed and ego of the press; and (2) greed and ego of the press. Buzzfeed looks good for breaking the story, and the comment is an existential threat to other journalists and their business models. Ego, here we are. I'd be more worried about this if their were some evidence that this was a view (1) meant to be expressed in public (or actually articulated to the public); or (2) articulated in confidence internally in a professional context (which means the intent was real, not just rhetorical; or (3) if other eye-witness testimony comes forth that unequivically supports that this was an actual threat mean to intimidate those actually present (seems unlikely...but lets see). Without that, this is just another internet shitstorm, manufactured by people who have something to gain financially or who are emotionally invested in maligning this individual or the company. I don't think you need to give anone the benefit of the doubt here, its more that the evidence doesn't really support the conclusions that are implied by the reporting (at least, yet).