[mapgrep]

I have adopted a zen posture to this sort of hypocrisy which involves believing both these things:

1. It is good to call out hypocrisy like this article does where a publishing entity is engaged in behavior completely contrary to the behavior called for in their published words.

2. It is also good that the reporter’s journalism is sufficiently free (as in freedom) that they are able to write so independently of the behavior of the mother ship.

Like, the world would definitely be a worse place if reporters at Bloomberg declined to do some of the excellent reporting they’ve done on tech company tax dodges just because (hypothetically) Bloomberg was a tech company that did some corporate tax dodging. It’s good that they do it. It’s also fine that people note the cognitive dissonance.

It’s sort of like how I feel about Googlers protesting sexual harassment or the China search project. Personally I still think they are affiliated with a company that engages in a lot of bad practices but good on them for at least trying to change some thing however small. And at the same time I feel free to say “well ya they’re protesting this guy who was abusing his underlings but their company is abusing all of us” or whatever.

[nireyal]

I agree. But also before hitting publish they should have done a quick check of their own UX. This would have shown a good faith effort as opposed to a hypocritical take-down. It would have also illustrated a richer perspective on why these types of dark patterns get built into products in the first place, as I write in the second half of the essay.

[alephnan]

The hypocrisy in employees is when they continue to reap the financial benefits of their institutions. The cliche “you can’t expect a person to know a subject if their salary depends on not knowing it.” Ignorance is not a valid excuse when they’ve clearly indicated an outspoken awareness of the problems in the org. The excuse in this case is “instituting change from within”

[dialtone]

It's really not alright to step on the pulpit to point fingers left and right when your house is also not in order, it makes it seem more like you're trying to move forward your business agenda rather than really caring about the issue.

[Nicksil]

>It's really not alright to step on the pulpit to point fingers left and right when your house is also not in order, it makes it seem more like you're trying to move forward your business agenda rather than really caring about the issue.

What does this mean? Are you speaking to the author of the parent comment or in general? What is this un-orderliness you've alluded to?

[dialtone]

I'm speaking to the author of the comment I replied to who basically states that the article was purely good because of the topic, without having any critical eye towards it. And the un-orderliness is in the title of the article commented on, nyt has dark patterns on their site as well.

The author of the NYT piece is a member of the editorial board so he should be held to a higher standard than employees of a business that protest its practices, while probably having no power over setting them. A member of the editorial board is certainly in a more powerful position, relatively speaking, to make changes in their newspaper and surely he could have talked about the example set by the business he works for. If Google came out with PR that pointed at Apple tracking users of its phones, something that is factually true, they would be rightfully laughed at because they are the last ones that can complain that someone tracks people.

[mapgrep]

Fwiw I don’t think it’s purely good, I both judge and applaud the article, hence the “zen” language. I think it’s good to criticize the hypocrisy. But also much better that the article exists than not. You’d see basically no journalism if journalists were constrained by the behavior of their owners to never be such hypocrites by association.

[Nicksil]

Ah, much clearer. Thank you for taking the time to go into detail.

[ekianjo]

> that they are able to write so independently of the behavior of the mother ship.

Or maybe they are completely oblivious and blind. Possible explanation as well, very common for people who criticize others before looking at themselves.