6 ms·

Now we see the propaganda machine at work. Not satisfied with sticking to the important story of FB's monstrous track record with personal data, the news media

Now we see the propaganda machine at work. Not satisfied with sticking to the important story of FB's monstrous track record with personal data, the news media must turn each cycle into a full on character assassination. Regardless of how I feel about FB, I'm more disturbed by the media pattern.

AlexandrB 9y ago
I don't get it. You call this a character assassination, but don't elaborate on which part of the article is demonstrably false. The fact that Adtech companies such as Facebook do almost no vetting of the ad content they distribute is absolutely true and part of the problem with the ad economy. Facebook has accrued great power, but when faced with taking responsibility for any of that power has simply shrugged its shoulders. The same goes for Google.
- mistermann 9y ago
  It's not that the article is false, it's the timing. Facebook has been doing this for years, as people in the tech universe are well aware, why the sudden flood of varied content in the mainstream media? Of course, a lot of these articles are going to be good old fashioned self-serving opportunism, but another possibility might be behind the scenes coordination. Impossible? Has there ever been a coordinated propaganda initiative in the history of the world?
  - Angostura 9y ago
    Trust me, the journalists on Bloomberg aren't running this story because they think Facebook threaten's Bloomberg's business. They are running it because they think it is a juicy story.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > because they think Facebook threaten's Bloomberg's business A coordinated propaganda campaign rarely has anything to do with the underlying business of the various media outlets being used to run it.
      - Angostura 9y ago
        So, how does this well-orchestrated conspiracy get its message to journalists that "you should investigate this" without the investigative reporters spotting that there is a well-orchestrated conspiracy?
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  None of this is false, but none of this is new information, either. Watchdogs have been saying all of this for years.
  - bjelkeman-again 9y ago
    But because you/I/we know does not mean that everyone knows. For a lot of people what is being lres3nted is not clear even though some have heard something about it previously. This is something media channels pick up on and push the stories when there is interest.
  - netsharc 9y ago
    So... it's not a problem? This feels like responding "Of course Harvey Weinstein's been creepy to young women, people has been saying he's creepy for years."...
    - throwaway2048 9y ago
      Loving this rhetorical flipover on HN from "nobody cares about ad companies being scumbags" to "its old everyone already knows about it, why is it such a big issue now"
  - projektir 9y ago
    I question the benefit of the "none of this is new" response. I don't really see what it ever adds to any conversation.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  The question is not whether it's false. The question is what is the purpose of making this a problem for facebook but not for your TV channels or for Twitter etc. Don't underestimate how well this works for the traditional media. It both help undermine one of their biggest competitors and it creates traffic by keep sensationalizing what is really completely normal practice and have been for as long as there have been advertising. Shady advertisers, pollute... those aren't the media reporting thats the media shaming what they themselves do all the time.
  - manjushri 9y ago
    Seems like you're arguing whataboutism. Yes, the old media are being hypocrites and are seemingly dragging their big rivals down with them. For the standpoint of the average person with no financial investments in these companies, why is this so problematic?
- dfxm12 9y ago
  The same goes for Google. It has nothing to do with the validity of the article. This is a "character assassination" because of singling Facebook out. I understand putting Facebook in the headline will get you clicks right now, but why not paint a more full picture?
  - soziawa 9y ago
    I don't think the same goes for Google is true. While both show you ads Google puts them in the context of websites in the internet which is not a priori trustworthy. Facebook on the other hand puts them into the context of people you follow and trust, this makes the ads themselves seem more trustworthy.
  - anonymouz 9y ago
    Google banned the product that this article is about; Facebook cozied up to them. So far only for Facebook evidence has surfaced of these very shady practices. See the difference? > Google banned Voluum over cloaking concerns, but that didn’t derail the company—Facebook was where the action was. vs. > It’s not just affiliates who think Gryn is at the pinnacle of the industry. In June, just before the conference, Facebook’s newly installed executive in charge of fighting shady ads, Rob Leathern, had invited him to the company’s London office to explain the latest affiliate tricks.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    Because Facebook is both relevant news, and a huge company who's core business is our data in exchange for a service.
imjk 9y ago
Agreed. A lot of the criticism against facebook is warranted, but a cynical part of me also thinks the timing on all this not coincidental to the Algorithm changes FB rolled out last month. In fact, I can't believe I haven't heard this from anyone else. Facebook's shutting down of organic reach was devastating for publishers: http://www.adweek.com/digital/after-facebooks-algorithm-change-devastated-organic-reach-how-are-publishers-coping/ http://www.adweek.com/digital/after-facebooks-algorithm-chan.... Now, just weeks later, it seems like all of media has turned on Facebook. We've known about the Cambridge Analytica scandal for over a year, but suddenly it's cover story material again. This is an article on it from last May: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great.... It just seems like the media is dumping on whatever it can at this point. My cynical view on how this ends would be that FB comes to some compromise on organic reach and the media begins to cool down on all the FB hoopla. FB gets some sort of slap on the wrist fine from the FTC or some other governing agency, and nothing genuinely changes in terms of consumer privacy.
