How not to ring in pride by plugging a Matt Walsh film, courtesy of Ars Technica
(I'm posting this today because I wanted to give them the weekend to respond to it, and it's now nearly 1:00 PM EDT and there's still no official response or even message that the article has been edited, s here we are)
So I don't know how many of my friend on here read science and tech news, but for several years my favorite source for these subjects was Ars Technica, which seemed (emphasis on the past tense here) to have a higher level of journalistic quality than most of the free sci/tech news sites out there. They've even earned a reputation for being moderately progressive, with articles covering the reality of climate change and the effectiveness of vaccines.
This weekend, we learned that this veneer of progressiveness has a sharp and painful limit: LGBTQ+ issues.
Last week, Twitter's safety chief resigned after Elon Musk ordered her to surface an anti-trans propaganda piece, What Is A Woman, by Matt Walsh, a prominent anti-LGBTQ+ hate figure and major popularizer of the current push to label all LGBTQ+ people as sexual predators and groomers.
This could have been an easy slam dunk for Ars. Cover the departure, cover even the tiniest bit of backstory into Matt Walsh and why he's such a shitty guy, and then wait for the ad dollars from your progressive-leaning audience to roll in.
Instead, we got this (Wayback link here):
That was it. That was the whole article.
No mention of Matt Walsh proudly talking on Twitter about how he helped spread the "all queers are groomers" rhetoric that's spreading strong throughout much of the US (and it's only a matter of time before that breaches containment). No mention of how Chloe Cole holds rallies to try to make try to make puberty blockers and hormone treatment (which collectively have a regret rate that hovers around 1%) illegal for anyone to access until they're 18 and puberty has already permanently changed their body.
Ars' failure doesn't stop here, though I wish it did. Let's check the comment count:
Now for people who don't read Ars, that number might not mean much. Here it is in context:
Eight times as many comments as half the stories around it. Three times as many comments as an article about EA and gaming NFTs, topics that are guaranteed to create discussion. The only story that even comes close is a multi-page article about Starliner, a topic which consistently creates strong engagement on a site that cares enough about space to have its own purely-rocket themed sub-periodical.
Remember above when I said that Ars got a reputation as a semi-progressive site because they supported vaccines and the reality of climate change? That extended to the comments section, where their moderators would remove comments that called climate change fake or vaccines a scam. Let's see what kind of comments they're leaving up on this article:
Interesting how some topics are tightly moderated, and others, when they concern human rights, are left to the Ars community (which thankfully downvoted these posts into oblivion).
Save your downvote fingers, though, because these comments are locked to hell and back. No upvotes, no downvotes, no further comments. Just this:
"Culture war topics." "It should go without saying that the intent was not to spread hate." "This story was really about Ella Irwin's resignation... [and] Twitter is becoming less safe for some people seemingly by the hour."
I wonder if Ken Fisher, the founder and editor-in-chief, has any experience with running a site that's becoming less safe for "some people" by the hour? Given how they handled this this weekend, the first weekend of Pride month, I'd say he does.
Catch that part where he said the story is being updated? Here's a Wayback link to the updated version: linkle. Unfortunately it's now long enough to be a multi-page article, which means that putting it into the Wayback machine is a hassle, and it's so much longer that I'm not going to link it in here, but I suggest giving it a read.
Notice anything missing? Anything like... any kind of notice that the article was updated? A timestamp for updates? Nope, gonna just drop a modified version and pretend that this was the only version that ever existed. Thanks for the great article and amazing updates, Jon Brodkin.
...
...
Wait a second. So Jon Brodkin wrote an article that uncritically parroted talking points from an anti-trans propaganda piece made by an openly transphobic Christian nationalist. Is this an honest mistake, or is Jon in on the bit? Let's check who he follows on Twitter (sourced from https://twitter.com/jbrodkin/following).
...and of course:
He follows some green people too, but it's just politicians and fiction writers. No pro-trans publications or pro-trans nonfiction writers. At this point, the lazy response from the journalism team at Ars Technica is pretty clear. Rather than this being a case of uninformed allies making a mistake and trying to cover it up rather than own it, it seems a lot more likely that they have an actual transphobic employee, who intentionally published an actual transphobic article, and the leadership team cares more about protecting his professional reputation than they do about not spreading hate.
