[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.