- smt88 9y ago
  Publishers have hated FB for years. The algorithm update didn't move the needle much.
- lambda_lover 9y ago
  Oh absolutely -- Facebook pissed off somebody with a lot of influence, and now they're paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that Facebook is a cancer on society that sucks every piece of data it can get from its victims in exchange for an, at this point, poor end-user experience. I'd welcome a world where people have given up on Facebook, so I'm all for this push. Something something the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I guess.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Facebook's shutting down of organic reach was devastating for publishers: Facebook makes algorithm changes to reduce unpaid reach and squeeze more money out of business entities on the platform regularly, almost as soon as the complaints from the last round of changed have died down; it may be a contributor to background frustration especially by small businesses (for big businesses with established brands, its a barrier to their competition) but it'd probably not as big of a contribution to the present controversy as direct political features of that controversy, where the left is upset at the impact and therefore everyone involved, the right wants the political focus on Facebook rather than the other parties, and privacy advocates are angry at everyone involved, but particularly Facebook as the direct custodian of the data, about the mechanisms which allowed it to happen, which leaves everyone mad at Facebook for one reason or another.
21 9y ago
How about "where there is smoke there is fire"? When a scandal erupts the media starts digging around to search for more skeletons.
fny 9y ago
Isn't there a distinction between hyped sales cycles and a propaganda machine?
verroq 9y ago
We're (hopefully) about to reach a critical mass where people realise how much power these companies have simply by having our data and you're worried that Facebook dies in the collateral damage?
CaptainZapp 9y ago
Well, from the article "The Berlin conference was hosted by an online forum called Stack That Money, but a newcomer could be forgiven for wondering if it was somehow sponsored by Facebook Inc. Saleswomen from the company held court onstage, introducing speakers and moderating panel discussions. After the show, Facebook representatives flew to Ibiza on a plane rented by Stack That Money to party with some of the top affiliates." So Facebook sends representative to a conference of known scammers? Doesn't sound like character assassination for me.
Angostura 9y ago
Its not a propaganda machine. In the newspaper business its called seeing if the story has 'got legs' - you've run the original story, what are the questions that that story naturally raises? can we progress the story from here? Does it "have legs"?
bogomipz 9y ago
>"Now we see the propaganda machine at work." No, it's called public interest journalism. In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal it's quite logical that the public has an interest in knowing more about the inner working of of an opaque and powerful entity. >"the news media must turn each cycle into a full on character assassination." A "character assassination " by its very definition is an attack on a singular individual. You can not have a character assassination on a corporation. >"Regardless of how I feel about FB, I'm more disturbed by the media pattern." I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" simply because you yourself didn't feel it merited reporting on.
- cavanasm 9y ago
  RE: "character assassination" and corporations; if closely held corporations have the same rights as individuals now, could you character assassinate a closely held corporation?
  - bsenftner 9y ago
    I'd only accept that type of equivalency when a corporation can be sent to a physical prison - like a real person.
    - paulie_a 9y ago
      Or a corporate death penalty
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    The doctrine of “corporate personhood” is the the claim that corporations should enjoy the same legal status and protections as citizens. Even if you subscribe to that doctrine it does not produce a single person whose reputation can be harmed.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  > No, it called public interest journalism. There is little to no "public interest journalism" anymore, only click interest journalism. > You can not have a character assassination on a corporation. This is metaphor for the pattern of behavior. They are taking the same methods they use for the news cycle's "horrible person of the week" and turning it on Facebook. > I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" Considering the media's hyper focus on how the RNC used FB with the CA story, and an almost complete omission of how the DNC did the same thing, and more, with CTR, I'm comfortable sticking with "propaganda".
buvanshak 9y ago
> I'm more disturbed by the media pattern. I agree. But I think this should go on for a while. Not out of hate for Facebook. But it ll help more people to realize the kind of thing, the kind of exploitation and manipulations and they might be subjected to, both online and offline.. And I think that is about time people had a good taste of the reality that is going on with these things..
tryitnow 9y ago
It's pretty conspiratorial to call the media a "propaganda machine." I don't think it's propagandistic as much as it is opportunistic - Facebook fraud is in the news so now's the time to report on it, it's just business sense. Sure, it would have been nice to see this anti-FB outrage spread out over time, but that's just not how human social networks work.
pascalxus 9y ago
yeah, i don't understand why the media seems to hate FB so much now? I know they're still mad about the trump election, but seriously, like get over it. FB has had advertisers for 10 years now, and they've always used your info for targeting, nothing has changed. It's pretty scary how all these media centers just seem to jump on the same bandwagon.

