zlacker

[return to "Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's online rant spurs threats to supes, police reports"]
1. timr+Y6[view] [source] 2024-01-31 16:57:48
>>etc-ho+(OP)
This article is emblematic of everything wrong with "journalism" today. Regardless of what Garry wrote on Twitter (which I'm not defending), he didn't send the letters in question, which are the core of the incident. So some lunatic prints out a tweet and mails it to politicians at their home addresses, and the "journalist" spends a couple thousand words focusing on the tweet, and how the guy who wrote the tweet is rich.

Also, featuring the price of his liquor bottles (prominent in the first article about this by the same writer) is indicative of the level of pettiness involved. Maybe there's an actual story here, but this isn't it, and it's not clear that the story is more than "someone said something regrettable on Twitter".

◧◩
2. Kaiser+2o[view] [source] 2024-01-31 18:06:54
>>timr+Y6
I would kindly suggest that this is at best wrong, at worst deliberately misleading

The job of journalists is to report news worth events, and provide extra context with some level of verification.

When the CEO quotes rap lyrics which implies that someone should kill them selves, that is news worthy.

The CEO, who is in a position of both power and responsibility, should really not be saying stupid shit. Why? because the job of the CEO is to make sure a company's image isn't tarnished. (see Gerald Ratner).

Tan should frankly grow the fuck up and do what CEOs normally do, which is pay local politics to change.

◧◩◪
3. workso+wC2[view] [source] 2024-02-01 13:36:38
>>Kaiser+2o
> which implies that someone should kill them selves

How does the sentence "die slow motherfuckers" even remotely imply someone should kill themselves? Do you see the irony of misquoting him in a comment about misleading journalism?

Necessary disclaimer: I do not support the tweet and it has nothing to do with my comment, so breathe and understand my point before hitting that down-vote.

◧◩◪◨
4. Kaiser+8D3[view] [source] 2024-02-01 18:50:56
>>workso+wC2
If we are being pedantic, then "kill themselves" would have been the wrong clause. I would probably change that to "publicly wish death upon someone".

If we are also continuing along pedantry, it was a quote, it was an incorrect assertion.

But what we can possibly agree on, is that whilst we are both engaging on this particular point, the more important issue of a CEO acting incorrectly goes unexplored.

Where I think we are both aligned: the CEO is perfectly within their rights to say stupid things, however they really shouldn't. Whilst we shouldn't use legal tools to stop CEOs doing stupid things, we certainly should use social tools to encourage them to respect other people.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. workso+654[view] [source] 2024-02-01 20:57:08
>>Kaiser+8D3
> If we are being pedantic

> If we are also continuing along pedantry

We're not being pedantic, we're being correct and honest.

[go to top]