Remote Amazon tribe did not get addicted to porn
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
>The Times article had overemphasized the negatives of the internet, he said, “resulting in the spread of a distorted and damaging picture.”
And the original NYT article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40553438
the article mentioned a complaint from one Marubo leader [about some porn in chats]
sites that distorted this detail are news aggregators
By now, these sorts of sites and misleading headlines are just another part of the internet economy. To an informed internet user, their tactics are familiar.
For the Marubo, however, the experience was bewildering and infuriating.
I'm always shocked that anyone ever takes the Post seriously, but they're in a double whammy situation where (1) 90% of their content is sensationalist garbage and (2) most people seem unaware of this prior point. Which means they can spin up whatever shit and it'll get a lot of traction, way more than most other tabloids.
Is this satire?
In case not: The source didn't report it happening. Therefore no one needs to invent it, not even as a pretext for an invasive investigation.
This is justification for inventing an issue and then attributing it to them.
> It seems reasonable to think that if someone tells a reporter that he's upset that porn is being shared in group chats, that there's a good chance the level of usage is in fact greater.
It is not reasonable to start with a conclusion and then find any road possible to get there.
It's not clear if you're accusing the tribe or the reporter of backpedaling but neither happened. The reporter made a statement in the original article and repeated it verbatim in this article. It is closer to an opposite of backpedaling.
What happened to the journalistic motto: "if your mother says she loves you, check it out"? [1]
1: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2003/if-your-mothe...
The reporters followup story reports on 1) his own original story and 2) how other news shops 'customized' [ed] the original story.
1) He repeated the original story.
2) He said what the downstream stories said.
"Lack of definitive evidence" is not what this is.
Then, the NyPost is the only media outlet to run a story of a laptop (recently verified by the FBI in court) containing incriminating evidence of corruption of one of the two leading candidates.
I've also heard of this one tribe heavily addicted to misinformation. They just can't get enough of it! They weren't even feral and naive to exposure, it somehow just... crept up on them.
"Alfredo Marubo, leader of a Marubo association of villages, has emerged as the tribe’s most vocal critic of the internet. ...
He is most unsettled by the pornography. He said young men were sharing explicit videos in group chats, a stunning development for a culture that frowns on kissing in public. "
So the young men am seem pretty interested in sex acts. So yeah, maybe not interested in nudity.
I wonder if they like lingerie videos?
Expect a ton more of this garbage, some with image/meme/video/audio. At least we'll get an idea what to beware of for the upcoming US election.
There is nary an article that exists that couldn't inspire academic level discourse on how wrong it is, and the factors that contributed to its wrongness.
Thank the lord I'm not in high school anymore because writing a paper on current events has got to be painful.
I disagree. The ideal state would be news organization would be held accountable for the nonsense they get up to.
The original article was an interesting insight into the benefits of the Internet and how it can be beneficial to tribes like that. This latest article (not really a retraction) is also beneficial in that it calls out the nonsense other news outlets got up to, and points a light at the issue itself, as you yourself are doing.
Legal reporting is some of the worst, so I am frequently hunting for actual court documents, transcripts, etc. which are often significantly different from what you see reported. One favorite trick is that media will report things selectively in a way that is misleading. You get a more complete picture when you see, e.g., how a witness holds up under cross-examination and what details could or could not be corroborated.
If it weren't for the fact that I read the opinion or the bill itself I would think I was going mad with how news outlets report on it. I swear we're reading two different documents.
I've pretty much given up on anything of the form "journalist reporting on primary source material" which is what the OP is about. They should have just linked to the guy's YouTube so everyone could see first hand what's happening. The average news article tells me more about how people are reacting to a thing than the thing itself.