That's not an interview, that's at best stenography and at worse sycophancy.
If, for example, an interviewee said in all seriousness "I want to shoot all dogs and make the poor eat their babies" would you expect the interviewer to go go "Hmmm very interesting. Why do you think that?"
No.
It is vital that interviewers challenge the subject. Especially when they say something profoundly ludicrous or disturbing. Otherwise they might has well just be in PR.
You can have different types of interview, they don't all have to be permissive or challenging. If someone said "I want to shoot all dogs and make the poor eat their babies" during a podcast interview what good is it going to do for the interviewer to challenge that? The interviewee has already declared something horrendous, telling them they're beyond the pale on the spot is unlikely to change anything. Asking them why would be much more valuable since they could expose more of their deranged fantasies (at least in this scenario) which would subject them to even more revulsion and scrutiny by listeners. If you watch police interrogations this is often the tactic used even in the most horrendous crimes. They aren't confrontational, they don't denounce, they often don't even challenge inconsistencies at first. They let people speak and encourage them to say more or go over something they talked about previously in more detail. It appears almost friendly or compassionate to a casual observer but they're really just giving the subject more rope to hang themselves with.
If you publish a podcast where your guest encourages heinous behaviour without you challenging - that's a you problem.
Saying "Well, our listeners can decide for themselves" is a cowardly cop-out.
You might not be able to change the interviewee's mind but you can sure as hell send social signals to your audience that you condemn their views or think they're ludicrous.
Case in point - why are you trying to change my mind here? You're pushing back because you want to signal to others that my point of view is incorrect. That sort of basic interrogation seems completely missing in (especially American) media.
You're assigning motives to me that I don't have. Maybe that is the distinction, you think how you appear to an audience is important, I'm viewing this no differently than I would a private conversation. I'm not performing or signalling to anyone.
This really isn't the same thing as an interview. I'm not talking to you for the benefit of an audience or as a way to document your thoughts. I'm saying what I think and responding to what you think (and accuse me of thinking). I'm expressing my own opinion, I'm not trying to win a debate or make myself look good.
No it’s not. There’s a trade off to make between letting someone explain themselves and challenging them. The audience has their own braincells and can make their own decisions on what they are hearing.
Actually yes if a interviewee said something like that I’d like to know why they’re saying that because it doesn’t make sense to me!
If a leading politician says something deranged like "all crime is caused by gay people" - should the newspaper simply report that verbatim? Or should they say "the President lied today, and here are the facts that shows he is wrong"?
Sometimes it helps for institutions to point out the the emperor has no clothes. The social reinforcement of norms is hugely influential.
OK. If you interview the President and he repeatedly lies - is it OK to just publish that interview? Or should you push back on those lies? Do you owe it to your audience to let them know the king is mad?
The risk, of course, is that you don't get invited back. That's "The Test" in the post.
I watched the Hulu documentary about WeWork. A podcaster was interviewing Rebekah Neumann while she spewed absolute word-salad about "elevating the public WeConsciousness".
The podcaster had a glassy look in his eyes and a rigid smile. No pushback, no interrogation, no polite challenging.
He passed the test.
People need to get a lot more comfortable about providing negative feedback - especially to batshit ideas. It is such an important social signal to know that people disagree with you. Otherwise your worst instincts run rampant.
Symbian and LiMo were both available at the time. It is hard to say they were good alternatives though. Windows 7 - even with the weight of Microsoft behind it - wasn't able to attract enough hardware manufacturers.
May I politely invite you to fuck off with your racism.
Indigenous? What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? Why are you so happy to be racist in public?
Stop getting your news from social media. Come over to London, have a pint in a Desi pub and try telling us that we're living in hell. See how that works out for you.
> Indigenous? What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? Why are you so happy to be racist in public?
That's not an argument. Do you think it would be "racist" if Japanese people don't want to be largely replaced in their home country with white or black people? If not, why not?
But, of course, ethnicity doesn't really matter in this context. There have been black people in the UK since at least Tudor times. Read Miranda Kaufmann's excellent book on the subject.
How long does someone have to live here to count, in your expert opinion? The UK invited thousands of people from all over the Empire to fight for us during WW2. They and their descendants are now as British as anyone else here.
What about the descendants of the Huguenots? Do they count as "replacing" or do you think it's OK because of their skin colour?
I'm sure you could prepare almost anything to taste great. You can do whatever you think you'd enjoy. My point isn't to discourage you from doing it. If you want to eat apple stems or orange peels or horse chestnuts, knock yourself out. My point is that it's probably not smart to do so unless you know what you're doing and have a good reason to.
Go down to literally any 2nd hand phone store and buy a refurb. None of your money will go to Google and you'll have your phone at a fraction of the new price.
Literally any? Really? Are you sure you're not looking at this through an Americancentric lens? The Google phone was never offered in my market, so second hand options are simply not available.
I do not believe he is 'literally calling for ethnic cleansing', based on what I've read. But if you would like to make that argument, please enclose 2 quotes from him that you believe support your proposition, with a link to the original source.
I would describe DHH as a narcissist. Normal people who don't have a massive ego and hugely inflated view of themselves don't get involved in these societal conversations in the first place, to even be accused of being a fascist.
"When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation."