AlexandrB 9y ago

I don't get it. You call this a character assassination, but don't elaborate on which part of the article is demonstrably false. The fact that Adtech companies such as Facebook do almost no vetting of the ad content they distribute is absolutely true and part of the problem with the ad economy. Facebook has accrued great power, but when faced with taking responsibility for any of that power has simply shrugged its shoulders. The same goes for Google.

mistermann 9y ago
It's not that the article is false, it's the timing. Facebook has been doing this for years, as people in the tech universe are well aware, why the sudden flood of varied content in the mainstream media? Of course, a lot of these articles are going to be good old fashioned self-serving opportunism, but another possibility might be behind the scenes coordination. Impossible? Has there ever been a coordinated propaganda initiative in the history of the world?
- Angostura 9y ago
  Trust me, the journalists on Bloomberg aren't running this story because they think Facebook threaten's Bloomberg's business. They are running it because they think it is a juicy story.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > because they think Facebook threaten's Bloomberg's business A coordinated propaganda campaign rarely has anything to do with the underlying business of the various media outlets being used to run it.
    - Angostura 9y ago
      So, how does this well-orchestrated conspiracy get its message to journalists that "you should investigate this" without the investigative reporters spotting that there is a well-orchestrated conspiracy?
fortythirteen 9y ago
None of this is false, but none of this is new information, either. Watchdogs have been saying all of this for years.
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago
  But because you/I/we know does not mean that everyone knows. For a lot of people what is being lres3nted is not clear even though some have heard something about it previously. This is something media channels pick up on and push the stories when there is interest.
- netsharc 9y ago
  So... it's not a problem? This feels like responding "Of course Harvey Weinstein's been creepy to young women, people has been saying he's creepy for years."...
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    Loving this rhetorical flipover on HN from "nobody cares about ad companies being scumbags" to "its old everyone already knows about it, why is it such a big issue now"
- projektir 9y ago
  I question the benefit of the "none of this is new" response. I don't really see what it ever adds to any conversation.
ThomPete 9y ago
The question is not whether it's false. The question is what is the purpose of making this a problem for facebook but not for your TV channels or for Twitter etc. Don't underestimate how well this works for the traditional media. It both help undermine one of their biggest competitors and it creates traffic by keep sensationalizing what is really completely normal practice and have been for as long as there have been advertising. Shady advertisers, pollute... those aren't the media reporting thats the media shaming what they themselves do all the time.
- manjushri 9y ago
  Seems like you're arguing whataboutism. Yes, the old media are being hypocrites and are seemingly dragging their big rivals down with them. For the standpoint of the average person with no financial investments in these companies, why is this so problematic?
dfxm12 9y ago
The same goes for Google. It has nothing to do with the validity of the article. This is a "character assassination" because of singling Facebook out. I understand putting Facebook in the headline will get you clicks right now, but why not paint a more full picture?
- soziawa 9y ago
  I don't think the same goes for Google is true. While both show you ads Google puts them in the context of websites in the internet which is not a priori trustworthy. Facebook on the other hand puts them into the context of people you follow and trust, this makes the ads themselves seem more trustworthy.
- anonymouz 9y ago
  Google banned the product that this article is about; Facebook cozied up to them. So far only for Facebook evidence has surfaced of these very shady practices. See the difference? > Google banned Voluum over cloaking concerns, but that didn’t derail the company—Facebook was where the action was. vs. > It’s not just affiliates who think Gryn is at the pinnacle of the industry. In June, just before the conference, Facebook’s newly installed executive in charge of fighting shady ads, Rob Leathern, had invited him to the company’s London office to explain the latest affiliate tricks.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  Because Facebook is both relevant news, and a huge company who's core business is our data in exchange for a service.

imjk 9y ago

Agreed. A lot of the criticism against facebook is warranted, but a cynical part of me also thinks the timing on all this not coincidental to the Algorithm changes FB rolled out last month. In fact, I can't believe I haven't heard this from anyone else. Facebook's shutting down of organic reach was devastating for publishers: http://www.adweek.com/digital/after-facebooks-algorithm-change-devastated-organic-reach-how-are-publishers-coping/ http://www.adweek.com/digital/after-facebooks-algorithm-chan.... Now, just weeks later, it seems like all of media has turned on Facebook. We've known about the Cambridge Analytica scandal for over a year, but suddenly it's cover story material again. This is an article on it from last May: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great.... It just seems like the media is dumping on whatever it can at this point. My cynical view on how this ends would be that FB comes to some compromise on organic reach and the media begins to cool down on all the FB hoopla. FB gets some sort of slap on the wrist fine from the FTC or some other governing agency, and nothing genuinely changes in terms of consumer privacy.

