Wait, what? He clearly quotes Mark saying, "In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done." Then he (the author) says, "That’s a spirited defense of a means of protest that has wreaked havoc on a litany of Fortune 500 companies over the last year." How is building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done, a means of protest, and how does that wreak havoc on Fortune 500 companies?
And I found this pretty insulting too, "Wall Street probably won’t mind all the idealism as long as it doesn’t get in the way of the stock price -- provided Anonymous isn't a featured speaker at the next shareholders meeting."
What happened to proper journalism, where the author did at least a little bit of background research before publishing an article?
"What happened to proper journalism, where the author did at least a little bit of background research before publishing an article?"
I doubt there are more than a few dozen real journalists left in the U.S. It seems like virtually all of the good longform articles I read are written by the same handful of people.
I think the author was not willing (or it did not strike him at all) that the meaning of word 'hacker' could be anything different than what he had in mind.
Once any one does that, the rest of the explanation can be used to support the definition already in mind. The "testing the boundaries..." could have left him with an impression that Zuckerberg is supporting "hacking" because it 'tests the boundaries of what can be done in general'.
Plus, this was written by a pro-Hollywood news site, so I'm assuming the author probably knew a little bit, but decided to attempt to twist Mark's words in a negative. Admittedly, he pretty much failed.
To us and other technologically-informed people, he failed. But to the general public who already associates the term "hacker" with a destructive force, the author probably further reinforced the negative connotations. People hear (read) what they want to hear, especially if it already agrees with their current understandings.
And it's a shame really. I wonder if some day, with the help of hackers, technology, and the resultant spread of information, the general public won't be so ignorant.
What happened to proper journalism, where the author did at least a little bit of background research before publishing an article?
It flourished for a few decades, from 1920 say to 1980, and they it declined, dying in the web era when people stopped reading newspapers, online media make just pennies and need to gather humongous eyeballs to view their ads even for that, and reader attention is lacking.
And I found this pretty insulting too, "Wall Street probably won’t mind all the idealism as long as it doesn’t get in the way of the stock price -- provided Anonymous isn't a featured speaker at the next shareholders meeting."
What happened to proper journalism, where the author did at least a little bit of background research before publishing an article?