5 ms·

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.

by badsock 11y ago

axlprose 11y ago
So questioning ethics in any kind of journalism anywhere is automatically BS now because of some random highly-opinionated internet drama? Way to discourage critical thinking. Orwell and Huxley would be proud.
- magicalist 11y ago
  No, abruptly trying to turn a conversation about disgusting comments made on reddit into one on the "clickbait media has to be called out" is like a parody of the parodies of gamergate. I mean, it's like well into Poe's law territory.
  - axlprose 11y ago
    Did you even follow the original parent's argument? He didn't just bring up "clickbait media" as a non-sequitur while defending reddit comments. He highlighted how everything in this whole mess so far can be explained through the lens of questionable media, and literally none of his analysis+critique has been addressed so far, all that's been done is point out how he sounded like some angry mob person. Please explain to me how that is a logical way to respond to a legitimate argument.
    - dasil003 11y ago
      Saying that online activists are equally to blame as misogynists and racists for the devolution of civil dialog online is sort of like insisting on creationism getting equal media coverage to evolution on the basis of fairness.
      - axlprose 11y ago
        One person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist". For matters like these, it's better if we stick to the few objective observations we can make, such as deconstructing how arguments are made, and when/where they're propagated, which is exactly what the original comment tried to do.
      - douche 11y ago
        If your plan to get rid of the trolls is to feed them by bringing their trolling out of the dark confines of message boards and trying to shame them in public, congratulations, you've fed the trolls, and inspired other proto-trolls (goblins, kobalds, I need a D&D person here...) to snicker in their caverns and sling their troll arrows at you. If you start trying to troll the trolls, you're laying on a feast of HGH-laden troll-bait. People have always been shitty to each other. The internet tends to act as a force multiplier for shittiness, allowing people to be shitty to each other at extreme distances, and with much improved protections from the immediate consequences. Once was a time, I hear, where if you insulted somebody in the public square, you had to be ready to drop the gloves if the insultee took it harshly. I dunno, I came in just at the very end of when it was considered acceptable for children to wrassle, and not grounds for throwing them, or maybe their parents, too, in jail.
    - magicalist 11y ago
      > He highlighted how everything in this whole mess so far can be explained through the lens of questionable media What "everything" are you referring to here? That's the problem with addressing this "analysis+critique". There's almost nothing being analyzed or critiqued. This was a pretty minor story even in the tech blogs, let alone major news outlets.
      - axlprose 11y ago
        > This was a pretty minor story even in the tech blogs, let alone major news outlets. This is currently the #1 post on HN. It might not be the biggest community, but it is influential, and many people bypass visiting blogs/sites and come directly here for their news. Things don't have to be on the front page of Time magazine to leave an impact on interested communities. And here, clearly people are interested enough in this matter to make it the most highly commented submission on the front page right now. So to try and paint a popular HN item as pointless chump change is quite disingenuous.
        magicalist 11y ago
        > It might not be the biggest community, but it is influential, and many people bypass visiting blogs/sites and come directly here for their news. So then what does this have to do with "questioning ethics in any kind of journalism"?? I am a commenter on HN and a redditor and am in no way related to the "clickbait media", so how are my contributions to this thread "explained through the lens of questionable media"? The problem is the deflection. It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea. If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics.
        axlprose 11y ago
        > I am a commenter on HN and a redditor and am in no way related to the "clickbait media", so how are my contributions to this thread "explained through the lens of questionable media"? Herein lies the problem: there is increasingly less of a difference between you or I, some "random strangers on the internet", and 'trusted' news sources like the New York Times. So it's not so much that we're not related to the 'clickbait' media, it's that the media is now mirroring us, unfiltered, and many don't realize that this is basically the modern MO of 'news reporting'. The lines are blurring as a side effect of the influence social media has, that's the danger. > It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea. Yeah, I agree. It's certainly hard to follow, but we are on a platform that makes misinformation incredibly easy to produce. Technology is unfortunately a double-edged sword like that. > If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics I agree, it would be nice, but at this point it'd be like playing whack-a-mole, with changing definitions of what it means to be a 'mole'. It's unfortunate, but it'd be pretty difficult to keep up with every possible distortion even if we tried, so the best I can do is just remind people that "hey, even when I'm not around to remind you, you should probably try to question things that you believe and might've picked up from somewhere".
- badsock 11y ago
  The topic at hand is journalism and misogyny. That particular phrasing was often used as a thin veil over many vile attacks on women in visible positions during the gamergate thing. I see a lot of similarities with what happened to Pao (not that I'm defending her in particular, she's pretty dodgy, but the hatred was palpable). And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me.
  - axlprose 11y ago
    > And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me. This is another common trope that happens a lot. We as HN readers are not any more special or immune to proven psychological tactics than anyone else. We are all still humans after all. This elitist sort of viewpoint that HNers are somehow smarter, better, or faster than most people at nearly everything isn't very helpful. I guarantee there are many people here that could benefit from 'basic' knowledge like this, because we all have our biases. You can know not to trust most media, and apply it to 99.9% of the media outlets you encounter, but if that remaining 0.1% are sources like the New York Times or Fox News, because for whatever reason, your experiences led you to believe they were 'reliable', then knowing that 'you shouldn't trust most media' is useless when those outlets do you a disservice.
    - badsock 11y ago
      It's not elitist to think that the average HN reader doesn't need a reminder that you shouldn't blindly trust the media interjected into any random discussion that involves the media. Most of us read 1984 in high school, just like you probably did. What's elitist is to think that the other camp only holds their opinion because they've been duped by the media, and that you're the one that's managed to see through it all with your superior scepticism, which is what generic_user is basically doing with their "The knife cuts both ways" comment.
- vacri 11y ago
  The irony in this comment about not discouraging critical thinking whilst shaming someone drawing a parallel... first overstating the GP's case to extremes, then doing a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum... ... it's just delicious.
  - axlprose 11y ago
    There's no reason why my comments shouldn't be analyzed critically either. So if you feel up to it, please do so. But the comment I responded to did not exhibit any logical analyses, nor any reminders to remain analytical.
    - vacri 11y ago
      > So if you feel up to it, please do so. Uh, I just did. Reductio Ad Hitlerum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Overstating the case to extremes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man My point is that you're being a hypocrite, demanding someone else not discourage critical thinking, while exhibiting logical fallacies yourself. Shaming someone about 'discouraging critical thinking' through the use of a strawman is particularly egregious.
      - axlprose 11y ago
        Critical thinking just involves analysis of arguments presented. If my arguments were fallacious, then I apologize, but you haven't exactly clarified how exactly I exaggerated the OP's claims, as opposed to just summarized them. I'll accept the godwin's law card, that was a slip. Secondly, I did notice your analysis, but I was referring to the general "you", so that others can feel free to chime in and critique as well.
        vacri 11y ago
        "this reminds me of gamergate" => "questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere" It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate. I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.
scrollaway 11y ago
So now we're dropping random controversies in the middle of discussions to try make a point? This post is really attracting the worst in people.
- _jal 11y ago
  Seriously. Somehow this topic became a slightly less obnoxious Gamergate twittergasm. So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? I confess to having little interest in Reddit most of the time, so I haven't paid attention to what's going on there (outside of the recent firing-related explosion).
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    > So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? Performance/track record aside, her name had become toxic to reddit. Sometimes you don't clean the stain, you buy a new shirt.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  Probably the most agreeable statement here, regardless of which 'side' you stand on.
tsotha 11y ago
GG is about ethics in journalism.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.

