Did you know that?
(https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...)
Like most sales goals, it seems reasonable. And then you remember that when it comes to pay, some people will do anything.
It _could_ work – if the editors are espeically on the hunt for bogus stories.
The policy of rewarding them for moving the market simply removes the intervening steps and directly rewards them.
In concept, this only makes it worse. How much worse depends on how compensated they are, which I don't know. (e.g., if the bonus is $50 and your boss buys you a latte the next morning, it's not really that big a deal, vs. if it's $25,000 and everyone knows it's a fast track to promotions it's a pretty significant problem)
I, personally, am sick of being lied to. Single source reportage violates journalism 101; they really should suffer some consequences, just as someone should pay for the 2008 bubble, the Iraq war (Bill Kristol ... finally losing one of his platforms) and any number of other examples of the managerial class' screw ups from the last 20 years.
Let's say the Bloomberg article incurred 50% loss of revenues after it was published for Super Micro. (just making up numbers for the sake of the argument). Following this, Super Micro would have to scale down their operations and potentially fire people.
That's just the same thing as sending a DMCA request on Youtube for something that is someone's own work. Currently it's "free" to do so, but don't you think there should be consequences in destroying someone's else business / reputation / work? How would you feel if it happened to you?
False reports harm Bloomberg, as it erode their trustworthiness and trustworthiness is very nearly their only actual value/product. False reporting is inherently its own repercussion/consequence here.
This is different from DMCA as that has power granted to it by law, not by inherent trust. DMCA does also have consequences for fake claims, so it's a false equivalency here anyway.
Seeing a situation where one person/group does something that negatively affects another group without consequence tends to have this emotional response from emotionally healthy individuals.
Where do you see a problem with this type of response?
"It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."
Or maybe a good place for someone with knowledge to show why it's a bad idea and what the arguments are that have been struggled with.
One person getting irked because another happily destroys reputation without any consequence is natural. Reputation is too important.
A single person wanting to see consequence does not create a mob that firebombs their offices.
An idea has to start somewhere.
But that doesn't mean we should outlaw speech... Because speech leads to good things a lot more often than firebombing mobs.
Those people we can put in jail. Only those.
The rest are helpful or neutral, even if you don't agree with them. Democracy (in any form) grows stronger with dissent/speech.
You, not the general concept of the reader, but you personally neya. You stop trusting Bloomberg's reporting. That's the consequence. Their reputation suffers.
Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution?