I don’t care a nit about Sanbergs personal life either, but I certainly DO care that she can apparently silence news stories from phone calls.
I feel like the content of the story itself is pretty irrelevant here. Are you saying wealthy people abusing their influence and power to contain news stories is fine, as long as you personally view the stories as “immaterial” or “muckraking for clicks”?
How would you feel about a public figure you dislike silencing negative stories from a news organization? What if supporters of that public figure think the silencing is fine, because you don’t need to read that muckraking trash?
We’re saying the same thing really. You want to blame every self-interested elite for manipulating the narrative, which I think is a pointless, thankless exercise in outrage farming, despite it. Whereas I think the onus rests on the media outlet to publish the news they want to publish regardless of who might want otherwise. When this process breaks down it is the media outlet that has failed. Part of this of course involves publishing news you think it is worth suffering for.
I feel like the content of the story itself is pretty irrelevant here. Are you saying wealthy people abusing their influence and power to contain news stories is fine, as long as you personally view the stories as “immaterial” or “muckraking for clicks”?
How would you feel about a public figure you dislike silencing negative stories from a news organization? What if supporters of that public figure think the silencing is fine, because you don’t need to read that muckraking trash?