It's a recurrent theme in tech criticism, and I think driven by desire to create an enemy compelling enough to motivate true believers. It is much harder to simply treat them as just regular people running regular businesses, trying to make $. Bond villains are more fun.
-
-
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.