
The Disinformation - aaronbrethorst
http://uncrunched.com/2013/12/30/the-disinformation/
======
tptacek
I can't imagine how this situation could resolve itself in a way that will
make The Information look good. If you weren't aware, it's a publication that
asks for more than $30/mo, in exchange (literally, this is the point) for not
running clickbait and keeping the signal/noise positive.

I was happy to pay a buck a day for that service, but to pay for it and then
see them run misleading clickbait makes me feel dumb for paying.

Cancelled subscription.

~~~
sillysaurus2
What made The Information's value proposition so alluring? It seems like an
opportunity for another publication to step up and eat their lunch, whatever
it was.

I guess their promise of high-quality tech coverage was a welcome change.
Seems like a good idea; hopefully someone else will deliver it.

~~~
pchristensen
The headlines I've seen on their Twitter feed are very compelling topics that
I haven't seen covered anywhere else, e.g. news on what Scott Forstall has
been doing since he left Apple. I haven't subscribed so I haven't read them so
I can't vouch for the quality.

------
jmduke
_It’s extremely frustrating to have your words rearranged, edited and taken
out of context to make it seem like you’re saying something you aren’t._

This is absolutely absurd, coming from Arrington, who twisted Jamie Zawinski's
words from an anti-crazy-work-hours rant into rallying cry for gullible
programmers to "work hard, cry less, and make history":

[http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-
se...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-sell-a-con/)

~~~
tptacek
Is what he said wrong? Is his history relevant to the actual message he is
communicating here? To me, it seems like the answers are "no" and "no".

Guy records a radio PSA saying "don't punch strangers in the nose". Later, it
turns out that the guy has a history of punching strangers in the nose. Is the
PSA wrong?

There's a way to write the comment that points out that Arrington's history
here might be checkered. Unfortunately, the way you wrote your comment isn't
that way, because it calls the message into question along with the messenger,
and the message here seems valuable.

~~~
jmduke
In retrospect, _absolutely absurd_ should be replaced with _hypocritical_.

------
syllogism
> And really, three sins were committed. The first was changing a quote. You
> just can’t do that, ever

What utter nonsense!

Unscripted speech, especially under cognitive load about complicated topics,
is disfluent. About 5% of the words you speak will be edited on the fly, and
not part of the final utterance to be understood. Many professional speakers
train themselves not to do this, but even many politicians at the peak of
their profession will remain disfluent in unscripted remarks.

Interviews are _always_ edited for fluency. You make someone sound like a
bumbling idiot if you supply a verbatim transcript.

------
caprad
Good to see people coming out in support of this horrible editing, and I hope
the trouble makers see that it is taking the discussion away from what is
important.

Why attack someone like pg over this? Is the attempt to shame him into being
more women hacker friendly? Isn't he already going out of his way to support
women?

~~~
Tohhou
The people who attacked PG have an agenda:

* Publicly shame as many top males for anything possible to make room for women - assume the worst and don't try to resolve possible misunderstanding privately, but instead immediately engage in public smear campaigns. The little shitlord nerds don't deserve anything.

* Smashing the patriarchy requires getting men out of positions of power, because they didn't earn any of it, and so the best, most capable men must be pushed out. Meritocracies create inequality, and so are evil. Women are only not in tech because of deliberate, institutionalized sexism. There is no other reason. Not because more men were shut-in nerds ostracized by society who were hungry for something interesting to work on. That's not it at all. There is no reason for men to compete with each other for well paying jobs other than them being sexist jerks.

* Remove all male identity, because if men don't exist then women can feel better about not doing things they don't want to. All gendered words must be wiped clean, because you don't know who could be reading your own words even in an industry mostly built, maintained, and ran by men. Any word with "man" must be changed to "person" and if there are none available then invent new words, because men do not deserve identity (because of their male privilege). Why are men more interested in getting into tech on their own? Obviously it's the patriarchy which pushes men into challenging STEM jobs, and women into psychology. If there were no gendered words in tech then women would stop going into psychology so much and instead get into STEM

* Make places where men can talk openly safe for women's feelings, because that's the only reason women are not in tech. This means no fun allowed, no jokes allowed. If there are mostly men in a group then it's obviously anti-women, uninviting to women, and most likely a bunch of women hating frat boys. Humor is problematic. Brave white knights (people who defend some by attacking (being bullies toward) others at all costs by default when they do not even understand what is going on (see: people attacking PG on twitter)) treat women as children without agency, which means creating Codes of Conduct which hilariously favor women, and allow women to get any male kicked out for any reason if they feel like making something up, which will totally make more guys want to associate with women at groups and not distance themselves even more.

* Make the good men who want to see equality, would be very happy if more women were in tech to walk on eggshells, or not even say anything, because they are afraid if they ask questions (if you practice the Socratic method then you are a sexist pig) or think things through logically (feels > facts; Social Justice Warrior Misandrist theory is 100% correct and if you disagree you're a misogynist) they will be attacked, publicly misquoted, and have their character assassinated.

* If any man tries to help feminist issues he is really just trying to put the spotlight on himself. He should STFU and listen, because he's a privileged, cis, white male, and he knows nothing. He's not allowed to ask questions either. He can google, and it's not anyone's job to educate him.

Not hyperbole. I have talked with serious people who gleefully hold these
sickening views.

