Maybe it's just because I don't frequent social networks all that much, but I've never been exposed to this sort of depiction of Edward Snowden. The only coverage I've come across of him focused solely on what he did or his current predicament, not his image.
Even calling that Wired cover "sexualized" seems a little farfetched to me.
Every human network is a social network. Whether you're on YouTube or Hacker News or a neighborhood book club, your experiences will be shaped by the people in your network.
That being said, some platforms are inherently better than others, depending on your definition of "better". The New York Times can be occasionally stringent when reviewing comments but at least it keeps the drivel out. Likewise, HN is a great community because the people here have an expectation that statements of fact require evidence to be taken seriously.
I don't think so. The signal to noise ratio here is much higher than on typical social media. It's self policing and there are rewards (karma) for good behavior that are absent on most social media. HN to me feels more like early Usenet newsgroups than it does something like Facebook.
I appreciate that the ego-factor is very low here. No profiles, no avatars, no 'mentioning' of other people, just the author name of a comment, that's it.
Also - hn doesn't center around people, but around topics. That changes the whole thing.
> The Rubik’s cube almost as a sex toy of those paranoid for dataveillance, a symbol of the genius needed to beat corrupt political systems.
Honestly? What is this garbage? Interesting commentary, maybe, but I can't say I agree with any of this. Is this a respected author or news source of whose opinion I should be more accepting?
How do you not? Someone's history and expertise should absolutely be used as a gauge of how to view the information they're presenting.
Do you treat Fox News the same as the BBC? Or are you going to take David Icke at the same level of truth as Glen Greenwald?
That's just a reason you might take a second look at an article which seems pretty stupid - if the author is previously known for intelligent commentary.
Perhaps higher quality of more believable propaganda and rhetoric, rather than your run of the mill critical drivel that comes out of academic circles so you can feel better about life?
> A famous, reputable news source is generally going to provide better quality service than smaller media outlets.
To who, their customers i.e. advertisers? Or to you, their product? There is a reason they are famous and reputable, and it does not have to do with found most trustworthy by a panel of educated, well informed experts.
As George Orwell said, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
The burden of knowlege must rest heavy on your shoulders, if only other people were as capable of critical thinking as you are the world would be a better place... Seriously though feel free to keep your ill-informed assumptions to yourself.
If it's not true then why are you so offended by comment enough to tell me to "keep my ill-informed assumptions to myself". At some level you must believe what I said to be true or at least offensive to your held world view.
I was reacting to your assumption that I blindly accept the news as reported as truth, in order to "feel better about life" in your words. You don't know anything about me.
This kind of cultural criticism often relies on intuition and aesthetic perceptions that can't easily be sourced or fact-checked. Like, look at Barthes's Mythologies for a whole bunch of examples. I wasn't really blown away by this essay, but Snowden as a symbol is a pretty interesting topic.
You're gonna love this gem, too: "In this way, the whistleblower’s whistle stands for an object representing a sort of sexualized salvation from the ubiquitous evil dealings of the internet’s major players like Google. The word itself implies the mouth, in order to be a whistleblower one has to blow."
Or this: "Why do we need individual heroes at the center of digital rights conversations? One might look to Leo Steinberg’s famous art historical text, The Sexuality of Christ In Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion, to interpret this phenomenon." -- The premise of the stated question is hardly established, and the given answer does not relate to it at all: what it does is give an instance of a historical figure being the subject of sexual imagery.
> > The Rubik’s cube almost as a sex toy of those paranoid for dataveillance, a symbol of the genius needed to beat corrupt political systems.
> Honestly? What is this garbage? Interesting commentary, maybe, but I can't say I agree with any of this. Is this a respected author or news source of whose opinion I should be more accepting?
Wow, I've been solving Rubik's cubes for years as a pass-time. I didn't realise that I was actually playing with a sex toy! Does this mean I'm going to hell? /s
I've found that some silicone lube makes for easier handling, especially with robots doing the work.
Not even a joke. A double entendre, okay, I'll grant you that.
I bought this cube (http://amzn.com/B008U6V50U) a while back when seeking a cube that I could use in my Lego Mindstorms Rubik's cube solver. The solver wasn't of my own design, but I wanted to experiment with different brick programs for solving, and needed a cube that would reliably turn with little effort (to minimize time spent resetting). Silicone lube was recommended for rejuvenating the lubricated parts, since that's what the maker used anyway. Apparently, petroleum based products could eat away at the plastics in most cubes.
Just thought I'd toss it in, in case someone searching for Rubik's Cube in the future happens across this thread. :)
I followed this expecting an analysis of the "whistleblower protection" that some people think Snowdon could have availed himself of. Instead I got "Hey, look, I hope you're not being distracted by this big media distraction I'm part of."
One can further an argument in this way - by simultaneously writing an article sexualizing Snowden and arguing that he is being sexualized in articles.
Recursion should be old hat to this crowd, though. It's not interesting or thought provoking.
This diatribe is regarding the media's handling of one of many recent whistleblower stories, and an atypical one at that. After beginning with a historical expiation of the etymology of the term, the author goes on to discard other current whistleblower stories, the vast majority of which the media has covered in a starkly different manner, and commits the sin they are condemning, that of sesationalizing the Snowden case.
33 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 76.4 ms ] threadEven calling that Wired cover "sexualized" seems a little farfetched to me.
That being said, some platforms are inherently better than others, depending on your definition of "better". The New York Times can be occasionally stringent when reviewing comments but at least it keeps the drivel out. Likewise, HN is a great community because the people here have an expectation that statements of fact require evidence to be taken seriously.
Also - hn doesn't center around people, but around topics. That changes the whole thing.
Honestly? What is this garbage? Interesting commentary, maybe, but I can't say I agree with any of this. Is this a respected author or news source of whose opinion I should be more accepting?
Do you let fame determine the legitimacy of the your media you listen to?
I treat all non lizard-people with similar level of "truthiness"
> A famous, reputable news source is generally going to provide better quality service than smaller media outlets.
To who, their customers i.e. advertisers? Or to you, their product? There is a reason they are famous and reputable, and it does not have to do with found most trustworthy by a panel of educated, well informed experts.
As George Orwell said, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
Or this: "Why do we need individual heroes at the center of digital rights conversations? One might look to Leo Steinberg’s famous art historical text, The Sexuality of Christ In Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion, to interpret this phenomenon." -- The premise of the stated question is hardly established, and the given answer does not relate to it at all: what it does is give an instance of a historical figure being the subject of sexual imagery.
A lot of this reads like an adolescent's attempt to be profound.
> Honestly? What is this garbage? Interesting commentary, maybe, but I can't say I agree with any of this. Is this a respected author or news source of whose opinion I should be more accepting?
Wow, I've been solving Rubik's cubes for years as a pass-time. I didn't realise that I was actually playing with a sex toy! Does this mean I'm going to hell? /s
In all seriousness, what is this crap?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who drilled a hole in it.
Not even a joke. A double entendre, okay, I'll grant you that.
I bought this cube (http://amzn.com/B008U6V50U) a while back when seeking a cube that I could use in my Lego Mindstorms Rubik's cube solver. The solver wasn't of my own design, but I wanted to experiment with different brick programs for solving, and needed a cube that would reliably turn with little effort (to minimize time spent resetting). Silicone lube was recommended for rejuvenating the lubricated parts, since that's what the maker used anyway. Apparently, petroleum based products could eat away at the plastics in most cubes.
Just thought I'd toss it in, in case someone searching for Rubik's Cube in the future happens across this thread. :)
Recursion should be old hat to this crowd, though. It's not interesting or thought provoking.
We are animals.