4 ms·

I have concerns about Facebook just like everyone else, but I'd also like to point out that the New York Times is not repeatedly publishing articles criticizing

I have concerns about Facebook just like everyone else, but I'd also like to point out that the New York Times is not repeatedly publishing articles criticizing FB simply because of their superior moral stance. They are doing it because FB took away a lot of revenue from publishers like them, and they are very, very angry about it.

jedberg 8y ago
That's not how real journalism works. The journalists are separated from the business side. Good publications go as far as prohibiting their editors from talking to anyone who deals with revenue.
- Jonanin 8y ago
  Your impression of how real journalism works is a lot harder to believe. You don't think writers see and care about how many clicks or views their articles get? Everyone knows these metrics are _directly_ correlated with revenue. FB used to drive an insane amount of traffic to these publishers back when our news feeds were full of news articles. They pivoted very sharply and suddenly away from that, which hurt publisher revenues (and views) very substantially.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    > You don't think writers see and care about how many clicks or views their articles get? I think they care, but even so, they would write about FaceBook because it gets clicks, not because the org is mad at Facebook. The Times being mad at Facebook isn't what makes people click on the articles. It's people being mad at Facebook that gets them to click. There is no one in the chain of approval for content that would care about the loss of revenue from Facebook and specifically tell them to target Facebook for bad articles. They would say, "hey writing about FaceBook gets us lots of views, do more of that".
    - Jonanin 8y ago
      > they would write about FaceBook because it gets clicks Well I don't disagree with that. > The Times being mad at Facebook You're trying very hard to separate the corporation from the people. There's plenty of evidence that the journalists themselves are mad at Facebook. As another commenter notes, it's not hard to find podcasts with them complaining about the rise of FB. There's another reason for journalists to be mad at FB: it's goal is to give everyone a voice. If everyone gets to publish their opinion, and not just people who work for big companies, that makes journalists a lot less important in society.
- mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
  Yeah, well the NY Times is not a good publication.
potato1234 8y ago
Is that actually true? It seems like the New York Times stock is doing pretty well in the last few years.
- aylmao 8y ago
  Ever since Trump was elected, yes. It's been climbing up from about $10 in November 2016 to the high $20s. Before that it was fairly flat, after being in free fall from the mid-$40s range in 2004, to like 5 bucks in 2009 (which is coincidentally the rise of social media: Facebook 2004, Youtube 2005, Twitter 2006, etc).
reaperducer 8y ago
That's a lovely conspiracy theory, and it makes people feel better about the situation, but it's not how things work in real life. Speaking as someone who worked in this field for a couple of decades, it's more likely that one or more New York Times reporters have developed good sources inside Facebook, and are milking them. The New York Times didn't make Facebook a monster, Facebook did.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Jonanin 8y ago
  NYT claims they spoke to over 50 sources. It's not just milking "a couple". "over 50 sources" sure sounds like a very concerted effort to find dirt. > The New York Times didn't make Facebook a monster, Facebook did. Did the parent assert anything like that?
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    sure sounds like a very concerted effort to find dirt. That’s what newspapers are supposed to do.
dieterrams 8y ago
Source re: motivations?
bepotts 8y ago
And it's so transparent at this point. I've listened to podcasts with reporters and they lament the rise of Facebook and how "Facebook is stealing their business" through ads and algorithm changes that hurt them. But the bias doesn't matter because everyone on the internet hates them (and Google) so they just rush to pile on. Anything negative about Facebook gets to the front page very quickly. The thing is, Facebook has billions of users and you don't get billions of users by being evil. People may not love Facebook, but there really isn't a better way to keep up with friends, family, and to organize get togethers. I don't use Facebook that much, but I'll never delete it. It's just too valuable in my life. As an aside: we're all engineers here, and if Facebook offered you guys a job, almost everyone here would take it. Their engineering team, quality of life, and compensation is extremely hard to beat. The NY Times found a couple college kids who don't want to work for Facebook. Okay. As a recent college graduate I can assure you that almost everyone in my graduating class would have taken a job at Facebook if given the chance. Facebook came and hired the smartest of my graduating class and the "hackathon" crowd puts Facebook at close to the top of their list of companies to work for. Facebook isn't hurting for talent and they have the compensation packages to compete for the best of the best.
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  > you don't get billions of users by being evil. Tobacco companies would disagree, no, actually, they would agree, full-heartedly, and pay well for your study that backs that up. > Their engineering team, quality of life, and compensation is extremely hard to beat. Working for Facebook in any meaningful technical capacity makes one a Machiavellian opportunist. For some, that's never worth it. > As a recent college graduate Yes, money is great and alluring. You can buy stuff with it, except for stuff you can't buy. > there really isn't a better way to keep up with friends, family Facebook puts a tax on being human, on trying to exist outside of a social vacuum. Doesn't that bother you?
  - traek 8y ago
    > Facebook puts a tax on being human, on trying to exist outside of a social vacuum. I don't know what "trying to exist outside of a social vacuum" means. I also don't know what type of "tax" Facebook puts on being human that isn't levied--to at least some extent--by every other technological advance (telegraph, phone, internet, email, SMS...)
Tempest1981 8y ago
If I were a NYT journalist, I would lament the decreasing demand for in-depth reporting. And the public’s desire for sensationalism. Related: (low quality journalism) https://mobile.twitter.com/mikeokuda/status/1019964820618035200?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/mikeokuda/status/1019964820618035...

jedberg 8y ago

That's not how real journalism works. The journalists are separated from the business side. Good publications go as far as prohibiting their editors from talking to anyone who deals with revenue.

