9 ms·

Yet another New York Times hit piece against Facebook. It makes you wonder what a private corporation is supposed to do. In just this year: 1) The New York Tim

by dnomad 8y ago

Yet another New York Times hit piece against Facebook. It makes you wonder what a private corporation is supposed to do. In just this year: 1) The New York Times has published an endless stream editorials calling for Facebook to be destroyed [1], insisting Facebook is a thread to national security [2] and declaring Facebook a threat to the republic [3]. 2) These editorials are joined by "reporting" insinuating that Facebook is working with the Chinese [4] (an obvious lie), accusing Facebook of lying to Congress and giving "data access" to device makers (another obvious lie) and, of course, when in doubt, it publishes pure rumour and speculation about Facebook [5]. And now we get yet another hit piece about Facebook's "creepy" patents. The reporter decided to pick the 7 most "creepy" patents and insist this shows Facebook's "plans" while dutifully ignoring the hundreds of other patents Facebook has generated. The reporter makes no effort to determine whether other companies have similar patents since this would reveal there's absolutely nothing special or unusual or "creepy" about such patents. Throughout this propaganda campaign there's no mention of any conflict of interest despite the fact that we know the NY Times and other media corporations derive significant revenue from Facebook's platform and do not agree with many of Facebook's policies [6]. So it makes you wonder: what is a company supposed to do when the "leading paper" decides to continually attack them on the most flimsy terms? (Next week in the Times: Zuckerberg's creepy new haircut!) What exactly is Facebook's play here when its not foreign media waging the propaganda campaign? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-replace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-repl... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/facebook-china-privacy-data-security.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/facebook-china-pr... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/opinion/facebook-privacy-zuckerberg-society.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/opinion/facebook-privacy-... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-device-partnerships-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-devic... [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-... [6] https://www.adweek.com/digital/facebook-new-york-times-execs-get-into-heated-debate-over-ad-policy/ https://www.adweek.com/digital/facebook-new-york-times-execs...

to_bpr 8y ago
NYT's business model seems to have turned to latching on to whatever sentiment is currently popular and beating the metaphorical horse for clicks until it's a bloody pulp, before moving on to the latest "outrage" of the week. In fact, in catering to simply the loudest popular sentiment, they put themselves in the position of having to apologize for their recent election coverage due to how utterly biased it ended up being. I understand they're all struggling in the battle for people's attention these days, but as an institution they somehow seem to feel they still stand out from, and above of, others such as buzzfeed.
- Zarath 8y ago
  It's the most popular sentiment but still nobody is deleting facebook, hmmm?
- mickronome 8y ago
  It could be the case that the click driving articles themselves is an effect of Facebook, but also Google and many others, serving as implicit or explicit filters favouring the style, because their click hungry ad selling algoritms feeds itself through ads on the article pages. It's quite likely that they believe they have to write that way today, or shutter the doors. They could still care more about good journalism, while mostly having to write in a style that looks like if they don't. Only way to know for sure is to look at their economy, and how much is driven by per click ads, and how much is subscriptions/other sales.
- Bud 8y ago
  The NY Times did not apologize in general for their election coverage, nor admit that it was biased, nor are you able to show in any way that it was biased.
monochromatic 8y ago
The failing @nytimes
kerng 8y ago
Arguably a good thing to have the press shine light on these things. No? And by no means are the stories about Zuckerberg's haircut, the majority gives insights to the masses and create great discussions.

by dnomad 8y ago

to_bpr 8y ago

NYT's business model seems to have turned to latching on to whatever sentiment is currently popular and beating the metaphorical horse for clicks until it's a bloody pulp, before moving on to the latest "outrage" of the week. In fact, in catering to simply the loudest popular sentiment, they put themselves in the position of having to apologize for their recent election coverage due to how utterly biased it ended up being. I understand they're all struggling in the battle for people's attention these days, but as an institution they somehow seem to feel they still stand out from, and above of, others such as buzzfeed.

Zarath 8y ago
It's the most popular sentiment but still nobody is deleting facebook, hmmm?
mickronome 8y ago
It could be the case that the click driving articles themselves is an effect of Facebook, but also Google and many others, serving as implicit or explicit filters favouring the style, because their click hungry ad selling algoritms feeds itself through ads on the article pages. It's quite likely that they believe they have to write that way today, or shutter the doors. They could still care more about good journalism, while mostly having to write in a style that looks like if they don't. Only way to know for sure is to look at their economy, and how much is driven by per click ads, and how much is subscriptions/other sales.
Bud 8y ago
The NY Times did not apologize in general for their election coverage, nor admit that it was biased, nor are you able to show in any way that it was biased.

monochromatic 8y ago

The failing @nytimes

kerng 8y ago

Arguably a good thing to have the press shine light on these things. No? And by no means are the stories about Zuckerberg's haircut, the majority gives insights to the masses and create great discussions.