BuzzFeed News is not BuzzFeed. They've won many journalism awards as you can see on their Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News

I do agree that reusing the name must surely do their image significant harm.

This is often repeated, but...Can you name a large news source that has not won a "journalism awards"?

I'm not attempting to establish credibility for BuzzFeed News beyond the statement of fact I made the my first comment. BuzzFeed itself doesn't win journalism awards, regardless of how you useful a signal you consider those, because their listicle stuff isn't journalism.

I have no interest in debating the nature of BuzzFeed News's journalism beyond making this distinction clear.

Fox News has zero Peabody Awards. I can't find anything on Yahoo News, Facebook, or Twitter winning pulitzers. Breitbart has zero pulitzer awards.

What a generic comment with no research behind it.

Gawker?

Sure, but this article is hardly news. It's hardly even worthy of a tweet.

The "old internet" is MySpace and Friendster? Really?

"Click share if you think Google and Facebook are bad" pretty much summarizes the contents of the article.

See my response to the sibling comment from mashby.

From the Wikipedia page you linked:

> The media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting found that in 100 Buzzfeed stories about Barack Obama in 2016 (most from Buzzfeed News, but also from the general BuzzFeed site), 65 were positive, 35 were neutral, and one was critical. The report called Buzzfeed's coverage of Obama "creepy" and "almost uniformly uncritical and often sycophantic".

I do wonder how BuzzFeed(News) rises the HN ladder though. The only benefit I see to having content like this here is to display what opinions some demographic of people consume and believe.

Interesting--had no idea. They really need to change their name.

Does seem a bit ironic that BuzzFeed would be complaining about the death of the Internet.

It's funny you'd link that wiki page in support of Buzzfeed News being reputable and separate from Buzzfeed.

1st sentence: BuzzFeed News is an American news website published by BuzzFeed.

2nd sentence: It has published a number of high-profile scoops, including the Trump–Russia dossier, for which it was heavily criticized

The name certainly doesn't help, but neither does their penchant for bias, agenda and lies.

Also, "journalism awards" are as impressive as participation trophies. Pretty much X amount of awards are alotted to X number of news/broadcast companies with the "right attitude" anyways.

> many

More like several, and no high-prestige awards. They've also published several incorrect stories and hold the dubious honor of being the only publication Robert Mueller called out for publishing incorrect information as fact while he was still investigating.

The point is, they are Bloomberg / Politico / Huffington Post tier, not WaPo / NYT / WSJ / BBC tier or even The Atlantic / CNN / Fox / MSNBC tier.

I do pine for the days when the Undernet or Dalnet was bustling with activity. I'm always looking for a server worth hanging out on. I'm glad Freenode is doing good, but it's people working.

That said, this article was exactly what I'd expect for an article from Buzzfeed.

Got you covered buddy

I just read that comment before seeing yours, ha.

Well they both seem to work the election of Trump into every article. You can't drum up traffic and ad dollars without adding that into the conversation.

You worked that into your comment, but ctrl+f for "trump" yields zero results on the article in question. Are you intentionally being this inflammatory?

By the nature of network effects, if no one else is using them, then no one will use them. (Personally, I do still use old-school forums and IRC, but less frequently then I used to, its just far too convenient to use something like Discord instead)

Heh. To me discord is far less convenient. It's a fancy webpage that takes ages to load and bifurcates my chat experience across another platform. YMMV I guess.

It's probably more convenient to someone that has never used a chat client before? I suppose this is how I end up siloed off with all the old fogies. :D

I just gave up on discord last night. Third or fourth time I came across a link to what sounded like an interesting server, then couldn't log in with existing credentials. I want to like it and use it, but frankly it's very tiresome to get going.

I'm not clicking on the link inviting me to your server any more. Have fun with those who fight through the silly spinning spider thing.

Exactly. IRC and Usenet is still there, but people just prefer trolling on Twitter and Reddit.

Much of it comes down to ease-of-use / accessibility. My 70 year old parents can use reddit. They could not use usenet.

You could create a usenet client with all the accessibility features that you wanted.

Reddit might be accessible, but that's because they want it to be accessible. You rely on them doing you a favour.

You could, and Dejanews / Google kind of did, but it still never gained critical mass...