One reason I increasingly distrust waldenponders is that this simultaneous attribution of mastermind evilness AND bumbling incompetence to adversaries is a sign of cult-like and authoritarian thinking.
-
-
Most of the people who weigh in on these debates are casual drive-by commenters with no skin in the game. But anyone who consistently, seriously, and diligently argues on one side or the other is coming *from somewhere*. Their views aren't disinterested views from nowhere.
Show this thread -
The NYT, the New Yorker, various people with long-established consulting careers around this stuff. A lot of what they say is solid, credible criticism that should be taken into account. But it's important not to assume they're somehow operating on a higher moral plane.
Show this thread -
In particular, be wary of anyone who presumes to speak for your interests, *but asks for nothing from you in return*. "If you're not paying, you're the product" logic can be applied to non-profit do-gooders as well. Your volunteered outrage is an asset others may be monetizing.
Show this thread -
Again, I want to emphasize: many of the people in the criticism cottage industry are good people, sincere, and acting in pursuit of WYSIWYG intentions in the genuine belief they are doing good. It's just that that doesn't mean they are effective or can be taken at face value.
Show this thread -
Apologies if all this is very obscure. A lot of it is subtweeting from the POV of having seen the other side of several of these actual battles close up, at multiple companies, and I have not been hugely impressed with the ethics/integrity of the backlash crowd.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.