How many people are still under the CISO at NYT? I’m getting spidy-senses tingling that there was bloat in that part of the org, not some insane “we don’t need security” type of angle.

EDIT: it looks like NYT hired a CISO around August https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csoonline.com/article/32040...

A high profile CISO doesn’t want some pretender to the throne making noise in another org.

This definitely sounds like office power politics dragged into the public square. One more reason to hate Twitter.

Or at least the users who conflate their being forced out with a lack of commitment to infosec

The NYT had been hiring like crazy for a few years. Given the financial state most of the traditional media is in, this looks more like plain old cost-cutting on intermediary management layers.

How do we know the stated reason is the real reason?

The one thing I don't see being raised anywhere is that it's incredibly common in civil society for folks who are "shrill" (supportive of equality for all races, gender identities, etc) tend to be pushed out for "lack of cultural fit".

One of the problems is that a lot of people who are nominally "supportive of equality for all races, gender identities, etc" are actually openly hostile to cishet white men with money.

I think it's possible to separate those two things and I have this hypothesis that you will get further if you are careful to do so and are less likely to be called "shrill" and pushed out.

The fact that the racist Sarah Jeong still works there weighs against this theory. The Times is depressingly “woke.”

This. The most likely scenario to me seems that NYT is seeing a very clear trend after several years of flaunting a complete lack of accountability, highly controversial (not in a good way) hires, and obscene levels of bias for "the newspaper of record".

Like most Leftist media agencies, it's probably seeing some tough times coming up, so it makes sense to cut costs in areas that are not attracting subscribers.

> I think this tweet by Runa just yesterday is a perfect example of why her role was fundamental to the NYT's mission.

> https://twitter.com/runasand/status/1186206876381384704

I'm trying to understand what she's trying to say by this tweet and those screenshots and can't. Could you explain?

My reading of this is that in the story on the left, the online security experts were so easy to contact that it was super easy to quickly forward a suspicious email for them to evaluate.

In the story on the right, even though the reporter basically gets threats of violence (the pistol), they do not even know who it is that they should be contacting about that.

I guess this illustrates the benefits of having a single point of contact for these types of online security issues that everyone knows to contact.

She worked directly with the journalists so they did not need to ponder on who to ask a security question, they did it as part of the writing process.

It doesn't sound like director position.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21330609 links an article about things she did there.