[indubitable]

Google and Psychological Science play a key role in this article. Opinions of both have shifted sharply in the past couple of years. We should of course base our opinions of writings based on what is written instead of what is written about, but the vast majority of people do not do this. And it goes both ways. Is the response to this publication of the article unreasonably negative, or was the response to the original publication unreasonably positive? And of course as you aptly point out there's a much greater concern about bias in reporting now a days, and an article that is essentially a single sided puff piece for a company/individual/field/etc is something that is going to draw far more scrutiny than it might have not all that long ago.

[dageshi]

> Google and Psychological Science play a key role in this article. Opinions of both have shifted sharply in the past couple of years.

I would note perhaps that as someone outside the US, it appears like opinions of people in the US about large tech companies appears to have shifted very recently, within the past 6 months so it seems to me.

Personally I feel the same about Google/Amazon/Facebook as I ever did.

[pault]

People are starting to realize that the productivity gains of automation aren't being shared by everyone, and they've decided to blame the automators instead of the politicians. I am slightly concerned that being a developer will become anathema in certain circles. (As usual, I blame Reagan)

[perl4ever]

As someone inside the US, I feel like there was a theme of opposition to fracking not long ago, and it switched to opposition to tech, almost as if it was orchestrated. This could be just my paranoid tendencies speaking, but if the anti-silicon valley sentiment is largely genuine, why does it seem to me like the anti-fracking sentiment has disappeared from the forums I read? It's as though some astroturfing campaign was attacking what was perceived as the strongest industry in the American economy, and when it didn't make much of a difference, moved on to another target.

[indubitable]

That is an interesting observation that does seem true. However, I also think there's a very benign explanation for it. Something we forget is that news agencies are not benevolent. The themes a news organization publishes are not going to be based upon what is most valuable to society, but what is most valuable to them.

Right now all traditional media (mostly as opposed to social media) is seriously struggling. Traditional media has been experiencing constant downsizing/layoffs and other consequences. And this includes big names like the New York Times. Cable news networks are likely only continuing along since they're owned by huge, profitable, corporations that can subsidize their operation in exchange for the valuable ability to use them to push agenda.

So what I'm getting at here is that if public reception and 'excitement' towards anti-fracking started to decline, news agencies would begin to cover it less and move to more exciting things that bring in the clicks which bring in the revenue. Blaming Silicon Valley is something that will likely continue to bring in hits since we live in this really paradoxical economy. By most of all measures, our economy is doing terrifically - yet simultaneously we're seeing things like real wages remaining stagnant for decades. So people want things to blame. And Silicon Valley is an easy target as it's seen as a realm of excess and increasingly societal apathy on part of the big players. This [1] single [phenomenally well framed] image is likely an embodiment of how many see the increasing divide. Makes for good clicks in any case!

[1] - https://i.imgur.com/hCK2OiS.jpg