Yes indeed. People have to remember that our media, almost all of it, is garbage. On almost every single topic. Especially anything technical, and political, and social, and medical.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Discussion of Net Neutrality and Ars Technica
- Thread starter Cosmacelf
- Start date
Yes indeed. People have to remember that our media, almost all of it, is garbage. On almost every single topic. Especially anything technical, and political, and social, and medical.
YUP 100%
The more you know about a subject, the more you realize how garbage our media is and how lazy the so called journalists are.And then there are biased & clickbait journalists.
I find the non-mainstream media to be far better.
Which? For instance, I respect Ars Technica. But the devil is very much in the details; smaller publications are not guaranteed to be more insightful and rigorous.
Thanks,
Alan
I read Ars, but there are certain topics that I don’t read there since they have over the top biases. Most news sources are like that. You have to first research any topic well to determine some semblance of truth.
Last edited:
In case people are wondering, one of the topics I find Ars to be over the top biased on is Net Neutrality. I wrote about it for a local publication here (The Net Neutrality Apocalypse - RSF Post). It is actually a pretty complex, mostly technical, subject. I suspect Ars has political biases which makes their reporting on it not very useful.
Hi, @Cosmacelf,
Are you presenting your Net Neutrality article as a dispassionate, factual analysis or as an opinion piece? I might (or might not) agree with some of your individual points or even your entire conclusion; but IMHO your article is an opinion essay, so I don't understand how you can offer it as a counter-example to Ars reporting.
I offer four examples from your article.
"A virtual (but no less real) online mob is sliding down the slippery slope to becoming a domestic terrorist organization." -- Emotive language; also lacks citation(s) or other evidence.
"Nonetheless, Comcast’s attempt to save customers from themselves was used as an early rallying cry for more Internet freedom and government regulation to enable such." -- No evidence presented for Comcast's motivation. For that matter, although you note the ills of BitTorrent, you don't mention it's architectural motivation for redistributing workload from a client/server model to a P2P model and why that might be useful technically and/or commercially (much less politically).
"And so, in a predictably near-sighted move, Netflix decided to gin up an Internet mob and the regulatory state to help them with negotiations." -- No evidence presented to support this claim, much less to support the implicit claim that Netflix alone or predominantly caused this "mob".
"And most important of all, the Internet will once again be able to continue to innovate without having to worry about whether a law enacted in 1934 proscribes unforeseen innovation." -- Nicely put; but no evidence offered about the trajectory of innovation or even the specifics of whether that 1934 law "proscribes unforeseen innovation".
@Cosmacelf, I may (or may not!) disagree with your opinions and conclusion as presented in this article. I certainly agree with your opinion that Net Neutrality is a complex topic. I strongly agree with your implied opinion that neither Ajit Pai, nor his family, nor anyone else should be receiving bomb threats or any other kind of threat.
In sum, I do not agree that the article you've offered is a useful contrast to alleged politically-biased net neutrality reporting by Ars. Since you are clearly knowledgeable and thoughtful (and I suspect far more educated in net neutrality issues than I am), perhaps you have other articles to offer as counter-examples. Or perhaps it would make sense for you to deconstruct one or more Ars articles on this topic... in the hope that one or more authors or readers will be persuaded that Ars net neutrality articles should be written more carefully or read more skeptically.
Best regards,
Alan
P.S. I think I was motivated to spend this much time on a reply because I was influenced by my perception that you are a highly-respected contributor to this forum (whereas I'm pretty quiet and invisible); plus clearly you are committed to Tesla vehicles; plus your roadster 2.0 reservation, which I admit I envy
; plus your contribution of CarCharging.us. I dare say that your words are well-regarded by many, and therefore worth responding to. I hope you find this post constructive.
Are you presenting your Net Neutrality article as a dispassionate, factual analysis or as an opinion piece? I might (or might not) agree with some of your individual points or even your entire conclusion; but IMHO your article is an opinion essay, so I don't understand how you can offer it as a counter-example to Ars reporting.
I offer four examples from your article.
"A virtual (but no less real) online mob is sliding down the slippery slope to becoming a domestic terrorist organization." -- Emotive language; also lacks citation(s) or other evidence.
"Nonetheless, Comcast’s attempt to save customers from themselves was used as an early rallying cry for more Internet freedom and government regulation to enable such." -- No evidence presented for Comcast's motivation. For that matter, although you note the ills of BitTorrent, you don't mention it's architectural motivation for redistributing workload from a client/server model to a P2P model and why that might be useful technically and/or commercially (much less politically).
"And so, in a predictably near-sighted move, Netflix decided to gin up an Internet mob and the regulatory state to help them with negotiations." -- No evidence presented to support this claim, much less to support the implicit claim that Netflix alone or predominantly caused this "mob".
"And most important of all, the Internet will once again be able to continue to innovate without having to worry about whether a law enacted in 1934 proscribes unforeseen innovation." -- Nicely put; but no evidence offered about the trajectory of innovation or even the specifics of whether that 1934 law "proscribes unforeseen innovation".
@Cosmacelf, I may (or may not!) disagree with your opinions and conclusion as presented in this article. I certainly agree with your opinion that Net Neutrality is a complex topic. I strongly agree with your implied opinion that neither Ajit Pai, nor his family, nor anyone else should be receiving bomb threats or any other kind of threat.
In sum, I do not agree that the article you've offered is a useful contrast to alleged politically-biased net neutrality reporting by Ars. Since you are clearly knowledgeable and thoughtful (and I suspect far more educated in net neutrality issues than I am), perhaps you have other articles to offer as counter-examples. Or perhaps it would make sense for you to deconstruct one or more Ars articles on this topic... in the hope that one or more authors or readers will be persuaded that Ars net neutrality articles should be written more carefully or read more skeptically.
Best regards,
Alan
P.S. I think I was motivated to spend this much time on a reply because I was influenced by my perception that you are a highly-respected contributor to this forum (whereas I'm pretty quiet and invisible); plus clearly you are committed to Tesla vehicles; plus your roadster 2.0 reservation, which I admit I envy
; plus your contribution of CarCharging.us. I dare say that your words are well-regarded by many, and therefore worth responding to. I hope you find this post constructive.