My Previous Post (Read it first, as this post might not make sense to you, without reading the previous post first)
I saw a lot of people defending Ars Technica in my previous post. Here is a simple proof that they are an evil company:
ProPublica Posts:
Ars Technica post:
As it can be seen here, the original source of the info/Investigation was Propublica and even in terms of the story cover photo, Propublica used a custom cover.
Yet, despite all of that, as expected Reddit manipulated upvotes to boost the Ars Technica story and even deleted the second ProPublica story from Reddit.
Journalism will be fucked up, because of Condé Nast and their parent company manipulation.
I’m going to try to be civil here. You clearly know nothing about the journalistic process. What is a “custom cover”?
Yeah, at the corporate level, things are fucked up. But it certainly isn’t Conde Nast leading the charge. That ship has sailed. But dear god, figure out how to properly capitalize things!
You got pushback, much of it from me, on your prior post because griefposting isn’t really what I’m on Beehaw for.
Also, know your audience. People are here because we already know Reddit is a shitshow. I’m not sure what you’re attempting to do by posting twice in rapid succession. Ars and ProPublica have different standards and metrics, which is actually the sign of a thriving journalism community.
Having your feelings hurt by people disagreeing with you suggests little online exposure. But you’re frankly talking about an industry you have no knowledge of.
If nothing else, this belongs in Chat, not Technology.
If nothing else, this belongs in Chat, not Technology.
Nope.
Having your feelings hurt by people disagreeing with you suggests little online exposure. But you’re frankly talking about an industry you have no knowledge of.
What what you are talking about, bro.
Your comment summary is just you repeating that I know nothing about the industry.
Today the whole beehaw technology community had only 2 new posts posted in the previous 24 hours. If my post bothered you that much, I guess you reflecting on yourself on your comment.
Re read the screenshot you posted of the technology community.
Then ask yourself if your personal grievances and opinion about other people fits the premis. You’re okay to talk about technology and give your opinion on it. But posting like this, just to air your problems, isn’t fit.
But posting like this, just to air your problems, isn’t fit.
Where exactly did I “air” my “problems”
This whole post is that. Just because someone disagrees with you (other post) doesn’t require a doubling down and an additional post of why you are right.
Beehaw is not a place to have pointless arguments. But moving to ad hominems that are grammatically incorrect isn’t a great look. You’re beeing needlessly aggressive. I’m done here.
WOW
I can’t tell if you are trolling me or not.
I’m done here.
Me too brother, me too.
What was the reason given for removing the post? You’re leaving out some important stuff which is a tell for shit stirrers.
Pretty much everyone here knows Reddit and Conde Nast are bad for a multitude of reasons, but that does not mean the journalists at Ars are bad at their jobs. They also have nothing to do with any alleged anti-not Conde Nast bias of Reddit mods (I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but the evidence you posted here is a lot of nothing). People can do good work at shitty companies, and a lot of shitty companies don’t have a hand in day to day operations in companies. Hell, in the US, that is becoming the rule and not the exception. Again, I am not saying Conde Nast doesn’t necessarily have a thumb on the scales at Ars, but you have provided no evidence of that.
And once again, even if we take everything you say as true, the fact remains that the journalists at Ars have absolutely nothing to do with Reddit. The heads of Conde Nast might, and for sure read articles from their outlets with a critical eye, but those are two different things.
Finally, bringing your problems with Reddit to a completely different platform is just silly, especially on Lemmy, and especially especially to Beehaw. If you want to have a bitchfest, that is fine. This just isn’t the place to do it.
Why are you stealing my argument? I kid, but the facts are true.
lol, fair, but I thought it was a smaller part of your post and figured that if it was coming from someone who did not have a dog in the fight it might hammer it home
I simply meant that you enumerated my exact problems with this post. I like you very much.
I think your issue should be with Reddit moderators not Ars.
ProPublica happily allows Ars to republish their stories by disclosing the source:
https://www.propublica.org/nerds/happy-birthday-creative-commons
Ars discloses the source compliantly:
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-doge-veterans-affairs-ai-contracts-health-care
ProPublica literally thanks Ars above for spreading their stories.
The Ars headline (with its subheading) also says a lot more. So it’s just … going to get more upvotes, it’s better bait.
As for the second article getting squashed… Again Reddit moderators.
This looks like a nonsensical conspiracy theory … ProPublica was not suppressed or harmed. Ars literally spread their exact story. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if more people read the story because they see “ArsTechnica” and assume good content (because Ars has a super nice website and regularly has really good journalism on it).
In case it isn’t clear, the Ars Technica post is expected to hit the front page, while the ProPublica ones are expected to die, despite being the original source of the info.
Lol, “Post removed by mods”… Pretty damn transparent aren’t they?
Not that anyone should be surprised. Never think for one minute that any story is wholly the truth - there’s always some element someone is trying to hide, by getting us to focus on something else.
(This isn’t a criticism of you, OP, just a general observation about how power brokers have been using the “news” to manipulate perception since Hurst in the 1800’s when he used his paper to influence opinion about a labor strike or something, I forget exactly what.)
An interesting article on the history of this issue.
Historian Chilton wrote “the progressive movement during this time promoted the idea that the media’s purpose was to shape the beliefs of voters, since the public was too irrational to make the right choice based singularly on fact.”
“The presentation of facts simply as facts, editors and writers reasoned, cannot accomplish the exalted goal of saving civilization,” Chilton wrote. “To do that, facts needed to be presented according to those rhetorical patterns of thought we call opinions, patterns pointed in some particular direction of convincing an imagined jury.”
In other words, progressives at the time believed the public was too stupid to make the right choice, so they had to tell them which choice to make, even lying if needed.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Not sure who this “Hurst” guy is.
Like, seriously, if you’re going to cite someone, at least spell their name correctly.