by badsock 11y ago

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.

axlprose 11y ago

So questioning ethics in any kind of journalism anywhere is automatically BS now because of some random highly-opinionated internet drama? Way to discourage critical thinking. Orwell and Huxley would be proud.

magicalist 11y ago
No, abruptly trying to turn a conversation about disgusting comments made on reddit into one on the "clickbait media has to be called out" is like a parody of the parodies of gamergate. I mean, it's like well into Poe's law territory.
- axlprose 11y ago
  Did you even follow the original parent's argument? He didn't just bring up "clickbait media" as a non-sequitur while defending reddit comments. He highlighted how everything in this whole mess so far can be explained through the lens of questionable media, and literally none of his analysis+critique has been addressed so far, all that's been done is point out how he sounded like some angry mob person. Please explain to me how that is a logical way to respond to a legitimate argument.
  - dasil003 11y ago
    Saying that online activists are equally to blame as misogynists and racists for the devolution of civil dialog online is sort of like insisting on creationism getting equal media coverage to evolution on the basis of fairness.
    - axlprose 11y ago
      One person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist". For matters like these, it's better if we stick to the few objective observations we can make, such as deconstructing how arguments are made, and when/where they're propagated, which is exactly what the original comment tried to do.
    - douche 11y ago
      If your plan to get rid of the trolls is to feed them by bringing their trolling out of the dark confines of message boards and trying to shame them in public, congratulations, you've fed the trolls, and inspired other proto-trolls (goblins, kobalds, I need a D&D person here...) to snicker in their caverns and sling their troll arrows at you. If you start trying to troll the trolls, you're laying on a feast of HGH-laden troll-bait. People have always been shitty to each other. The internet tends to act as a force multiplier for shittiness, allowing people to be shitty to each other at extreme distances, and with much improved protections from the immediate consequences. Once was a time, I hear, where if you insulted somebody in the public square, you had to be ready to drop the gloves if the insultee took it harshly. I dunno, I came in just at the very end of when it was considered acceptable for children to wrassle, and not grounds for throwing them, or maybe their parents, too, in jail.
  - magicalist 11y ago
    > He highlighted how everything in this whole mess so far can be explained through the lens of questionable media What "everything" are you referring to here? That's the problem with addressing this "analysis+critique". There's almost nothing being analyzed or critiqued. This was a pretty minor story even in the tech blogs, let alone major news outlets.
    - axlprose 11y ago
      > This was a pretty minor story even in the tech blogs, let alone major news outlets. This is currently the #1 post on HN. It might not be the biggest community, but it is influential, and many people bypass visiting blogs/sites and come directly here for their news. Things don't have to be on the front page of Time magazine to leave an impact on interested communities. And here, clearly people are interested enough in this matter to make it the most highly commented submission on the front page right now. So to try and paint a popular HN item as pointless chump change is quite disingenuous.
      - magicalist 11y ago
        > It might not be the biggest community, but it is influential, and many people bypass visiting blogs/sites and come directly here for their news. So then what does this have to do with "questioning ethics in any kind of journalism"?? I am a commenter on HN and a redditor and am in no way related to the "clickbait media", so how are my contributions to this thread "explained through the lens of questionable media"? The problem is the deflection. It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea. If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics.
        axlprose 11y ago
        > I am a commenter on HN and a redditor and am in no way related to the "clickbait media", so how are my contributions to this thread "explained through the lens of questionable media"? Herein lies the problem: there is increasingly less of a difference between you or I, some "random strangers on the internet", and 'trusted' news sources like the New York Times. So it's not so much that we're not related to the 'clickbait' media, it's that the media is now mirroring us, unfiltered, and many don't realize that this is basically the modern MO of 'news reporting'. The lines are blurring as a side effect of the influence social media has, that's the danger. > It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea. Yeah, I agree. It's certainly hard to follow, but we are on a platform that makes misinformation incredibly easy to produce. Technology is unfortunately a double-edged sword like that. > If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics I agree, it would be nice, but at this point it'd be like playing whack-a-mole, with changing definitions of what it means to be a 'mole'. It's unfortunate, but it'd be pretty difficult to keep up with every possible distortion even if we tried, so the best I can do is just remind people that "hey, even when I'm not around to remind you, you should probably try to question things that you believe and might've picked up from somewhere".
