this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
146 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

6957 readers
158 users here now

News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.

What doesn't fit here?

The core of the story has to be technology focused.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefixCountry prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] XLE@piefed.social 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This article breaks almost every rule of proper "CEO said a thing" journalism!

There are, in my mind, a few rules for "CEO said a thing!" journalism if it's to qualify:

  • You can never directly challenge anything the CEO said, even if the CEO has a long history of false or misleading promises and claims.
  • You can never include any useful historical context about the company or executives' past statements, even if they've been proven repeatedly wrong. The CEO's comments should always exist in a magic vacuum.
  • You should never, under any circumstances, actually take the time to talk to, and quote, an objective expert or academic in the field you're writing about, especially if they're inclined to criticize the CEO. This can slow down publication time and impact the quest for news-cycle ad traffic.
  • You can never return back to the claims to inform your readership whether they were actually true (this is especially true of CEO promises made before giant, pointless, disastrous mergers).

By doing the exact opposite kind of journalism as this, it ended up being a very good article!

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think all of those rules are explicitly against actual journalism, unless they're supposed to be ironic. It is unwise to make ironic rules. Ignorant and autistic people that either do not understand how they're ironic, or just miss the irony, will be learning the wrong lesson.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The original post mentions them as things that demonstrate bad journalism - I was indeed facetiously mentioning them here because I'm impressed this article is excellent because it avoids every one of them and does the exact opposite (e.g. "don't quote an expert", immediately quotes an expert to rebut the claims)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not a big fan of the tone of my original comment either, but I'm not sure how to fix it (besides the edit at the bottom)