Is it ethically okay for journalists to mine hacked Sony emails for stories?

[anon73629133]

@Donald_Petersen

Financial losses can be insured against or written off, but this level of professional embarrassment now becomes a waking nightmare for absolutely everyone in any industry who might catch the attention of hackers with this level of support…

It will be interesting to see whether this moves the needle of concern about the privacy of Average Jane further than Snowden et al.

[jerwin]

It’s all part of the master plan. Part of incorporating ethics in game journalism into daily life.

Presence of "recognized reporters" in comments increases civility

The title of the article is a little misleading, but: “We combed through the academic literature to understand the criteria that had been used in the past to indicate deliberative and civil conversations,” Stroud said. “Each comment was evaluated for whether it was civil, was relevant, provided some form of evidence, and asked a genuine question.” One surprisingly easy thing they found that brought civil, relevant comments: the presence of a recognized reporter wading into the comments. Se…

[PhasmaFelis]

@miasm

Pearl clutching nonsense.

I’m beginning to think that some detractors may actually be (and I am in no way being sarcastic or seeking to insult here) on the spectrum somewhere.

Obsession with the rules, difficulty in perceiving the nuances of communication and language etc.

I’m not seeking to judge people who amplify structure and are upset by the bending and twisting of intent through language but that seems to be the state of criticism in this case.

(edited out a second use of the term ‘judgement’ in favour of ‘criticism’)

I split this off into a different topic, we’re derailing the discussion here.

Okay.

Splitting off controversial off-topic discussion is generally a good idea. Splitting it off after one final shot, so you can get the last word in public and I can’t respond in kind, is pretty underhanded and I’m not going to cooperate with that.

And you do not get to tell me that autism makes me have stupid opinions and then say that, oh, you didn’t mean any offense by that. I know I’m argumentative, but I do make an effort not to get personal in these debates. But you wanted to get personal, so, hey, fuck you.

Yes, I am autistic, and fuck you again for making me feel afraid to admit that when you’re so obviously going to judge me for it. But this is not about being unable to perceive nuances and subtexts. In fact it’s exactly the opposite.

If someone makes a point of referring to the president as “Barack Hussein Obama,” that’s the truth, but it’s implying the lie that he’s Muslim (and that there’s something wrong with that). If someone repeatedly points out that an unarmed black teenage victim of police violence was 6’2" and 250 pounds, that’s the truth, but it’s implying the lie that it’s okay to shoot unarmed people if they’re black and scary. And when Xeni posts about a power plant unexpectedly but safely shutting down one of its six generators for maintenance with “Europe’s largest nuclear power plant shut down”, that’s (kinda sorta) true, but it implies the lie that the plant is unreliable and teetering on the edge of disaster, which is no small thing when the only alternative is horrible, polluting coal.

Autism does not make me so literal-minded that I can’t see those subtexts. That last abused truth might not be objectively as bad as the first two, but that doesn’t fucking make it okay. Cory and Xeni are supposed to be on our side. They’re supposed to have higher standards. I expect them to be more honest than a pack of racist assholes, and I’m bloody disappointed when they’re not.

[miasm]

I should have [g]one further than…

@miasm

I’m not seeking to judge people who amplify structure and are upset by the bending and twisting of intent through language but that seems to be the state of criticism in this case.

…And said that I believe it is a valid criticism. That’s what this thread is for, apologies if you feel the initial reaction to your comment was snide or manipulative in some way. It was only a harumph at the phrase. [“abusing the truth”]

I didn’t mean to associate anyone with autism or aspergers or even any specificity minded with my derision of your specific encapsulation “abusing the truth”. Apologies if it came across that way.
This thread is for discussion of the validity of your view, not your mind.

Edit: didn’t link

---

g, link, clarity