It is the industry standard ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean you’re not listening to folks in this thread telling you actually it would be weird for a newspaper to audit a journalist’s emails. At a newspaper, your jerk boss *doesnt* have access to your emails. The only time an audit might happen is if the corporate lawyers need to for legal reasons.

Even if HR/legal did search his emails for liability reasons, it’s not like they would forward that information to the newsroom. Newspapers have firewalls setup between business management and the newsroom. Newspapers work very differently from a typical office!

Newspapers aren’t some perfect, god-like entity unbiased entity nor are they biased schemers, out to subvert all that is good. They are organizations filled with people and their extreme bias is to write stories and pieces that people want to read.

Of all the potential moderation policies a site needs to have, the violent rhetoric one is consistently the one that causes the most uproar, because people will almost never agree that two posts are equivalent if they are directed at two different targets, even if the words are identical.

Bluesky used to use a much less stringent threshold for removing violent rhetoric than they do today, and it changed to the current more-stringent policy early on, when a large number of users objected to hyperbolic violent rhetoric used against a prominent poster that was not moderated.

I was at NYT for 7 years & one of a dozen reporters who investigated Epstein’s interactions w/the rich & powerful. I don’t know every conversation held at every level there, but I do know we dedicated ourselves to exposing those who supported Epstein & engaged in the abuse of girls he facilitated

Listen, I think the NYT owes its readers and the public much greater transparency about this. Who knew what and when? Were any other people involved in ethical lapses?

But the idea that the NYT as an institution is approving of this reporter’s actions is just wildly wrong.

Though in retrospect some aspects were grossly overblown, the last time I think we got it even halfway right was with the Snowden stuff. Ironic because Greenwald became such an insular, petty hack in the years that followed. And his reporting still left a lot to be desired.