I don't know what dystopian world you want to live in, but any time I see a company profit off sheer hypocrisy, I am going to call it out and mock it. They can have freedom all they want, but this article is generating clicks and revenues for Parent Corp, so they deserve the scrutiny. This isn't some public service they are providing.
Asking for curiosity: Given the tenured faculty comparison, should we blame tenured faculty who criticize predatory lending when their university accepts students with the same predatory loans?
Or perhaps a more direct comparison: Are tenured faculty at D1 sports universities hypocritical for researching the benefits of more funding going towards education and less towards massive stadiums?
1) The faculty member from University A writes an article criticizing University B, without mentioning that University A also has the same problems.
2) The faculty member from University A writes an article criticizing a set of problems, including examples from both University A and B.
The subtle distinction between both #1 and #2 is why people have different opinions on this. Many people consider #1 to be hypocritical and #2 to be fair.
It would never be pointed out at all if you're following case #2 though if you're in a position of the OP though. The university wouldn't allow the article. The net result is a loss.
If people can't criticise at all due to some level of hypocrisy (which is separated from the author in this case!) then we all end up in a worse spot.
I don't think there is a universal criteria for what constitutes whether an action is criticizable or not. I think more importantly is that the standards, whatever they may be, are applied uniformly, despite the circumstance and scenario. It isn't hard to imagine other scenarios which are seen as "lesser" where this wouldn't even be a question: of course you do, but for some reason we think that as an increase of import or salary, or whatever metric you may have in mind, all of a sudden some gray area is introduced. Stay true to your standards, and let it guide you.
I wouldn't put up with this type of hypocrisy from my frozen yogurt shop, my clothing store, or coffee shop, so I shouldn't put up with it with my news organizations, schools and universities and politicians. The inputs to the situation might be different, but the output should be the same. Otherwise, we are being the hypocrite as well.
If the lecturer gave a lecture and handed out fliers for the thing they were criticising without explaining that this was an example of the same problem the yes 100%.
The only way the article, its writer, the editor and the organisation should not be ridiculed is if they explicitly reference their own t's and c's in the article. Or if we all agree this is not news but entertainment and should not be takrn seriously (or shared on hacker news)
> Or if we all agree this is not news but entertainment and should not be takrn seriously (or shared on hacker news)
I've hardly seen news in my life that wasnt actually just profit seeking entertainment.
I have never understood why society praises these huge corporations. They do not have your best interest at heart. They are not doing a public service. They are a private entity seeking money and power just like every other private company.
"Welcome to PHY 4509, Classical Electromagnetism. You should not be here, this school is too expensive. If you would like to discuss transferring, you can find me in my office Tuesday and Thursday from 9 to 11AM. This message will repeat in thirty seconds."
Would it be better if their journalists all just ignored the issue, or issued corporate-approved screeds about how whatever it is that their corporate owners are doing is just fine? Because to me both those options seem worse than hypocrisy.
I'll grant you that diving into Google's TOS without mentioning their own is a bit tone-deaf.
Journalists disclose when they or their parent companies have any vested interest in the companies they cover. It seems like the article could have more journalistic integrity to note that Google isn’t the only one to follow the trend and their company does so as well.
I'm not sure I like the alternative, where articles like this would not be allowed and companies' bad behavior would never get called out in the media.
Because let's face it, that's the more likely non-hypocritical scenario than the one where corporations behave nicely.
But you're assuming 4k word privacy policies are bad behaviour. The NYT is asserting this, but clearly doesn't believe it institutionally, so why should we accept this rather strange claim at face value? What's wrong with a privacy policy that has 4k words, especially for a service as complex and powerful as what Google provides?
You don't have to accept anything at face value. The whole point is that you are able to consume different points of view and make up your own mind on the matter.
This theme seems to come up a lot with different topics, not just privacy policies. Would it be better for NYT to NOT be hypocritical and just not report on accessibility if they don't implement it correctly themselves? Would it be better if it as a whole never verified sources given that their editorials are largely their own opinions? Personally, I'd take the "hypocrisy" because I understand that in large corps, typically the right hand doesn't talk to the left hand.
Well .... yes? It'd be better for the NYT to not report on something that clearly is overblown and doesn't matter!
Accusations of hypocrisy are useful because they act as a reality check. If 4k word privacy policies were so terrible the NYT wouldn't have one. Clearly nobody cares, so journalists should have taken this as a strong cue that they're chasing a non-story, almost certainly due to their own strong biases and desires. This isn't some evidence of heroic journalistic integrity, it's evidence they're spinning something out of nothing.
Yes, to say we should require otherwise is to embrace the status quo. Demanding that everybody hold their employer accountable for any breach is simply an unreachable standard, given the power distribution between employers and employees and the lack of sufficient "good" employers. So shifting the conversation to complaints about complaints (for not being sufficiently motivated to risk everything trying to burn the system down) is just distraction and helping the status quo even more.
I don't know what dystopian world you want to live in, but any time I see a company profit off sheer hypocrisy, I am going to call it out and mock it. They can have freedom all they want, but this article is generating clicks and revenues for Parent Corp, so they deserve the scrutiny. This isn't some public service they are providing.