> I am a commenter on HN and a redditor and am in no way related to the "clickbait media", so how are my contributions to this thread "explained through the lens of questionable media"?
Herein lies the problem: there is increasingly less of a difference between you or I, some "random strangers on the internet", and 'trusted' news sources like the New York Times. So it's not so much that we're not related to the 'clickbait' media, it's that the media is now mirroring us, unfiltered, and many don't realize that this is basically the modern MO of 'news reporting'. The lines are blurring as a side effect of the influence social media has, that's the danger.
> It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea.
Yeah, I agree. It's certainly hard to follow, but we are on a platform that makes misinformation incredibly easy to produce. Technology is unfortunately a double-edged sword like that.
> If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics
I agree, it would be nice, but at this point it'd be like playing whack-a-mole, with changing definitions of what it means to be a 'mole'. It's unfortunate, but it'd be pretty difficult to keep up with every possible distortion even if we tried, so the best I can do is just remind people that "hey, even when I'm not around to remind you, you should probably try to question things that you believe and might've picked up from somewhere".
Herein lies the problem: there is increasingly less of a difference between you or I, some "random strangers on the internet", and 'trusted' news sources like the New York Times. So it's not so much that we're not related to the 'clickbait' media, it's that the media is now mirroring us, unfiltered, and many don't realize that this is basically the modern MO of 'news reporting'. The lines are blurring as a side effect of the influence social media has, that's the danger.
> It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea.
Yeah, I agree. It's certainly hard to follow, but we are on a platform that makes misinformation incredibly easy to produce. Technology is unfortunately a double-edged sword like that.
> If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics
I agree, it would be nice, but at this point it'd be like playing whack-a-mole, with changing definitions of what it means to be a 'mole'. It's unfortunate, but it'd be pretty difficult to keep up with every possible distortion even if we tried, so the best I can do is just remind people that "hey, even when I'm not around to remind you, you should probably try to question things that you believe and might've picked up from somewhere".