←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
neilv ◴[] No.40134839[source]
I think this article would work better if it were written entirely like textbook traditional investigative journalism. And less like the modern TV opinion personality, or the random strong-opinion Web comments in which many of the rest of us (including myself) indulge.
replies(8): >>40134879 #>>40135262 #>>40135594 #>>40135904 #>>40136387 #>>40136703 #>>40137636 #>>40138408 #
romanhn ◴[] No.40134879[source]
Agreed. I struggled to keep going after "computer scientist class traitor". A very juvenile take that reflects poorly on the author, IMO.
replies(4): >>40135277 #>>40135352 #>>40137151 #>>40139031 #
phyzome ◴[] No.40139031[source]
"Class traitor" isn't a juvenile insult. It has a fairly well-defined meaning and describes a set of problematic behaviors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_traitor

Are you saying that it's an incorrect description, or are you just generally against accusing people of things?

replies(2): >>40139202 #>>40139836 #
romanhn ◴[] No.40139202[source]
It's a ridiculous term that promotes polarization and dumbs down the level of discourse. I have the same reaction to it as when I see "bootlicker" as applied to anyone who takes the company's side (or is in management in general). There's too much adversarial name-calling these days, and not enough seeking understanding.
replies(3): >>40140041 #>>40140288 #>>40147696 #
1. barfbagginus ◴[] No.40140288{3}[source]
It seems like you might be abstracting and dumbing down the meaning of the term.

There was a sense in which the author uses that term as an abstract and meaningless insult. But there's also the sense in which the author uses the term as a reference to the class struggle, and the fact that scientists are generally in a lower class than capitalists, and so should, in theory, owe their allegiance to worker class rather than the capital class.

All of this nuance is implied in that statement. If you see class traitor and don't immediately think about arguments about the class struggle between capitalists and workers, then you are in effect infantilizing the term.

You can claim that a large part of the audience will naturally react that way to this term. However it may be the case that the author does not care if people who do not believe in the class struggle would tend to infantilize that term. Speaking to the audience that knows about the class struggle theory is sufficient and valid.