~~~
vertr07
Take your conspiracy theories back to the red pill chief.

~~~
Tohhou
Yeah, totes there are no people like this, and the attack on PG was not agenda
fueled.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction](http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction)

~~~
vertr07
You're going to need more than wild speculation and a link to a subreddit.

~~~
Tohhou
Are you a newbie to the Internet? Been living under a rock? What do you want
me to do cite each example with what Social Justice Warriors say they want?

~~~
vertr07
I'm not new to the internet, but you are definitely new to HN. Well-reasoned
and supported arguments are valued here, not baseless and fragmented
conspiracy theories.

E.g. Aliens are controlling politics! Proof:
[http://reddit.com/r/ufos](http://reddit.com/r/ufos)

~~~
gfodor
This isn't a conspiracy theory, go click around the SJW corners of the
Internet a bit. There are tons of people who think this way. It's prevalent
enough that I'd not blame anyone for not providing a bibliography.

~~~
vertr07
When describing the radical views of others, it should seem obvious that a
link to their 'manifesto' or something would be necessary. Suggesting that
'the info is out there' is a piss poor excuse for a weak argument.

------
gasull
I think there's a smear campaign against Silicon Valley right now. ValleyMag
is the main agitator, but not the only one.

------
austenallred
As Hamish McKenzie wrote in his piece about Elon Musk battling the media:
([http://pandodaily.com/2013/11/13/why-elon-musk-is-right-
to-f...](http://pandodaily.com/2013/11/13/why-elon-musk-is-right-to-fight-the-
media/))

<quote>"There is no established rubric for peer review in the media; adherence
to truth is largely a matter of self-regulation. Instead of peer review, in
which experts check the work of other experts, media has editors and fact-
checkers. Often, those people are not experts in the matters their
institutions are covering. Worse, sometimes they are novices on subjects
ranging from climate science to jet propulsion to even basic statistics.

But they still get to control the headlines on those stories. They still serve
as the major conduit through which the public is informed about what are often
intrinsically complex but extremely important matters. And even with strong
editing standards in place, it is inevitable that some of the reporting for
which they are responsible will lack crucial nuance or just be plain
wrong."</quote>

I don't get the sense that the reporter was trying to mislead, but she was
doing what reporters always do; twist what was happening into a narrative that
they had concluded existed before they began researching and writing the
piece. Something contradicts what you have to say? Discard it, and search for
something that fits your story. Just like when you would write an essay in
college; you're making a claim, and backing it up.

The same is true of events. Creating a story by asking some people questions
and trying to bind their responses into a single narrative with one story that
makes sense is often-times impossible. Not because the reporter is doing a bad
job, but because their task is impossible. The war in Syria is often shown as
two warring factions, when in reality there are dozens of groups who play off
each other and fight against each other at different times. Even the armies
themselves are trying to piece together who is fighting for and against whom
today; to expect a reporter to do so is absurd. But that’s exactly what we do.

How, then, can we have any hope of gaining a definitive understanding in the
world, if even people paid to do so full-time have difficulty grasping it?
Maybe there isn’t any. Life isn’t simple, people aren’t just good or evil, and
situations are never binary. Maybe we’re not ever supposed to look at what’s
happening in the world and say, “I understand now; it’s simple.” Because it’s
not. If we think that we’re probably missing a lot of pieces of the story.

~~~
pm90
Every reporter tries to simplify complex events to make it more palatable to a
wider audience (for that is what media seek, I guess). Most of the time
though, this 'simplification' goes too far. If there was more honesty in
reporting (i.e. the reporter can give the events and say that they don't
really know why it is that way) it would be more honest but maybe we are so
used to people 'explaining' stuff that we aren't ready for that kind of
reporting yet.

------
shitgoose
We should pitch in and pay her for retracting the story and apologizing. 10k
for retraction seems to be her standard fee and another 5k for an apology
should do it.

(Donation address: 1CDdg67uEt6xpzapzGZc1m6JiUF1KAhFqH)

</sarcasm>

------
tomphoolery
I'm just laughing at the pissing match. Kinda funny that one would PAY for the
lowest-quality journalism on the planet. This is like if Pitchfork started
charging $200/year just to read it.

------
bagosm
I am really surprised that none has actually read the transcript. Here is a
quote from the next question in the transcript:

Eric: What you’re saying is that they’re not out there to be found?

Paul: I don’t think so. I don’t think so. It is changing a bit because it’s no
longer so critical to be a hacker

So PG's views are actually exactly that - in general no suitable female
startup founders exist in the world. That isn't bad per se as an opinion, or
makes him misogynist, I'm just surprised how people that have a positive
outlook of someone can defend them even in a clearly wrong situation.

Btw I'm not affiliated with that news website in any way, just couldn't bare
to see a community - that is normally so ornithological - go crazy over
defending someone who doesn't deserve it.

