
Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It - CapitalistCartr
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/silicon-valley-helped-create-trump-and-thats-bad-for-it.html
======
kls
Personally, I am concerned around this new mantra to eliminate fake news. Who
are the gatekeepers of said truthfulness. Now I am not arguing that fake news
does not abound on the Internet but a call to arms for companies to eliminate
"Fake" news sounds too close to censorship for my fancy.

~~~
Kurimo
Governments censor. Private institutions editorialize.

If the NYT chooses not to print an op-ed you send them, it is NOT censorship.

If the United States government forces the NYT not to print your op-ed, it IS
censorship.

See the difference?

~~~
MrZongle2
So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or
uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed?

In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy"
organizations be given a free pass?

That's _my_ biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their
best to bury retractions and corrections.

~~~
petre
It probably became fake news when we stopped buying the NYT in print. Now it's
mostly fake news because they give out 10 fake news items per month and expect
me and you and everyone else to pay for the "real" news so they can run their
news outlet. But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone
with an agenda.

~~~
pg314
> But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an
> agenda.

That is an extraordinary claim to make. Do you have any evidence to back that
up?

~~~
cgvgffyv
You must be a blast at parties.

~~~
narrowrail
This is boiler-plate internet snark that one can find all over the web, but is
typically looked at unfavorably on HN because it adds nothing to the
discussion.

------
apollo_
My very unscientific feeling: The constant influx of pieces like this since
the election feels like the mainstream media redirecting calls of "echo
chamber" elsewhere.

~~~
bbctol
Yeah, I don't think it's invalid to say that fake news is a serious problem
(or even that it probably helped elect Trump), but I think there's a much
deeper crisis of news, bias, and the nature of truth in the Internet age that
needs to be addressed head-on.

------
shas3
We can't know whether fake news tilted the election towards Trump. There is no
experiment or analysis that can conclusively dis/prove that hypothesis. NYT
and others should be humble here. Sure, fake news is stupid, but so is
claiming that it "helped elect Trump"

~~~
dethswatch
Here's the narrative- "This outcome is so out of whack that either you guys
are just the stupidest, most gullible people, or you are normal people, who
would have voted for us, had you not been fooled by malevolent and
manipulative forces."

It's an easy way to console your butthurt when you lost- just claiming that
had everyone been better informed, they'd have done the 'right' thing.

------
rokosbasilisk
No the nytimes helped elect trump by refusing to admit his chances were much
higher since the beginning, and trying to hide clintons flaws. This is an
article I expect to see on gawker not a legit newspaper.

~~~
chris11
I'm not sure I would say that the nytimes was hiding how well Trump was doing.
Trump did not do well in most polls, Clinton was usually ahead and did win the
popular vote. The election results weren't really expected. It would have been
nice if the nytimes had been able to see through the bad data, but I think
that was more of a problem with the bad data than any political leanings.

------
petre
Thus is just the NYT throwing the dead cat into Silicon Valley while bringing
you more Trump bad press. Move along.

------
dethswatch
"... the anger and misinformation of the voters who helped propel him to the
presidency."

And we start off with insults and dismissal-- the reason she didn't win and
that the Times is reviled for its reporting by various groups.

~~~
pg314
This is an opinion piece. There is a difference between opinion pieces and
reporting, a distinction that lots of people seem to be missing recently. You
shouldn't revile a newspaper's reporting based on its opinion pieces.

~~~
dethswatch
I full well understand the distinction. And normally, I'd agree with you,
however, in this case, I feel his opinions and points are indicative of the
larger NYT itself, and even after such a surprise drubbing, they continue to
ignore reality with hope of assuaging their feelings-- 'surely it can't be we
that are wrong...'

The Times went so far out of their way to torpedo Trump and promote his
opponent that Solzberger Jr had to remind everyone that they are dedicated to
impartiality ([http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-
reader...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-
the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html?_r=0)).

We wait, with anticipation, the results of this renewal.

------
rak00n
Pointing fingers and finding scapegoat. How does that add any value? How many
people in rural Alabama use Internet?

------
Decade
So much for the soul-searching and reform that the Democratic Party so
desperately needs.

