Its not technically ironic but certainly amusing that businessinsider's story about akamai was so popular that it crashed their site, which could have been avoided by using akamai (or any cdn).
Out of curiosity, I wonder if it would be illegal for a journalist to falsely report a critical story about a company while buying short term puts to profit from the stock freefall. There are early stage biotech companies going through clinical trials where reporting failure could easily tank the stock 80% in a day.
While this is clearly ethically corrupt, this technically isn't insider trading since the journalist didn't have any insider info in the first place. Any thoughts?
No, it wouldn't be illegal as the journalist is purely speculating without any insider information. However, if the money involved in the trade is high and SEC's eyes fall on the trade - there is a possibility of an investigation but that would be rare.
It really threw me off when they referenced "International Business Machines Corp." instead of IBM...I can't name another instance where someone decided to use the full name of IBM
Most professional news organizations have style guides that govern how to reference companies, states, titles, measurements, etc. For some really common acronyms it seems like overkill (IBM, FBI, etc.) but the copy desk will still enforce it.
This acquisition just doesn't make sense for Google, especially for the (likely) $5+ billion price tag. It'd make much more sense for a company like Apple or Facebook - i.e. one that didn't just finish building its own CDN.
It /would/ make sense for Google. Think about how many customers Akamai has and the business they're in -- Google probably really wants a part of that.
Also, how would it make sense for Apple or Facebook to acquire Akamai? Apple's in the computer and mobile devices business (and has its own datacentre for iCloud to worry about), and Facebook has no use for Akamai outside of the services it currently receives as a customer. It would be stupid for either company to consider buying it at this point.
I'm not advocating that anyone should be buying it, only that it makes more sense for someone who doesn't already have their own massive CDN. Apple and Facebook are just the first two major Akamai customers that came to mind.
They could've been in talks with Akamai; the rumor was that a deal was imminent and that's apparently not true, but that doesn't mean a deal couldn't be at some stage of progress.
I really really really get bored of journalists reporting things they heard from anonymous sources. When I read something that cites an anonymous source, i just assume the journalist was bored and decided to make some shit up.
Both this article and the article it refers to have done this and its getting extremely tedious.
I'd like to see Journalists get a degree and a license just like a lawyer or a doctor, then maybe we'll get some integrity out of an industry that is filled to the brim of fear mongering bullshit artists.
Really? I'm guessing that you think a license (which can be revoked) would result in more accountability. But just imagine how that sort of system could be used to clamp down on free press and free speech.
I'd gladly keep the system we have now; I'll just get my news from credible sources and take _everything_ with a grain of salt.
EDIT: And also... what does “It’s mostly just a rumor,” mean?
It would in no way hamper free speech, just as requiring a lawyer to have a degree and license hasn't restricted a persons right to legal counsel.
A lawyer's requirements to practice law are the guarantee that he is properly educated in the law, same with doctors. Granted the stakes aren't quite as high for journalists, but nor does the barrier of entry have to be made as high.
The basics of how to be a Journalist with integrity should be taught and set as a standard, what those actually are, i'll leave to someone else to define, but putting an end to quoting anonymous sources i'd say is the starting point.
You can't be serious. Licenses for law and medicine impede freedom. They limit our choices of (and the cost of) legal and medical services. We are just willing to make this trade off because average people have a hard time determining the quality of these practitioners and we don't want people going to jail or dying in surgery because they aren't very smart consumers.
You can't "improve" speech without making it less free. Sometimes the loss of freedom is worth it (like yelling fire in a crowded room) but most of the time it is not worth it. Restrict our freedom of speech so that journalists can't use anonymous sources? Give me a break.
"I'll leave someone else to define [the standard]." That's convenient, since there is no standard that would be enforceable without being oppressive. I challenge you to come up with a standard that would solve the problem you state, that would be enforceable, that wouldn't be an insult to basic freedoms of speech. You also have to define what a "journalist" is. In the internet world, we are all journalists.
I dont see how requiring credentials for a job in any way affects free speech. I'm not saying you cant write something down if you dont have a license, if you want to start a blog, magazine, newspaper, etc without a license on you go, write whatever the hell you want.
Its about setting standards and showing that you have a seal of approval from a governing body. Think of standards compliant HTML/CSS and the W3C, it sets the standard, but you're completely free to ignore it and write bad markup, but it'll be recognised by your peers that you dont meet the standard. THATS what i'm talking about.
THAT wasn't clear. Both of your examples, law and medical licenses are legally required.
Journalism schools already teach ethics and offer certificates. Reporters already are members of organizations with ethics statements:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
All I'm saying is legally requiring some sort of enforceable code of conduct for journalists before they can work is a violation of free speech.
If the idea i'm talking about was implemented, i'd define a Journalist as someone that has a degree and a license. Whether they are a guy with a blog or a nightly news anchor. The lack of definition right now is the kind of thing i'm talking about.
Its not the license itself, its the journey you have to go through to get a license, that provides the education. Like a driver's license.
I'm not advocating limiting free speech in any way, in fact theres already so many exceptions to free speech that they're impossible to count, i'm saying a standard should be set.
Just as not having a basic food hygiene certificate doesnt stop you cooking in your own home, it would be a requirement to open a restaurant.
> Its not the license itself, its the journey you have to go through to get a license, that provides the education. Like a driver's license.
What do you think that a driver's license means?
I think that it means that the person may have some skill in operating a motor vehicle and knows some of the relevant laws. I don't think that it implies that said person is less likely to drive a get-away car for bank robbery, is less likely to steal a car, is less likely to speed.
A law degree supposedly says that someone has a level of skill and knowledge. It says nothing about what they do.
Are you suggesting a journalist license that is "skill and knowledge"? If so, how does it address the problems that you're worried about?
If not, how will it work? Be precise because your examples in other fields don't work that way.
And no, it isn't enough to state your goals. Means produce ends.
> I'm not advocating limiting free speech in any way, [...] i'm saying a standard should be set.
> Just as not having a basic food hygiene certificate doesnt stop you cooking in your own home, it would be a requirement to open a restaurant.
Oh yeah, you don't want to limit free speech, just the other kind. And you don't want restrictions, unless of course someone is close enough to hear the speech.
Thank you though, we're all imperceptibly smarter for having seen a would-be censor in another disguise.
