3 ms·
In the article, they haven't said why they think FB is "back on the defensive". They just rehashed the whole controversy, no new events seem to have occurred.
by dingo_bat 8y ago
In the article, they haven't said why they think FB is "back on the defensive". They just rehashed the whole controversy, no new events seem to have occurred.
- Bukhmanizer 8y agoI'm guessing it will still reach the front page of HN and reddit.
- bobbyi_settv 8y agoI don't see how the article could have been any clearer. The first sentence explains that it is about how they are back on the defensive from US lawmakers and the rest of the article is directly quoting members of Congress including one who says "Sure looks like Zuckerberg lied to Congress". How is any of that "rehashing"? What lawmakers even knew about this at the time of the previous article?
- dingo_bat 8y ago> The first sentence explains that it is about how they are back on the defensive > Facebook endured a new wave of criticism from lawmakers and regulators in the United States and Europe on Monday after disclosures that the social media giant had allowed dozens of hardware manufacturers access to its trove of personal user data. I don't see any evidence of "defensive" action from fb. English is not my first language so maybe I'm misinterpreting being "on the defensive". If someone criticizes you are you automatically "on the defensive"?
- yoav 8y agoYes