Wow. I don’t claim to know specifically where the line between “journalism” and “propaganda piece” lies but I think this article crosses it. The way I see it

Wow. I don’t claim to know specifically where the line between “journalism” and “propaganda piece” lies but I think this article crosses it. The way I see it this article’s points fall into two categories. The first is using alarmists as examples and pretending no one else is concerned about privacy. Yes, the folks who thought Google Street View was an invasion of privacy were a little extreme but they certainly don’t represent the only people who are concerned about keeping things private. The second thing this article does is to obscure the point with restrictive surveys. Yes, teens generally don’t care about their privacy because they don’t have professional reputations to up hold or jobs to lose. It’s when you start building a life for yourself that you realize how tragic it would be to lose your lifestyle because you said something stupid on Facebook. So using teens as your only data point is misleading. In the end this is a Google propaganda piece IMHO. Google benefits from things being public because the more public stuff that’s out there the more ads they can sell. It’s hard to make money off a private profile that’s only visible to someone’s immediate friends and family. (On that note, what's CNet thinking having a reporter who is married to a company employee cover that company?)