They do it with influencers, but not with labs. They partner with labs by promoting their initiatives, producing thought leaders within the labs, listing their jobs.
I don’t think it is fair to assume anything about my intentions without first asking—maybe you have a question about my intentions? I’m happy to answer any.
Am I right in saying that you think that me using the word “partnering” is inaccurate when when describing 80k listing jobs at labs, having people on their podcast to promote their initiatives and their people? etc
I’d be happy to use another word, as it doesn’t really change the substance of my claims.
I do think it’s inaccurate to say that 80k listing a job at an organisation indicates a partnership with them. Otherwise you’d have to say that 80k is partnering with e.g. the US, UK, Singapore and EU governments and the UN.
Re the podcast, I don’t think that’s the central purpose or effect. On the podcast homepage, the only lab employee in the highlighted episode section works on information security, and that is pitched as the focus of the episode.
I am disappointed at how soft-balled some of the podcast episodes have been, and I agree it’s plausible that for some guests it would be better if they weren’t interviewed, if that’s the trade-off. However I also think that overstating the case by describing it in a way that would give a mistaken impression to onlookers is unlikely to do anything to persuade 80k about it.
They do it with influencers, but not with labs. They partner with labs by promoting their initiatives, producing thought leaders within the labs, listing their jobs.
This seems like intentionally inflammatory concept creep to me
I don’t think it is fair to assume anything about my intentions without first asking—maybe you have a question about my intentions? I’m happy to answer any.
Am I right in saying that you think that me using the word “partnering” is inaccurate when when describing 80k listing jobs at labs, having people on their podcast to promote their initiatives and their people? etc
I’d be happy to use another word, as it doesn’t really change the substance of my claims.
I do think it’s inaccurate to say that 80k listing a job at an organisation indicates a partnership with them. Otherwise you’d have to say that 80k is partnering with e.g. the US, UK, Singapore and EU governments and the UN.
Re the podcast, I don’t think that’s the central purpose or effect. On the podcast homepage, the only lab employee in the highlighted episode section works on information security, and that is pitched as the focus of the episode.
I am disappointed at how soft-balled some of the podcast episodes have been, and I agree it’s plausible that for some guests it would be better if they weren’t interviewed, if that’s the trade-off. However I also think that overstating the case by describing it in a way that would give a mistaken impression to onlookers is unlikely to do anything to persuade 80k about it.
I’m not assuming anything—I’m stating how it appears to me (ie I said ‘this seems like X to me’, not ‘this is X’).