This is not a very good article. Why does the reporting around this feel like an extension of a culture war instead of, you know, the actual story? For instance, his author seems more interested...
This is not a very good article.
Why does the reporting around this feel like an extension of a culture war instead of, you know, the actual story?
It is a story, I just don't think it's a particularly important or noteworthy story. Some of the VC tweets were... incredibly embarrassing on Friday and over the weekend. Embarrassingly poor...
It is a story, I just don't think it's a particularly important or noteworthy story. Some of the VC tweets were... incredibly embarrassing on Friday and over the weekend. Embarrassingly poor understanding of how banks work, embarrassing stories about SVB (one of them claimed it was a "badge of honor" for a startup to bank at SVB?), embarrassing hypotheticals about the wider effect on the economy. It's embarrassing that some of them seem to think their whining on Twitter is what caused the FDIC do, y'know, their job.
But I mean, people saying embarrassing things on Twitter is not like a particularly important or noteworthy thing to happen. It happens every day. It's an extremely un-noteworthy event.
I want to preface my question here by trying to make it as clear as possible that this is not an attack of any sort; I am curious, what do you think the actual story is? What should the articles...
the actual story?
I want to preface my question here by trying to make it as clear as possible that this is not an attack of any sort; I am curious, what do you think the actual story is? What should the articles be focused on?
No preface necessary :) I think Matt Levine's column provided a great summary. The linked tweets in this article are sensationalist. The wider discourse about a 'bailout' has largely been...
No preface necessary :)
I think Matt Levine's column provided a great summary. The linked tweets in this article are sensationalist. The wider discourse about a 'bailout' has largely been sensationalist. This article is sensationalist.
I found this comment I saw on Twitter mildly amusing:
One of those days where you'd be absolutely stunned to find out where people came down on a policy issue unless you know who hates who on the bird site.
Like 90% of positioning around the SVB kerfuffle is cultural resentment of what humanities-ish people think tech folks are like.
Elon catches brain worms and six months later progressives are giving strained lectures on the moral hazard of financial consumer protection
It feels very 'Oh Elon and/or VCs are tweeting about this? Well here's why it must be bad...'
I appreciate the good faith, but it's been clear from my interactions on this website in the past that having this kind of preface seems necessary or people seem to make a lot of incorrect...
No preface necessary :)
I appreciate the good faith, but it's been clear from my interactions on this website in the past that having this kind of preface seems necessary or people seem to make a lot of incorrect conclusions about the questions I ask, that they assume they are leading, or gotcha moments, and this tactic seems to have been working in recent times to help prevent this.
It feels very 'Oh Elon and/or VCs are tweeting about this? Well here's why it must be bad...'
So if I'm getting this straight, it sounds like you're more concerned with the financial, technical aspects of what is going on, rather than understanding what social and human pressure might be affecting policy and values? Or is there something about the way the social/human aspects are presented that makes you deem it sensationalist? Is it the language used? The value statements? Something else?
Essentially yes. The apocalyptical VC tweeting was an overreaction, and I think it's great to point that out and have a laugh at that, although I'm a little bemused at how that's enough content...
So if I'm getting this straight, it sounds like you're more concerned with the financial, technical aspects of what is going on, rather than understanding what social and human pressure might be affecting policy and values?
Essentially yes. The apocalyptical VC tweeting was an overreaction, and I think it's great to point that out and have a laugh at that, although I'm a little bemused at how that's enough content for an article. But regardless, if you're going to highlight a tweet like this:
Where is Powell? Where is Yellen? Stop this crisis NOW. Announce that all depositors will be safe. Place SVB with a Top 4 bank. Do this before Monday open or there will be contagion and the crisis will spread.
You could at least acknowledge that sensationalist or not, it's correct? Or not refer to making depositors whole as a bailout? Or mention that SVB shareholders were wiped out?
IMO articles like this or the tweets they are referencing are not designed to inform but rather to highlight in such a way or even misrepresent situations to people in pursuit of mobilizing more outrage.
This is not a very good article.
Why does the reporting around this feel like an extension of a culture war instead of, you know, the actual story?
For instance, his author seems more interested in using this as a conveniently timed soap box.
It is a story, I just don't think it's a particularly important or noteworthy story. Some of the VC tweets were... incredibly embarrassing on Friday and over the weekend. Embarrassingly poor understanding of how banks work, embarrassing stories about SVB (one of them claimed it was a "badge of honor" for a startup to bank at SVB?), embarrassing hypotheticals about the wider effect on the economy. It's embarrassing that some of them seem to think their whining on Twitter is what caused the FDIC do, y'know, their job.
But I mean, people saying embarrassing things on Twitter is not like a particularly important or noteworthy thing to happen. It happens every day. It's an extremely un-noteworthy event.
I want to preface my question here by trying to make it as clear as possible that this is not an attack of any sort; I am curious, what do you think the actual story is? What should the articles be focused on?
No preface necessary :)
I think Matt Levine's column provided a great summary. The linked tweets in this article are sensationalist. The wider discourse about a 'bailout' has largely been sensationalist. This article is sensationalist.
I found this comment I saw on Twitter mildly amusing:
It feels very 'Oh Elon and/or VCs are tweeting about this? Well here's why it must be bad...'
I appreciate the good faith, but it's been clear from my interactions on this website in the past that having this kind of preface seems necessary or people seem to make a lot of incorrect conclusions about the questions I ask, that they assume they are leading, or gotcha moments, and this tactic seems to have been working in recent times to help prevent this.
So if I'm getting this straight, it sounds like you're more concerned with the financial, technical aspects of what is going on, rather than understanding what social and human pressure might be affecting policy and values? Or is there something about the way the social/human aspects are presented that makes you deem it sensationalist? Is it the language used? The value statements? Something else?
Essentially yes. The apocalyptical VC tweeting was an overreaction, and I think it's great to point that out and have a laugh at that, although I'm a little bemused at how that's enough content for an article. But regardless, if you're going to highlight a tweet like this:
You could at least acknowledge that sensationalist or not, it's correct? Or not refer to making depositors whole as a bailout? Or mention that SVB shareholders were wiped out?
IMO articles like this or the tweets they are referencing are not designed to inform but rather to highlight in such a way or even misrepresent situations to people in pursuit of mobilizing more outrage.