>I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it inste

>I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it instead of viewing it as overly dismissive. That's fair. I should have written a fuller comment off the bat, but everyone can read my reasoning now. >For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor. I actually don't think this is anything particularly nefarious or underhanded. It's all in the game, as Omar would say. In fact I'm amused by how transparently bad it is. She brings up some good points (the permissions should be more granular) but the framing of the story is clearly working in service of Facebook's agenda. The actual solution that needs to happen isn't technical at all. It requires new legislation establishing equivalents to Data Protection Commissioners in the EU and creating a comprehensive, omnibus policy for them to enforce.