Things I don't understand : Today the business page 6 in the New-York Times International, October 31, 2018.

First we have an article « No answers on social media » about the problems of social networks on the internet to confine the hate that some are happy to spread widely, thanks to the new technologies.. well horryfing people still exists and there were no reason they didn't use new technology … but is that a business issue ? Seems to me it's more a social problem, an eternal moral debate of human communauties : what do we do with the Bad ? Who is Bad ? What is Bad ? What's the fuck of those people killing others , blabla. Do we need a langague police ? Is langage the beast ? Or some peculiar use of langage the beast ? Is the beast bad ? Do we need a langage policy ? Blabla... Well, i'm sorry but where the business issue there ? Common Decency could answer George ORWELL after the World War II.

Then an article titled « Being rich doesn't mean you're great at everything. ». Ok, this is not a book educating little children to the human society, no, it's in the business page of the New-York Times international in the beginning of the XXI e century. Well, i know psychological stuff had become a big business for some, but we're really there on the ground of psychological perception of the humans. Is Marie-Antoinette a good actress ? François Ier a good poet ? La Ciciollina a good politic representative ? Pamela Anderson a good ecological lobbyist ? blablabla , … Didn't Martin LUTHER affirm the same idea by saying « it's not because you're able to pay for « an indulgence » proposed in the store of the corrupted Vatican that you're able to reach heaven and that your soul is safe » ? Well, When was that ? XVe century ? Is this really a business issue ? Inside the article we've got La PALISSE information like « it seems fair to say that if money is portable form one field to another, talent often is not », thank you for that information that each human can experience by itself , or like « Running a tech start-up that makes billions doesn't make one a virtuoso who can disrupt all industries » well, of course but introducing the new and very high tech in an industrial process disrupt it and so that industry, it's compulsary, just think of it by yourself even three seconds if you can... But in that article I found also really horryfing things like « a hedge fund manager who buys a newspaper has the power to decide what constitutes news » euh.. never heard about journalism as a profesionnal work with code and rules, deontology something like that  ?... or horryfing things like« the richs have been patrons of the arts and sciences for centuries » well they give money but they can't be boss of those things, this is a very kistch idea of arts and a poor knowledge about science … Well, we know that psychology could be the servant of rich people, no doubt about that, there are no science, nor art there ...

And at least, in that page 6 of the Interntional New-York Times supposed talking us about Business stuff an article titled « New China Export : meaningless stuff » who is not dealing with the invasion of stupid breloques and gadgets made in china into the western societies shops but about an internet application that proposes stupid short videos with an agressive and intrusive marketing. Very interesting, really, meaningless stuff .. but i can't find no real informations about the business, chiffre d'affaire, number of employees, bénéfice net, taxes paid, blabla, not a clue, no, just perception and psychology. We notice the author of that article didn't talk about a chinese governement censorship but evoque a chinese governement dislike of not-very-wholesome stuff … Well, do we need of langage police ? Do we need a langage policy ? Common Decency could answer ORWELL at the end of World War II (XXe century)