[ucaetano]

> Lazy editing by the NYT.

This isn't an article by the NYT. It's an opinion piece by someone unrelated to the newspaper:

Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”

[masonic]

... which is why the comment said, "lazy editing".

The NYT chose to publish this in full. They bear responsibility for what they choose to put on their pages.

[ucaetano]

> The NYT chose to publish this in full. They bear responsibility for what they choose to put on their pages.

No. Newspapers don't "bear responsibility" for opinion sections or letters to the editor.

They publish them because they find the opinions relevant, not because they condone or support the content. The NYT frequently published highly opposing opinions together.

[usegolang]

It feels pretty ironic that this article takes a jab at FB with the fake news comment and then NYT, which arguably should be held to a higher bar for pieces like this, gets a pass on fact checking.

[philippoi]

It's not an article, though. It's an editorial, which simply isn't the same format. It's a self-promotion for an author critical of Silicon Valley. It's not reporting news, but an author representing his views on a broad subject with a particular (attempt at) focus on a recent issue.

[ucaetano]

Really? It is the OPINION section. It isn't journalism, there's no editing by the NYT, no fact checking.

It has been like that for decades, if not centuries, in pretty much every single newspaper in the world.

[leereeves]

It's one thing to publish a broad range of opinions; quite another to publish libel like "[Peter Thiel thinks] women should not even have the vote."

[ucaetano]

That's still an opinion. I'm sure a lot of people disagree with Putin, but I don't see an issue with the NYT publishing an opinion piece by Putin.

[leereeves]

Thiel either does or doesn't think that; it's a fact.

It's a difficult fact to discern but still a statement of fact that shouldn't be made without evidence, in this world where people are fired because the media claims they think that.

[ucaetano]

> Thiel either does or doesn't think that; it's a fact.

Yes, a fact which can't be directly observed, and it is the author's opinion that Thiel thinks that.

And remember, "Thiel saying he doesn't think that" doesn't prove that he doesn't think, only that he says he doesn't think.