badsock 11y ago
The topic at hand is journalism and misogyny. That particular phrasing was often used as a thin veil over many vile attacks on women in visible positions during the gamergate thing. I see a lot of similarities with what happened to Pao (not that I'm defending her in particular, she's pretty dodgy, but the hatred was palpable). And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me.
- axlprose 11y ago
  > And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me. This is another common trope that happens a lot. We as HN readers are not any more special or immune to proven psychological tactics than anyone else. We are all still humans after all. This elitist sort of viewpoint that HNers are somehow smarter, better, or faster than most people at nearly everything isn't very helpful. I guarantee there are many people here that could benefit from 'basic' knowledge like this, because we all have our biases. You can know not to trust most media, and apply it to 99.9% of the media outlets you encounter, but if that remaining 0.1% are sources like the New York Times or Fox News, because for whatever reason, your experiences led you to believe they were 'reliable', then knowing that 'you shouldn't trust most media' is useless when those outlets do you a disservice.
  - badsock 11y ago
    It's not elitist to think that the average HN reader doesn't need a reminder that you shouldn't blindly trust the media interjected into any random discussion that involves the media. Most of us read 1984 in high school, just like you probably did. What's elitist is to think that the other camp only holds their opinion because they've been duped by the media, and that you're the one that's managed to see through it all with your superior scepticism, which is what generic_user is basically doing with their "The knife cuts both ways" comment.
vacri 11y ago
The irony in this comment about not discouraging critical thinking whilst shaming someone drawing a parallel... first overstating the GP's case to extremes, then doing a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum... ... it's just delicious.
- axlprose 11y ago
  There's no reason why my comments shouldn't be analyzed critically either. So if you feel up to it, please do so. But the comment I responded to did not exhibit any logical analyses, nor any reminders to remain analytical.
  - vacri 11y ago
    > So if you feel up to it, please do so. Uh, I just did. Reductio Ad Hitlerum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Overstating the case to extremes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man My point is that you're being a hypocrite, demanding someone else not discourage critical thinking, while exhibiting logical fallacies yourself. Shaming someone about 'discouraging critical thinking' through the use of a strawman is particularly egregious.
    - axlprose 11y ago
      Critical thinking just involves analysis of arguments presented. If my arguments were fallacious, then I apologize, but you haven't exactly clarified how exactly I exaggerated the OP's claims, as opposed to just summarized them. I'll accept the godwin's law card, that was a slip. Secondly, I did notice your analysis, but I was referring to the general "you", so that others can feel free to chime in and critique as well.
      - vacri 11y ago
        "this reminds me of gamergate" => "questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere" It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate. I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.

scrollaway 11y ago

So now we're dropping random controversies in the middle of discussions to try make a point? This post is really attracting the worst in people.

_jal 11y ago
Seriously. Somehow this topic became a slightly less obnoxious Gamergate twittergasm. So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? I confess to having little interest in Reddit most of the time, so I haven't paid attention to what's going on there (outside of the recent firing-related explosion).
- scrollaway 11y ago
  > So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? Performance/track record aside, her name had become toxic to reddit. Sometimes you don't clean the stain, you buy a new shirt.
madeofpalk 11y ago
Probably the most agreeable statement here, regardless of which 'side' you stand on.

tsotha 11y ago

GG is about ethics in journalism.