3 ms·

Hm... Care to point out the bias? They write about some of the most blatant examples of manipulative lying ads that only carefully picked groups of people got t

Hm... Care to point out the bias? They write about some of the most blatant examples of manipulative lying ads that only carefully picked groups of people got to see before the referendum. What else should they have reported on the topic of the contents of the released data? They didn't even pick some of most tasteless/fearmongering/lying ads that were run.

DannyBee 8y ago
Here's some unnecessary bias it starts off with: " behind the curtain of Facebook’s unregulated ad platform" The word unregulated here is both unnecessary (it's not relevant to the sentence it's in) and meant specifically to get the reader to draw a negative connotation. Even the title, where it says "finally", is doing it's best to give a negative connotation and imply facebook has been stalling turning them over. AFAIK from the facts they list (i haven't gone looking hard, though), they were requested, they turned them over. There is no "finally". The article does not give any fact to support it. Same with "the company eventually did so, " Again, this is just meant to sound as negative as possible. As far as i can tell from the facts, they responded within the timeline they were asked to respond. It then goes on to try to draw and invite the reader to draw tenuous inferences (or does so itself - using the meaningless phrase "linked", usually a good sign of smearing) and does its best to assassinate in a subtle way. This article certainly has facts in it, but it is definitely not unbiased. (and for the record, i hate facebook, i'm not defending it, i'm just trying to answer your question in as objective a way i can :P)
kodablah 8y ago
> Hm... Care to point out the bias? It's everywhere. I'd rather not enumerate them all. I suppose just list out all the adjectives used in the article and read them. Also, list the point each paragraph is making concisely and read them. Then, the real challenge when it goes into discussing right/wrong, is to see if you can determine what is left out. There is objective news, e.g. "these were released", and there is commentary, e.g. "here's our opinion/commentary on what was released". I'll take the former, and I wish orgs would make it clear the difference between the two. The real irony, since the freaking article on data release thinks it is the place to discuss EU successes/failures to point out irony, is that it masquerades as news while reporting on a commission researching things masquerading as news. It is a joke, but what's worse is that it is not obvious it is a joke. We should not pretend that we are above FB users that can't tell news from non-news when it's clear we can't either. Or, even more likely, we should assume the alternative side can similarly tell real from fake and that the FB ads had little effect. I personally have no opinion on brexit or even FB ad targeting for that matter (I'm seriously ambivalent). But I do doubt the size of its effect and I really abhor the smarter-than-thou approach some take when votes don't go their way, especially scapegoating. Those poor gullible masses...

DannyBee 8y ago

Here's some unnecessary bias it starts off with: " behind the curtain of Facebook’s unregulated ad platform" The word unregulated here is both unnecessary (it's not relevant to the sentence it's in) and meant specifically to get the reader to draw a negative connotation. Even the title, where it says "finally", is doing it's best to give a negative connotation and imply facebook has been stalling turning them over. AFAIK from the facts they list (i haven't gone looking hard, though), they were requested, they turned them over. There is no "finally". The article does not give any fact to support it. Same with "the company eventually did so, " Again, this is just meant to sound as negative as possible. As far as i can tell from the facts, they responded within the timeline they were asked to respond. It then goes on to try to draw and invite the reader to draw tenuous inferences (or does so itself - using the meaningless phrase "linked", usually a good sign of smearing) and does its best to assassinate in a subtle way. This article certainly has facts in it, but it is definitely not unbiased. (and for the record, i hate facebook, i'm not defending it, i'm just trying to answer your question in as objective a way i can :P)

kodablah 8y ago

> Hm... Care to point out the bias? It's everywhere. I'd rather not enumerate them all. I suppose just list out all the adjectives used in the article and read them. Also, list the point each paragraph is making concisely and read them. Then, the real challenge when it goes into discussing right/wrong, is to see if you can determine what is left out. There is objective news, e.g. "these were released", and there is commentary, e.g. "here's our opinion/commentary on what was released". I'll take the former, and I wish orgs would make it clear the difference between the two. The real irony, since the freaking article on data release thinks it is the place to discuss EU successes/failures to point out irony, is that it masquerades as news while reporting on a commission researching things masquerading as news. It is a joke, but what's worse is that it is not obvious it is a joke. We should not pretend that we are above FB users that can't tell news from non-news when it's clear we can't either. Or, even more likely, we should assume the alternative side can similarly tell real from fake and that the FB ads had little effect. I personally have no opinion on brexit or even FB ad targeting for that matter (I'm seriously ambivalent). But I do doubt the size of its effect and I really abhor the smarter-than-thou approach some take when votes don't go their way, especially scapegoating. Those poor gullible masses...