I don't believe it's only Google, and I don't think it's particularly secret.
An example of this is when they published a whole story about a guy who became radicalized from YouTube... and then became unradicalized a few months later without doing anything radical. But someone could have stayed radicalized so Google needs to censor YouTube and hand back authority to the fact checkers and trusted news, which conveniently happens to be... The New York Times.
Another example would be when The New York Times wrote a whole shock article about the shocking nature of dark patterns in technology and the irresponsibility and corruption of Big Tech for using them. Except that their own unsubscribe system is loaded with dark patterns that are even worse.
Do I think that YouTube isn't partially responsible? Of course they have some responsibility, but The New York Times and other news sources are capitalizing on the situation for their own interests.
Compared to that it probably does feel hostile. But it's just them being part of the general and widespread shift of more skepticism towards tech's promises and more awareness of its downsides.
Almost all brand surveys will have most of the top 5 be the tech companies you know and which HN loves to hate. That's not trending downward. It's trending upward.
The upward trend indicates that it isn't "riding on" but simply being considered good because they are.
The author of the article was super mad, lambasting tech companies left and right for dark patterns, called it a bunch of different synonyms of immoral, etc.
His own paper, The New York Times, has a dark pattern system so pervasive that people here, on Hacker News, had to tell their bank to block payments because they couldn't get to the end of it. I've seen this story repeatedly here.
There's no way that didn't come up during the author's research. The author chose to completely ignore that and publish anyway. And The New York Times chose to make a huge deal out of it. What does that say about their ethics?
Because the author (who does not control how NYT subscriptions work) does mention that in the story:
> About 30 sites made it easy to sign up for services but particularly hard to cancel, requiring phone calls or other procedures. The Times requires people to talk with a representative online or by phone to cancel subscriptions, but the researchers did not study it or other publishing sites.
And highlighted it on her social media promotion of her work: https://twitter.com/jenvalentino/status/1143531833147240449?...
However, if I were still nitpicky, I would say that her little mention leaves out a ton about what the unsubscribe experience is like.
For example, she doesn't mention that The New York Times employs very few chat agents, so that waiting to cancel takes forever even on weekdays. Or that when you get through the chat, they will offer you a discount, and if you decline they'll give you another discount, and you have to decline that one too. Same understaffing and manipulation for phone calls also applies.
Or that The New York Times has different rules for California because of the law, and allows 24/7 calling and cancelling there, whereas for the rest of the US it's only standard business hours.
And so on...
I also subscribed (and still do) to the WSJ who are much better about keeping the looniness to the OpEds. They don't exclusively keep it to the OpEds, but they mostly do.
Unionized workers vs Ionized workers is an eternally charged discussion. It's the vim v emacs of the world. There's very little point rehashing things but for some reason, the outrage and hunger takes us and we must participate. The best thing to do is to not play.
It looks like this is the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/opinion/dark-pattern-inte...
Which I found really well done. In fact I think it shows how one part of the company can police the other by putting up articles like this.
Your comment is like saying only Olympic level athletes can write articles on exercising.
And if I wanted to run the story anyway, I would at least mention that my own newspaper is guilty of the same thing for full disclosure.
I actually think it is unethical to suppress news like this, but fine, let's grant it for argument's sake.
> And if I wanted to run the story anyway, I would at least mention that my own newspaper is guilty of the same thing for full disclosure.
Fine, let's see what the article says:
> The Times requires people to talk with a representative online or by phone to cancel subscriptions, but the researchers did not study it or other publishing sites.
Okay, the paper being discussed didn't discuss the NYT, but the NYT journo decided to bring it up. We're good then.
Meanwhile, the Times did take a huge beating in the 2000s during the transition from print to digital and with the collapse of classified advertising. But today they're up 1000% from their 2009 low and flirting with historic highs. They're a category-defining digital media company with millions of digital-only subscribers that's on a tear buying up smaller players. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/NYT:NYSE?sa=X&ved=2ahUK...
I believe the news should have a vendetta against anyone and anything that has outsized influence and control in society.
I don't think the NYT has the domain experience or insight to present the most damning critiques of big tech. I think that even when they get a chance, they'll prefer hot button topics over than the meatier but less sexy lines of criticism. I often think their motivations for articles are suspect.
However, even with all that said, media orgs like theirs are still the closest thing we have to a check on the control soulless monsters of industry have over our lives.
so, should news have a vendetta against news? because one thing i've seen over the past 6 years is how much influence media has on the population.
They can do both at the same time though?
Are you sure? All of the big tech companies are entering one of the most union-entrenched industries in the US: media.
If the management wanted to really confuse the line workers, they would celebrate the union with some reverse reverse psychology.