Jonanin 8y ago
Your impression of how real journalism works is a lot harder to believe. You don't think writers see and care about how many clicks or views their articles get? Everyone knows these metrics are _directly_ correlated with revenue. FB used to drive an insane amount of traffic to these publishers back when our news feeds were full of news articles. They pivoted very sharply and suddenly away from that, which hurt publisher revenues (and views) very substantially.
- jedberg 8y ago
  > You don't think writers see and care about how many clicks or views their articles get? I think they care, but even so, they would write about FaceBook because it gets clicks, not because the org is mad at Facebook. The Times being mad at Facebook isn't what makes people click on the articles. It's people being mad at Facebook that gets them to click. There is no one in the chain of approval for content that would care about the loss of revenue from Facebook and specifically tell them to target Facebook for bad articles. They would say, "hey writing about FaceBook gets us lots of views, do more of that".
  - Jonanin 8y ago
    > they would write about FaceBook because it gets clicks Well I don't disagree with that. > The Times being mad at Facebook You're trying very hard to separate the corporation from the people. There's plenty of evidence that the journalists themselves are mad at Facebook. As another commenter notes, it's not hard to find podcasts with them complaining about the rise of FB. There's another reason for journalists to be mad at FB: it's goal is to give everyone a voice. If everyone gets to publish their opinion, and not just people who work for big companies, that makes journalists a lot less important in society.
mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
Yeah, well the NY Times is not a good publication.

potato1234 8y ago

Is that actually true? It seems like the New York Times stock is doing pretty well in the last few years.

aylmao 8y ago
Ever since Trump was elected, yes. It's been climbing up from about $10 in November 2016 to the high $20s. Before that it was fairly flat, after being in free fall from the mid-$40s range in 2004, to like 5 bucks in 2009 (which is coincidentally the rise of social media: Facebook 2004, Youtube 2005, Twitter 2006, etc).

reaperducer 8y ago

That's a lovely conspiracy theory, and it makes people feel better about the situation, but it's not how things work in real life. Speaking as someone who worked in this field for a couple of decades, it's more likely that one or more New York Times reporters have developed good sources inside Facebook, and are milking them. The New York Times didn't make Facebook a monster, Facebook did.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Jonanin 8y ago
NYT claims they spoke to over 50 sources. It's not just milking "a couple". "over 50 sources" sure sounds like a very concerted effort to find dirt. > The New York Times didn't make Facebook a monster, Facebook did. Did the parent assert anything like that?
- reaperducer 8y ago
  sure sounds like a very concerted effort to find dirt. That’s what newspapers are supposed to do.

dieterrams 8y ago

Source re: motivations?

bepotts 8y ago

And it's so transparent at this point. I've listened to podcasts with reporters and they lament the rise of Facebook and how "Facebook is stealing their business" through ads and algorithm changes that hurt them. But the bias doesn't matter because everyone on the internet hates them (and Google) so they just rush to pile on. Anything negative about Facebook gets to the front page very quickly. The thing is, Facebook has billions of users and you don't get billions of users by being evil. People may not love Facebook, but there really isn't a better way to keep up with friends, family, and to organize get togethers. I don't use Facebook that much, but I'll never delete it. It's just too valuable in my life. As an aside: we're all engineers here, and if Facebook offered you guys a job, almost everyone here would take it. Their engineering team, quality of life, and compensation is extremely hard to beat. The NY Times found a couple college kids who don't want to work for Facebook. Okay. As a recent college graduate I can assure you that almost everyone in my graduating class would have taken a job at Facebook if given the chance. Facebook came and hired the smartest of my graduating class and the "hackathon" crowd puts Facebook at close to the top of their list of companies to work for. Facebook isn't hurting for talent and they have the compensation packages to compete for the best of the best.

craigsmansion 8y ago
> you don't get billions of users by being evil. Tobacco companies would disagree, no, actually, they would agree, full-heartedly, and pay well for your study that backs that up. > Their engineering team, quality of life, and compensation is extremely hard to beat. Working for Facebook in any meaningful technical capacity makes one a Machiavellian opportunist. For some, that's never worth it. > As a recent college graduate Yes, money is great and alluring. You can buy stuff with it, except for stuff you can't buy. > there really isn't a better way to keep up with friends, family Facebook puts a tax on being human, on trying to exist outside of a social vacuum. Doesn't that bother you?
- traek 8y ago
  > Facebook puts a tax on being human, on trying to exist outside of a social vacuum. I don't know what "trying to exist outside of a social vacuum" means. I also don't know what type of "tax" Facebook puts on being human that isn't levied--to at least some extent--by every other technological advance (telegraph, phone, internet, email, SMS...)

Tempest1981 8y ago

If I were a NYT journalist, I would lament the decreasing demand for in-depth reporting. And the public’s desire for sensationalism. Related: (low quality journalism) https://mobile.twitter.com/mikeokuda/status/1019964820618035200?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/mikeokuda/status/1019964820618035...