Technically true, but also doesn’t advance the conversation in any way. Eventually no one will exist or care about anything, but until then everyone will have to live with the decisions and apathy of those who came before.

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

I would love to read a solid exposé of Worldcoin, but I don’t think I will get that from Buzzfeed or from The Atlantic. Both seemed to be agenda driven and hot headed. I’d like a more impartial breakdown ala AP-style news reporting.

One of the above links is from the MIT Technology Review ...

The Atlantic doesn't have an ideological center, although you won't find, like... fascism in there (sorry if you're disappointed). It's also been around for 167 years, so if you could point to its "agenda", that would be great.

Idk have you considered that maybe YOU'RE wrong?

The Atlantic is run by Jeffrey Goldberg and owned by Laurene Powell Jobs.

Of course these people have agendas, it’s not exactly a secret.

It has to be owned by someone, that does not make it agenda driven. Who would you rather have it owned by so that it is not agenda driven?

It’s not a hypothetical we aren’t assuming spherical cows today. Those specific people have a long and public track record that answers this question.

It’s not a secret, like I said. There are plenty of editors out there who have never decided to concoct ludicrous stories of Al Queda bases in the Amazon to name one example.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/10/28/in-the-party-o...

you still have not answered my question... who should own that you will believe it is impartial?

Should I assume bias and impartiality for your Day One conference simply by who you are and who is behind you? The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, your opinion on that?

My own involvement in media is not impartial and is not intended to be.

My opinion on your question is that Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post to advance his interests, and that the Washington Post indeed has an agenda which is broadly aligned with what’s commonly referred to as “the establishment.”

And absolutely nothing I’m saying is particularly insightful or controversial, it’s obvious at a glance.

As for your original question about who should own media to make it objective, I don’t have the answer to that one.

But I do know that there’s no person with a billion dollars who doesn’t have the agenda of preserving a social order consistent with them being able to continue to enjoy that billion dollars.

> although you won't find, like... fascism in there (sorry if you're disappointed)

I don't understand how HN can hit such highs sometimes, but also host nonsense like this.

> The Atlantic doesn't have an ideological center,

Morning, boys. How’s the water?

Your comment immediately gave me a chuckle so thank you for that.

I find it interesting among its readership that Atlantic’s prose can hide so well what an absolute shitrag of propaganda it really is.

> I don’t think I will get that from Buzzfeed

BuzzFeed News is not BuzzFeed. They were a serious news website¹ staffed by multiple investigative journalists, including a Pulitzer winner heading that division. They received plenty of awards and recognition.² It is indeed a shame they shared a name with BuzzFeed and that no doubt didn’t help, but it does not detract from their work.

> or from The Atlantic.

There was no Atlantic link. The other source was MIT Technology Review.

> I’d like a more impartial breakdown ala AP-style news reporting.

The Associated Press did report on it³, and the focus was on the privacy implications too. The other time they reported on it⁴ was to announce Spain banned it for privacy concerns.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News

² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News#Awards_and_recog...

³ https://apnews.com/article/worldcoin-cryptocurrency-sam-altm...

⁴ https://apnews.com/article/worldcoin-spain-eyeballs-privacy-...

Thank you. I’ll take a look. The Atlantic link I’m referring to is the actual HN article link of the OP, not of the GP.