JFC stay out of politics until you can figure out how to cite a primary source
Comment on You can't see him!!!!
fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 months agoI’m referring to this: www.google.com/search?sca_esv=aefa6caa23033a76&sc…
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 4 months ago
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
I mean, I’d agree that it’s not really too interesting of a thing to report on, but… It just doesn’t seem weird to me that they didn’t talk about something, and then after something happened with it they did for a minute, and then they stopped again. Nine articles from a month ago, when they updated the policy, and none since doesn’t scream “a ton” or “culture war” to me.
And what is the act of class warfare being done here, in your view? What’s the narrative or agenda being pushed?
fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 months ago
Gutted, went to reply and the phone died in the middle of my novel so forgive me whole I consolidate tequila ramblings. Basically it’s about the ratio that I see here; and this example is a kind of nicely packaged case study of larger trends. While this is progress and it’s good but it also points towards other larger worse problems. The event itself is just noise. To begin with, the subject matter itself trends towards more well to do white collar people, as its obscure enough that you’d have to have the time and money to know about it back in the day to have any sort of nostalgia. That’s the audience, older dissatisfied ususlly white men. The handful of initial articles that came before were sporadic and did not really cause waves to cause others to also write about it. It was only a cultural event when people were told they cannot continue to objectify this person and that is when the story trended. I don’t work in this field, so why do I even need to hear about this. It is normal behaviour to respect privacy and people’s wishes. Why is that what we talk about and not Lena herself as a person? Why does media only care when they can rustle some feathers? I mean the answer is obvious, and it’s not necessarily always intentional, it’s just a systemic problem of click farming and agitation in a bad way. Its addicting, keeps peoples atrention. People are wonderfully conplex, beautiful thoughtful creatures. Thays our problem, we do care amd we desperately want stability. Pick something mildly controversial and safe and you can get those clicks. It’s just a drop in the bucket that distracts from the people who own these institutions who demand this kind of engagement from these employees. It’s a bad feedback loop that benefits only the capital owners.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
I think you’re reading way to much into things.
Nine articles is not a “wave” or “trending”, and if you had read any of them they’re essentially non-sensational, explain that the image is notable because of its role in the development of digital imagery, why they’re moving away, and why that’s for the best.
Jumping from a small number of neutral articles in either explicitly technical or technology adjacent sources to a “wave” of sensationalist agitation targeting older dissatisfied white men is, frankly, really fucking weird.
With your “I don’t work in this field, why do I need to hear about this” it really feels like your saying anything you don’t care about shouldn’t be reported on, and if it is reported on, it’s because someone must have an ulterior motive.
It’s been a near standard test image for decades. Deprecating it is a model case for a low stakes info piece if you’re a tech publication. News you’re not interested in isn’t automatically cultural warfare.