smt88 9y ago
Publishers have hated FB for years. The algorithm update didn't move the needle much.
lambda_lover 9y ago
Oh absolutely -- Facebook pissed off somebody with a lot of influence, and now they're paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that Facebook is a cancer on society that sucks every piece of data it can get from its victims in exchange for an, at this point, poor end-user experience. I'd welcome a world where people have given up on Facebook, so I'm all for this push. Something something the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I guess.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Facebook's shutting down of organic reach was devastating for publishers: Facebook makes algorithm changes to reduce unpaid reach and squeeze more money out of business entities on the platform regularly, almost as soon as the complaints from the last round of changed have died down; it may be a contributor to background frustration especially by small businesses (for big businesses with established brands, its a barrier to their competition) but it'd probably not as big of a contribution to the present controversy as direct political features of that controversy, where the left is upset at the impact and therefore everyone involved, the right wants the political focus on Facebook rather than the other parties, and privacy advocates are angry at everyone involved, but particularly Facebook as the direct custodian of the data, about the mechanisms which allowed it to happen, which leaves everyone mad at Facebook for one reason or another.

21 9y ago

How about "where there is smoke there is fire"? When a scandal erupts the media starts digging around to search for more skeletons.

fny 9y ago

Isn't there a distinction between hyped sales cycles and a propaganda machine?

verroq 9y ago

We're (hopefully) about to reach a critical mass where people realise how much power these companies have simply by having our data and you're worried that Facebook dies in the collateral damage?

CaptainZapp 9y ago

Well, from the article "The Berlin conference was hosted by an online forum called Stack That Money, but a newcomer could be forgiven for wondering if it was somehow sponsored by Facebook Inc. Saleswomen from the company held court onstage, introducing speakers and moderating panel discussions. After the show, Facebook representatives flew to Ibiza on a plane rented by Stack That Money to party with some of the top affiliates." So Facebook sends representative to a conference of known scammers? Doesn't sound like character assassination for me.

Angostura 9y ago

Its not a propaganda machine. In the newspaper business its called seeing if the story has 'got legs' - you've run the original story, what are the questions that that story naturally raises? can we progress the story from here? Does it "have legs"?

bogomipz 9y ago

>"Now we see the propaganda machine at work." No, it's called public interest journalism. In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal it's quite logical that the public has an interest in knowing more about the inner working of of an opaque and powerful entity. >"the news media must turn each cycle into a full on character assassination." A "character assassination " by its very definition is an attack on a singular individual. You can not have a character assassination on a corporation. >"Regardless of how I feel about FB, I'm more disturbed by the media pattern." I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" simply because you yourself didn't feel it merited reporting on.

cavanasm 9y ago
RE: "character assassination" and corporations; if closely held corporations have the same rights as individuals now, could you character assassinate a closely held corporation?
- bsenftner 9y ago
  I'd only accept that type of equivalency when a corporation can be sent to a physical prison - like a real person.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    Or a corporate death penalty
- bogomipz 9y ago
  The doctrine of “corporate personhood” is the the claim that corporations should enjoy the same legal status and protections as citizens. Even if you subscribe to that doctrine it does not produce a single person whose reputation can be harmed.
fortythirteen 9y ago
> No, it called public interest journalism. There is little to no "public interest journalism" anymore, only click interest journalism. > You can not have a character assassination on a corporation. This is metaphor for the pattern of behavior. They are taking the same methods they use for the news cycle's "horrible person of the week" and turning it on Facebook. > I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" Considering the media's hyper focus on how the RNC used FB with the CA story, and an almost complete omission of how the DNC did the same thing, and more, with CTR, I'm comfortable sticking with "propaganda".

buvanshak 9y ago

> I'm more disturbed by the media pattern. I agree. But I think this should go on for a while. Not out of hate for Facebook. But it ll help more people to realize the kind of thing, the kind of exploitation and manipulations and they might be subjected to, both online and offline.. And I think that is about time people had a good taste of the reality that is going on with these things..

tryitnow 9y ago

It's pretty conspiratorial to call the media a "propaganda machine." I don't think it's propagandistic as much as it is opportunistic - Facebook fraud is in the news so now's the time to report on it, it's just business sense. Sure, it would have been nice to see this anti-FB outrage spread out over time, but that's just not how human social networks work.

pascalxus 9y ago

yeah, i don't understand why the media seems to hate FB so much now? I know they're still mad about the trump election, but seriously, like get over it. FB has had advertisers for 10 years now, and they've always used your info for targeting, nothing has changed. It's pretty scary how all these media centers just seem to jump on the same bandwagon.