The European Union is known for its Schengen Zone, which allows EU citizens to travel between other EU member states freely. However, did you know that until 2025, there were two countries who were full EU member states, that were not a part of the Schengen Zone? [1]
They were Romania and Bulgaria, the two countries where - you guessed it - most of the Romani people, colloquially known as Gypsies, are from. The rest of the EU, for a very long time, denied these countries equal Schengen access precisely because no one else in the EU wanted Gypsies in their countries. Precisely because of the disrespectful behavior they display when they set-up shop somewhere.
DHH did not call for them to be shot, he expressed that he would like to deport homeless vagrants who were not Danish citizens. If vagrancy is a crime, then deporting a criminal is not a controversial stance. It is, in fact, standard operating procedure for any nation-state in the world that can afford to do so.
However, his language and rhetoric to invoke shooting wolves (a dangerous and feral animal) in the same sentence (essentially) as deporting Gypsies is, at a minimum, dangerous and irresponsible as it can encourage vigilantism and civil violence where people can take the law into their own hands. It would have been better if he had moderated his language, however strictly speaking - this does not quality as 'literally calling for ethnic cleansing', especially when in the context of deporting non-citizens of a nation state who are accused of criminal activity.
There is nothing remotely racist or fascist about that. He’s talking about behavior, not race. And deportation is merely a tool that both fascists and non–fascists alike can use. Frankly the historical examples of fascism did very little actual deporting.
> A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
How is that, at all, related to Omarchy apart from the racist dog whistles from its founder?
It's like people see a blue t-shirt and say 'look, that t-shirt is rainbow colored'. No, that t-shirt has ONE of the colors of the rainbow, but it's missing red, orange, yellow, green and purple.
Funny you should ask, I just read a blog post that described exactly how one guy’s shitty beliefs are a problem. It was called “Omarchy is a Power Grab” i’m sure you can find a link to it if you look around.
That's great advice to all people who fail to see large hazards fast approaching. Like, say, a fascistic kleptocracy that's quickly forming in a large western country.
I doubt that DHH somehow has an impact or even a say in that future fascist kleptocracy with some barely working linux distro, but if you really think that way and you think these actions do anything to damage it, you're incredibly wrong.
All you do is look like extremist weirdos and make moderates and people who couldn't care less about politics be interested in what they're doing. For every complaint I see about omarchy I see a ton from people that just heard about it and started using it, all after the whole DHH is the devil and omarchy is the fascist distro started, which is ironic and honestly hilarious.
Hyper-politicization of open source outside of its domain has ruined it. This is not a new phenomenon but has certainly increased as fringe politics have gone more mainstream and taken advantage by politicians, content creators and your average power hungry bully who wants to use idiots to obtain easy money and power.
Maybe the solution is in the offline world. A government funded public service announcement of tv/radio/print/busstop ads saying stuff like "never do government stuff not on .gov, never do banking stuff not on .bank". I think that would be highly effective for the sort of people who need the protection here.
It would obviously require banks and gov departments to get their ducks in a row first which is a whole other problem in itself, but it might still turn out to be an economically viable improvement.
Yeah, I totally agree. I think there's no 1-size-fit-all solution. I think the problem should shift onto "how many solutions do we need"?
At least 2 I'd guess: 1 is going to be incomprehensibly hard and painful compared to now, but there will be maybe only a few handfuls per country. Sure you have to sacrifice your first newborn, but it will come with the full weight of government PSAs because lots of normal and vulnerable citizens depend on it.
The other solution matters less so, because it's could all just be optional/nice to have things, and if people want them, they have to accept some amount of risk/competency in exchange for easy of access. The current solution getting only <50% spam/scam seems to be doing better than traditional mediums so is probably fine for that group.
Maybe there's some more measure solutions between the 2 extremes, but I really don't think there can or should be 1 fix for the DNS system given the range of use cases and customers.
Regardless, Dave down at the local is always going to panic click amazaoncom.paercel-delay.info regardless of what the local bus stop ad or government tell him to do. Such a Dave thing to do.
The opposite issue I had was that I already flagged as spam mails with domains that look like this (not using the official domain) only to discover later that it was legitimate when I connected.
I dont see how org.ukpaynatwest-online is any easier to spot as a scam.
Take a look at many of the domains you see in phishing emails / texts. They're all pretty obvious if you spend all day looking at domains and considering their provenance. Most people don't.
I like the idea of highlighting the TLD - but I do wonder if it would just become an expensive boondoggle like EV Certificates.
The author (who is handsome and talented) is based in the UK - so tries hard not to be US centric. Hence the use of €.
As for the contradictions - yes. There's a famous aphorism "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
I think it is important to explore a problem and its possible solutions. It allows you to work where the issues are and prevents people saying "why didn't you consider…?".
It was in parentheses, that does usually imply irrelevant sideband information.
Perhaps more importantly, the “handsome and talented” sidebar was actually a tongue in cheek acknowledgment that the author himself was speaking, I suspect, compare the usernames and they match up suspiciously well.
If, for example, an interviewee said in all seriousness "I want to shoot all dogs and make the poor eat their babies" would you expect the interviewer to go go "Hmmm very interesting. Why do you think that?"
No.
It is vital that interviewers challenge the subject. Especially when they say something profoundly ludicrous or disturbing. Otherwise they might has well just be in PR.
reply