These Twitter threads, like most of them, don't make any sense to me.
Once the article came out, Naomi tried to get them to remove that section of the article and they didn't respond to any of her emails. She then went on to "dox" one of the reporters (though I have heard that the information she posted was available just by searching his name online).
Sarah Jeong basically attempted to counter this criticism of Vice by saying that she has asked around, and Naomi's concerns are ill-founded (Sarah used to work for Vice, so you could argue that she isn't exactly impartial on this topic). And obviously most media outlets focused on Naomi's doxxing (which to be clear -- is something that shouldn't have been ignored) rather than the original situation with Vice. This evolved into a pretty big argument, and Naomi appears to have come to the conclusion that almost all western media is unethical.
Later Vice apparently asked Patreon to close Naomi's account (as a response to her doxxing one of their employees), and Patreon followed their instructions -- cutting Naomi off from one of her sources of income for her videos. It's apparently very hard to get donations into China (crypto-currencies don't help because you cannot convert them into real money inside China easily).
Hopefully I've explained the situation without letting my position poison the summary.
> In the past few years, she’s been forced to fend off vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career
I think that the main concern is that they refer to it specifically as being a foreign man masterminding her career -- not just a general conspiracy theory.
While I understand them wanting to say it's wrong (which is what they are saying), according to Naomi the idea of a "foreign puppet-master" is a dog-whistle in China (which, from what I've heard, has an incredibly protectionist culture). The idea of a figurehead of Shenzhen's maker culture being controlled by a foreigner would apparently not end well for Naomi.
: I'm not going to link it here, just Google "Naomi Wu vice".
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b... -- I don't like this particular YouTuber, but Naomi responds in the comments.
They might have removed it when she asked, but I don't see how they broke the original agreement.
Also, do I understand that Jeong's only involvement with this was that she commented on the situation after the fact? Or did she have something to do with the original article?
She didn't have anything to do with the original article. She came to the defense of her former colleagues (she used to work for Vice) and claimed that Naomi was manipulating her fanbase into believing that she was in danger when she really wasn't.
The truth is that these people took one look at Naomi, assumed she was a ditz, a slut, or some kind of animal, and figured they could do whatever they wanted to her. Because, hey, it ain't a crime to slaughter a sow.
They forget too easily that treating people like animals, means becoming an animal.
What a way to lose your humanity.
I can't vouch too much for the veracity of everything in the video but there's nothing I know of that she got wrong.
EDIT: Just saw that Wu has actually responded to the video in the comments too, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b...
"And now this thing works for the NYTimes."
and after an initial edit, it says:
"And now this... 'person' works for the NYTimes."
Please follow the rules.
Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules in both letter and spirit, regardless of how you feel about journalistic ethics or how badly someone once behaved.
You disgust me, because you are disgusting.
These high-dudgeon internet spats would be merely ludicrous if they
didn't also have the potential to destroy what little community we
have here. Both you and hitekker injected poisons: he by trolling the thread by being vicious while
pretending not to, and you with a trope of the aggressive online
shaming culture. We've all seen what these things lead to elsewhere,
so we have no choice but to ban people if they do them repeatedly
here. Please don't.
HN does 'delete' comments in one way (flagging by user or moderator), but this is not a complete solution because such comments appear before they are killed.
* Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
We got a softball article about a topic from a publisher who has recently violated the very spirit of that topic.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy and we should know about it, not hide from it.
Also, to be fair, the guidelines say:
>If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.