~~~
jason_wang
_So PG 's views are actually exactly that - in general no suitable female
startup founders exist in the world._

That's not what pg is saying at all.

Eric's question wasn't if female founders can be found. Eric is asking if
there are non-hackers out there, just waiting to be found, so they can start
the next Facebook. pg is saying you can't just go out and find non-hackers and
turn them into the next Mark Zuckerberg.

On a side note, I think the transcript is poorly transcribed. Many sentences
are missing keywords allowing sentences to be easily interpreted in different
ways.

------
increment_i
What's truly amazing is the lack of foresight in all of this. If you're a tech
company doing tech reporting, why in holy hell would you misquote or spin - or
by ignorance allow to be spun - a quote from Paul Graham? How did they think
this was going to end for them?

------
minimax
A ton of upvotes for a Michael Arrington lecture about what is and is not
legitimate journalism shows just how fickle the HN crowd is. You guys are
silly.

------
ballard
News, apart from investigative journalism, is mostly gossip with a patina of
occasional respectability.

But by news being essentially gossip, it's something there's plenty of, like
artistic talent, so there's not much money in it. That's because there's a
positive gradient of information from people that will tell you for free.

------
keypusher
The right thing to do here was for them to apologize for taking a quote out of
context and fire the reporter. Now that ship has sailed, I think her magazine
is probably toast.

------
chatmasta
Does anyone else appreciate the humor in the juxtaposition of parodical
wordplay between "disinformation" and "uncrunched?" :)

------
gesman
"Power relationships" is about an influence to not publish a story to begin
with.

Need to "kill a story" (including an ability to kill it by paying) is a sign
of lost power.

From both sides.

~~~
michaelochurch
To add to your remarks on power: VC-funded tech is a world where everyone
feels like a loser and is _dis_ empowered.

The VCs want to be working on billion-dollar private equity deals and crashing
third-world currencies, not flipping measly $200-million startups. They're
happy with their $17-million California mansions... until they go to their
MBA-school reunions and are the only ones in their social groups without
private jets and who don't live in New York or London.

The founders want to be VCs, the engineers want to be founders. Neither
transition is likely at all. The non-engineers want to be engineers. Where
that transition is likely, watch out.

The tech press is pretty light on ethics because of the false poverty effect.
Few people in tech proper _are_ poor, but they all _feel_ poor, and when you
conceive of yourself as poor, pissed-on, and generally cheated, you're more
willing to do some cheating yourself.

 _That_ is why there are so many unethical and shoddy people in VC-funded
technology. Watching total fucking idiots like Lucas Duplan get million-dollar
welfare checks only adds to it.

Then there are the stray weirdos like me who are in tech because we really
like the work, but we don't last long in VC-istan.

------
norswap
Meanwhile, people who have better thing to do than to listen to drama queens
carry on with their lives.

------
etanazir
Taught to be a hacker? lol.

------
michaelochurch
This is a case where "disruption" is bad, because "disruption" usually
involves overhaul of older ethical principles that emerged after decades of
missteps.

Journalism _is_ being disrupted (and has been for over 30 years) and the
result is that reliable, just-the-facts is getting overrun by this nonsense.

People are comparing this to Valleywag. Actually, I like Valleywag. I think
it's great. It is exactly what it says it is, and it's helping to break down
VC-istan's image and prestige, which is exactly what it will take to save Real
Technology. Valleywag is, perhaps unintentionally, tech's best friend right
now.

This, on the other hand, is a five-alarm fuckup. You do _not_ alter peoples'
quotes like that, or lie to them in the way that PG was lied to, and keep your
reputation. The old newspapers and journalists (with very rare, if high-
profile, exceptions) knew that; but a lot of these post-disruption actors seem
not to.

~~~
netcan
I disagree. The real "disruption" here is pg's response and subsequent
responses, including yours.

Yellow journalism is still a problem. Most people who read some little quote
about women in tech from some guy they've never heard of move on. For the core
group of people who _are_ interested, the best way to learn about pg's
opinions is from pg himself and that is easy to do.

New standards need to emerge. Publishing transcripts or recordings would be a
good place to start. But the ability of misquoted individuals to respond is
itself a disruption.

------
jayferd
why are we still listening to arrington again?

~~~
meritt
Because he makes a valid point. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

